marcos

What's the longest range A-A kill in operational history? So far the longest anyone has found is 9km. Any advances on 9km? There must be.

Try 3g in an ex-Tyrell F1 car while on the ground.:D 787 batteries are now cleared to fly but not with the plane. http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-787-grounded-batteries-fly-092808391--finance.html

Fiat G.59-4B, taking off from the airport of Parma (Italy) Sentinel R1, landing at RAF Waddington airshow. Lockheed P-3C Orion landing at NAS Whidbey Island. (Armed with AGM-65 Maverick and AGM-84H SLAM-ER)

A-A-Afterburner level E-737 AEW & C (Boeing 737 Airborne Early Warning and Control)

Tragic.

Iran has never even built a 4th gen fighter.

I guess WVR the F-16 has less inertia - not something the F-35 can lay claim to.

Tut-tut. And my calculations - spot on. Your point? Nothing major has happens in aerodynamics to completely discredit 1987 estimates on future fighter value for k and Cd0. The F-15/16/18 had been out for a long time. All of which out-perform the F-35 ironically. The fact is that the wings do generate the vast bulk of the lift even for modern fighter designs. And the fact is that airliners do not have wing design planforms focused on wave drag and it's not a major factor at maximum range cruise speed (M~0.8). The Typhoon and the F-35 will both have excellent design wrt offsetting the drag divergence Mach number. Neither aircraft would cruise above that number to achieve maximum range. So even if it was different, the impact on maximum range wouldn't be large because the cruise speed would just be adjusted marginally to avoid drag divergence. Case dismissed. Too small. Plain and simple. F-22's - not such a problem. Smaller and smaller bombs are being developed for CAS all the time too, so loitering won't be such an issue. Especially not the F-35 reference the report from the AIR UNIVERSITY I posted. Read that? Clearly not. Go for it, if you've got any figures. Really, because the F-15 STRs are way better according to graphs already posted. It does but way poorer TWR and pig.

Are you referring to your first attempt to introduce them that was wrong and wrong used. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1665644&postcount=82 Like you'd know - see above. The YF-22 flew in 1990. Very little. The real uncertainty surrounds the future of the plane. Yeah, I'm sure nobody on the Typhoon project knew about supercritical aerofoils developed in the 1960s. Actually you choose your planform first and optimise it while working through aerofoil design. This is the stage that the F-35 went wrong at. Wrong planform. Nothing could go right from there. For a CAS mission yes but not for interdiction. Talking about A2G loads here since they're biggest. Neither plane makes a good CAS plane. Urrr, it isn't though. Are you actually reading the thread and the links? They're all pointing in the same direction with no counter-figures. What else am I supposed to determine? That they're all wrong. That's all nice but the F-15 still kills the F-16.

He is standing next to it in that picture. Nope, that's the Iranian President, my mistake.

Like you do with all numbers.... and calculations.... and reasoned argument. So ignore drag calculations, ignore quoted SFC, ignore quoted range figures, ignore University studies on performance..... or just ignore you. Given that the development cycle of a fighter from concept to commission is about 15-20 years, that should give you a clue. The Typhoon (EAP), YF-22 and YF-23 were all in the pipework in 1987. That's must be why airliner wings are clearly selected primarily for the reduction of wave drag, with it being such a major component at subsonic cruising speeds. You won't need the tanks to match the F-35's range at all (see everything discussed to date) and bombs are usually only a problem for half the sortie, on the way home the Typhoon has the advantage. The F-35 can't drop its excess fuselage. That hasn't seemed to help LM's designers so far. Sustained turn rate is just another side of the L/D coin. Like the quoted SFC and the quoted range? Or like the threshold performance specification? So weight an important aspect in aviation?:megalol: Perhaps you might like to compare the F-22 and F-35's wing loading and also the cross sectional area of the fuselage. An F-16 weighs 18,900lb empty an F-35 weighs 29-34,000lb. Suggesting that the same fuel load for each makes the comparison fair is ridiculous.

:megalol: I think the plan was to build a plane that's cheaper than a missile, so they can bankrupt the enemy by getting shot down frequently. Maybe it's just me but would that canopy actually close with that pilot sat there? I think I saw one outside the supermarket. 50p/ride.

Seconds of flight counter.

Calendars http://stat.multimedia.mil.ru/multimedia/calendars.htm?id=11435519@cmsArticle

At least it's got a cassette player but a CD or MP3 is more the in thing these days.

Yeah, the range will probably be even less when it reaches active service. You sure? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666401&postcount=119 And provided figures for near empty too, which still favoured the Typhoon... and then invited you to re-calculate with any fuel load you liked. And yes, wave drag was of limited relevance at a max. range sub-sonic cruising speed. Except the drag calculations already mentioned.... and the SFC figures.... and Lockheed's own preliminary range figures. The SH has worse WL for a given fuel fraction and worse TWR too, but you're fine with this despite it indicating that range isn't a straight L/A calculation. At least with the numbers we have which are ambiguous. 30 dB is both .005 and .001 m^2 some how. Order of magnitude and they probably didn't know how to work out what dB 0.005 is. And an F-16 doesn't weigh 30,000lb empty!!! You see my point?

Even the pilot is banging his head on the dash.

I'd really be more than interested to see any of the mathematical theory behind this if anyone can present but simply referring to it doesn't make a very good case. Where on Earth do you get that? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666429&postcount=122 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1666429&postcount=122 They appear to be finished.

Like a Boeing 747 will do just as well if you put the same fuel load on an F-35?