G.J.S

It is wrong??

Convair Sea Dart, absolute P.O.S. apparently, but could be interesting?

I believe it was the initial Tranche that did not have the cannon installed, reason being it was undecided if it would actually need it (shades of the F-4?), but it was installed thus and is routinely used. The cannon location being the slightly bulged fairing in the stbd wing root, which is usually capped with a frangible plate that covers the cannon muzzle, but which is destroyed upon the first round passing through it. As for the mk.27 efficiency, it is a variant of the cannon that was installed in Tornado, and although it doesn’t have the rate of fire of Vulcan, the WEIGHT of fire is much more. Vulcan needs at least a half second to spin up to max fire rate, Mauser is instantaneous. In a 1 second burst of fire, Vulcan can spew just under 4KG of shell outward (bear in mind it still requires about a half second to get up to speed). Mauser can spew around 8KG of shell outward, and fire rate is instant. Weight of fire would be the knock down factor here.

Yeah, you clarified it better, original post was a little vague. It still looks exactly as I would expect it to, the slabs open out but the inner interlocking ring opens out exactly how it should. The ring is composed of flat (ish) plates that are arranged in an ‘over-under-over-under’ pattern so as to still describe a circular pattern whether converging, or diverging. It behaves how it should. Look up con-di nozzles (convergent/divergent) on the web, you should find technical descriptions of the mechanics.

I’m not really seeing anything wrong? In what way do you think it’s not correct? The outer slabs expand whilst the inner interlocking flaps open to maximum throat diameter.

Just an observation. Going on what the mock-up displays, the intake could be relatively restrictive in maintaining airflow at AoA that could be expected in manoeuvre combat. Also the all moving V-tail has a hinge line that could cause blanking at high AoA similar to a T-tail, being blanked by airflow. I fully understand that this isn’t really representative of a production article - many things can change - but as it is there seem to be a few design choices that aren’t really conducive to manoeuvrability. It will be interesting to see what this airframe becomes, but I think unless it undergoes a large layout change, it could be at a handicap straight off the bat.

Stunning. Really stunning. (You know you’re not supposed to pass off pics of the real thing as pics of the repaint skin, don’t you? . . . Hang on a minute . . . Ohhh .)

That special bird is quite attractive . . . Really nice.

Lol. Be a masochist! Pain makes your wallet feel alive!

Whatever the other modules will be, you know that it will be good - and worth the wait.

Yep, that gif really does sum it up!

Statics can appear folded if “attached” to the naval unit you place them on, I forget the exact term, but in the same part where you set the statics heading etc, there is an option to attach it to a naval unit.

The Royal International Air Tattoo, RAF Fairford. The largest military air show in the world (unsure if it still holds that title now though?). Over the course of the air show weekend, many aircraft from many countries attend. The static line extends almost the same length as the runway - about 2 miles. I was present (enjoying the show, not official capacity) on both accident occasions, the MiG-29 collision, and the G-222 nose wheel collapse. Didn’t really disrupt ops on either occasion.

Your suggestion for option 2 has merit - kind of like you have to be checked out in a particular airframe - before records are kept?

Velocity and AoA can be gleaned from the panel. Even if you can’t see the speed readout - excess buffeting and slow control response will indicate you are rather slow, so get a few more knots on the airframe. Aside of ‘maybe’ checking visible topside for damage, the only other utility that RVM’s provide is viewing any close in rear cone threats, but that would only really be of any use if you are concentrating on a tgt in front of you - say in close ACM - but then if you are sandwiched, you are not too far away from becoming wreckage anyway. Much better to keep your head on a swivel. BUT - moveable mirrors would be a good idea.

I remember seeing the Romanian AF Lancers at RIAT years ago, very smartly turned out aircraft, very well flown.

Im pretty sure ‘this’ Buccaneer is a non starter. However . . . . there could be another. Maybe sometime in the future . . . ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKrrUp7Qhc

True word. A lot of people just see a flood - they aren’t seeing the effluent being forced out of sewerage covers and processing plants. Nasty. And anyone wading through it and don’t realise they may have a small, insignificant scratch on a leg? Interesting times ahead.

Isnt the NASA paper you cite a “human factors integration” paper that relies on hypothetical pilot models using modified simulated versions of the aircraft (AV-8B & UH-60 in this case) to evaluate control laws?

So by inadvertently providing correct information I overstepped some mark? Anyway, for those who enjoy procedure, these can be followed - correct freqs or not, should the freqs be left as is. Again, lesson learned, climbing for height - I’m out.

ILS Freqs shown, but aside from that approach procedure for those that would like them? I apologise for sharing, won’t happen again.

http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/aviation/notices-alerts/chart-alert/PGUA_1803_eChart_Alert_and_Charts.pdf

When you’re good - you’re good. But when you’re bad . . . . . You’re much, much better.

So, because I disagree with you, I shouldn’t post? Only those who pat you on the back and say “good boy” need apply?