mikoyan

no news? what about the j-20 everybody left after the first flight?

What did you expect if you are fully loaded; try the same with the flanker and don't get me started with the mig-29 which is provably the worst since it has small sweet spots unlike the eagle. You are not flying the eagle as it is supposed to; you keep your energy; you use your power advantage and stay high if you can. if you go to a dogfight carring your 3 fuel tanks and 100%fuel and still expect to spank a lightly loaded mig you are not doing it right. The eagle actually shakes a lot when fling low due to its low wing-loading and shape. It is not like you can't fight low; it is that you need to know your stuff because the su-27 has better turn performance down low if lightly loaded. What f-15 pilots like about the eagle is not that it is the best at everything; it is that it is the best balanced fighter;it is not like the older migs; that give you good turn performance for dogfight but low tech radar, not so good missiles and poor situational awareness. Add to the mix that americans provably already know how to jam early mig-29s and su-27s since they got first hand info from a soviet spy(if I'm not mistaken the guy was executed) it may not turn the best down low but it turn better than most fighters; it excels high and has better weapons than most fighters.

not again.... what do you want a raptor; the f-15 is the fastest; has the best climb; can turn better at altitude; has better missiles and radar; is the easiest to fly specially if you want to gun someone and you still think is underpowered! what you need is an xwing!

The f-22 is like the f-15c; when it was introduced it was the best in terms of performance and as a fighter was great; but latter fighters came with newer and more advanced tech; you can't compare the f-15c cockpit of the 80s-90s with an f-16 or f-18. The f-22 has the best performance and provably can kill other airplanes like no other but it is not necessarily the most advanced; look at the f-35 it is way more complex and advanced in terms of avionics than the f-22; the only difference would be that the f-35 does not posses the pure performance of the raptor. These are the things than an upgraded eagle would not have if you compared it with the raptor: Super cruise could be achieved but the internal bays designed for the silent eagle can't carry the same amount of missiles as the raptor. The f-15 would perform worst in dogfights at any altitude than the f-22; the f-22 has more wing area and more advanced aerodynamic design; there is no way around that; unless the f-15 gets new wings and control surfaces. The raptor is a stealth aircraft so it will be harder to detect and shoot than the eagle; unless you put some serious interference gear on the eagle thus reducing the need for low radar signature(the problem with this is that it kills the surprise factor). Airframe limitations; the f-15 is an older airplane and probably there are some things you can't do to improve its performance; the raptor may have more space for future growth and development than the eagle. If it I were on charge of the f-15 upgrades ; I would mix the Active f-15 program, the F-15 STOL/MTD with the silent eagle using if possible the f-22 engines; then the f-15 would kick ass :thumbup: it would look bad ass too!

jaja I find the russian jets easier to land than the eagle for some reason.

watch this video and learn from the pros. posted by tusler on the video section. 300km/h is ok for the approach but you want to be slower than that before touching the carrier. Is a shame that lock-on does not simulate waves, carrier landing would be out of this world!

wow that ship is moving!

It doesn't sound that crazy to me, what if you put the engines of the f-22 on an eagle! and upgrade all the avionics an radar? the only thing that it will be missing would be stealth and wing area of the 5th generation fighters. To me it sounds logical if the issue is budget; what about the f-16 offered to India! it is like an f-35 in the skin of an f-16 in terms of avionics.

I'm going to post pictures of the wireframe next time. Thanks for the help!

In other words I need to make sure all vertex are align? and evenly spaced? yesterday I managed to improve the top of the fuselage right after the cockpit; I'm going to keep working! it is a learning process! I wonder if it easier to use simple elements like cylinders and attach them into the main body; like for example the engine covers on the top?

If I'm not wrong there is another veteran of the easy company here in GA; I had the luck to talk to him and other WW2 veterans.... just seeing their eyes shine wile they tell you their stories is incredible. There is one gentleman that was part of the first unit to enter France; After that he had to fight in the Pacific! I talked to him because I saw that he was wearing a medal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CombatInfantry.gif I asked him if he was a veteran; he basically told me that he was the only survivor of his company! and that he was ready to go... he lost his wife recently so he is looking forward to join her; the problem is is that he is strong as a rock! There is another veteran that told me that he was crossing a bridge with his unit and the Germans send some type of radio control tank that exploded killing everybody except him! He said: "The Germans saved my life!" if it wasn't for that incident he could have ended death in another battle! he likes to brag of how strong he is for his age by pulling your arm; unfortunately his daughter dragged him out of the office :mad: she said "Dad don't start again; these people have to work". I also talked to a b-17 pilot! He wasn't envolved in the combat; he just ferried the super-fortress to england to be flown by their crews in combat; he told me that that airplane was the best; landing was effortless; just reduce the throttle and it would land like a feather! he also showed me a picture of a biplane he build.... Again it is amazing to talk to this veterans; they are like walking history treasures.

I'm still adding polygons to it so I'm going to keep working on getting the shape "right"; at first sight the aircraft airframe doesn't look complicated but it is; also the drawings I'm using have some small errors so it may not en up being 100% perfect depiction of the real jet; unless sukhoi releases corrected drawings.

In that case the f-18 is also a cow. What is the wing loading of the su-33 then; it is heavier but it also has more wing area; canards and flaps are different too.

There is a video on the net, what I saw was that they were upgrading the su-30s and su-33s; I don't know the details since it was in Russian.They show them being upgraded, on yellow primer paint. I don't think that the su-33 is a cow if it can nearly hover at slow speed without crashing, look for the videos on YouTube.

They provably changed the engines to preserve the ws-10 engine life for flight testing. The airplane looks very smooth; is like they have a different approach than the Russians; the Russians instead are doing a more progressive and conservative development.

quick assembly of the model.... I need to learn how to smooth the surfaces.

but it looks like it has better instantaneous pitch rate than the flanker but lightly loaded; it is also supposed to reach a few degrees more of alpha.

86. inter-dimensional airplane that warps into your airplane. 88. Induced ACS failure due to dog pulling the x-52 ps2 cable. 89. killed by windows vista error. 90. killed by the player "building" that guy is the best! (probably a repeat)

My idea would be to develop a force feed back stick that runs by a separata software that reads the pilot's input and then provide different stick forces by using data imported from the sim, at the same time the stick would transfer a corrected imput to the simulator.... That is my dream, that way for example; when you fly the f-15 it would be more realistic and you would not over g the airplane so easy. The software could be program to give you 1 g for each inch of stick travel.

update; more to come :thumbup: http://img155.imageshack.us/f/ortograppakfa.jpg/ http://img716.imageshack.us/f/sideviewpakfa.jpg/

Talking about the cv-22; the accident report of the Afghanistan crash blains the pilot; but lots of people are not happy about this report; they say that the cv-22 can't hover as high as the helicopters it is replacing and that the Aircraft involved on the accident didn't have enough power to recover from an engine problem; they also talk about the loss of power due to sand; that probably reduced even more the power available to the pilot. Some speculate that the pilot lost power and was trying to do a glide landing while dumping fuel; but the weak landing gear was not able to absorb the impact and the airplane broke apart.

I would like to know what is the cost to build one without the development costs. Still 60 millions is a lot; but how much is a fully loaded f-16? Have you guys seen the f-16 being offered to India; it is like an f-35 without stealth; wow!

Those engineers:thumbup: better work this weekend

where is the snow?

su-30mk su-30mk... wach in hd and play attention to the vertical tails!