mikoyan

What is the deal with the dark paint? is a low observable paint? any radar reduction coat applied to it? or is it just to make the airplane less visible?

yeah and they ended up replacing it with f-14, f-15, f-16, f-18

Why are they testing the r-77 or whatever they call it if the Russian Airforce doesn't have that missile like some say here:music_whistling:

I don't think you will be disappointed, honestly. Even better if they show Fat Albert taking off with rockets! the mirror move is pretty awesome too.

Man I could build something better than that in my garage honestly, look at the wings, very thick, I guess it is not going to go fast. At least their f-5 copies are real airplanes. I have to say I was shocked they showed this crapy model to the press.:doh:

Have you seen the harrier compressor? it is big; I don't think that you can duplicate that layout with a regular engine. The first part of the engine on a harrier pushes cold air from the compressor which needs to be big. The russians solved that issue with another jet engine at the front, but once you are flying conventionally it becomes death weight. The f-35 uses a clutch and a driveshaft and that makes it very complicated plus reducing the space available because of the driveshaft tunnel.... anyway it is a mess... VTOL has always been a compromise, the harrier so far has been the only successful story, but it is no super fighter.

Su-33 video! must watch!!!

Actually I think that the Russians were confused by the selection too, they also believed that the yf-23 was the best. The f-23 was going to be longer, more curvy and with different intakes. At least the t-50 has some yd-23 on its blood.

Here is how I see it: McDonnell Douglas gone (f-15, f-18, f4) General Dynamics (f-16) Grumman (f-14 and older navy fighters) What do they have in common? THe no longer design fighters and most got acquired by Boeing( mostly civilian aircrafts and bombers) Lockmart (specialized low production number aircrafts) About the hate for Lockmart, I don't understand why they have so many projects allocated to them even it is like military contracting monopoly. One of the reasons why the yf-23 was not chosen was because Mcdonnell was too busy with the b-2; but what about Lockmart now!

And.. I guess you got the data from the t-50 and su-35 to back up your statement :music_whistling:

Red Wings Crash caught on camera! Wings Tupolev-204, flight number RWZ9268 crash http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UAHF7ul46Go

Thanks for the input, about the macbook, I have a 2011 macbook pro with this: Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 NVIDIA GeForce 320M 256 MB and a-10 looks weird, my guessing is that the video card is not up to the task. So I guess I'll have to go for the 27". Yesterday they had a good deal on a refurnish model of the previous gen iMac, not the new one they are offering, if I'm not mistaken it had the same video card and processor of the new model. I might have to wait a little bit to see if I can get the 27" instead. They are very nice machines, that is what I use at work.

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too. So, none of them offer decent video and processors?

Ok guys here is my situation: I have been playing lock-on since 2006 on an imac with dual core running bootcamp. With the advances in graphics and the new a-10 sim I ran totally outdated and I'm not able to play lock-on 3 and a-10 at all (lock-on just crashes while loading) A-10 runs very slow. My experience with macs is very positive, beautifully crafted design with solid reliability. I also do some graphic design work so my mac is just perfect for the task, and I don't feel like buying a dedicated pc just for the hobby. I want to use my computer for work and playing a-10. Recently I saw the new imacs and I was wondering if this new macs can run a-10 at good settings. Here are their specs: 21.5-inch: 2.7GHz 2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz 8GB (two 4GB) memory 1TB hard drive1 NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M with 512MB or 2.9GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz 8GB (two 4GB) memory 1TB hard drive1 NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 512MB or the 27 inch version very expensive 3.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz 8GB (two 4GB) memory 1TB hard drive1 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX with 1GB What do you guys think? are this computer good enough? to play simulators?

Has it flown with TVC?

It sounds too good to be true, look at what happened when Peru got their mig-29s... long story short, they purchased great second hand migs from Belorussia for a great price and received airplanes with irregular maintenance logbooks and no spares, two crashed shortly after purchase. The guy who made the deal turned out to be a crook who stole millions and even sold weapons to terrorist groups in Colombia. Peru had to ask russia for help, the russians refused to help unless Peru purchased new aircrafts and paid some money that they owed to Russia, at the end that great deal ended up costing them lots lots of money.

The biggest issue for the raptor is not having helmet mounted sight and AIM-9x for dogfighting.

You meant projected right, It has never flown on the real thing and I haven't seen the eurofighter flipping around

Marcos add to that the losses factor, then the problem gets bigger; it is not the same to replace an f-16 than to replace an f-35. Now ask your allies to do the same. The f-35 should have been an f-16 replacement; instead it became something that no one can buy at the numbers needed. Most of the issue is that the raptor is pretty much useless in a war like Afghanistan and Iraq. The troops don't have a dedicated close support fighter. Most of the stuff the airforce use now is an overkill. I don't think an f-35 multi million state of the art super expensive to operate is needed to drop a small bomb on top of terrorist using ak-47s. Why the russians value the su-25 so much? It is cheap and it does the job fine. That is what is needed not more than that. Is the su-25 the most precise? no, is it the less vulnerable to any weapon? no, but it is designed to do a good job against the weapons it is more likely to encounter. The only airplane that does the same job in the US is the A-10 and it has been hated since day one by air force planers. The A-10 proved them wrong several times. Now they tell us that the f-35 can do the same job better! really? at what cost? The US had the airplanes like the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, ov-10 bronco, a-4, f-5, those were relatively cheap and good for the mission, but they are gone. Small countries are returning to prop airplanes to do ground attack and close support. Enter the Supertucano. Why the Unites States Air Force don't have something like it to support the troops? The supertucano has done a great job agains drug dealers and guerrilla groups in South America. I think that part of the problem is that planners are more worried about capabilities than factual needs. Now there is another issue, Chinese have several programs in development to match US efforts. Possible f-22 equivalent- check F-35 equivalent- check global hack equivalent-check f-16 equivalent- check f-15 equivalent - check ; they copied it from the russians f-18 equivalent - They just got themselves a two seater su-33 reverse engineered apache- the have one in the works Carriers- they have one and several planned Space program- they have a named vehicle- US? renting stuff from the russians and waiting for the private industry to come up with the solution. Can the US become 2nd in terms of technological developments? Should the US not care of what other countries develop? Should the US keep the stealth programs cooking? I think yes, but placing emphasis on real needs, usability and efficiency.

But it is not a new concept; it was tested by Nasa on a f-18; the f-16xl. For the hornet thy used it as means of control the jet and for the f-16xl they used suction air to prevent airflow separation of the wing at supersonic speeds. It would be cool if they could use some kind of magnetic field to keep the air molecules from creating drag on key surfaces of the airplane thus reducing drag.

Combustion chamber too short? apparently they had to cut it short to fit the airplane; to me it looks like they cut corners to get the jet ready as fast as they could. I still think that the mig-29 rocks!

SU-27!!! oh wow!!!

What they are saying is that the eagle will end up with a better radar than the f-22 and it will illuminate targets for it.

su-35 :punk: Super cool!

Hold on; microsoft killed flight simulator but it didn't kill train simulator? What I really want is vortex effects