GGTharos Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Too bad that this is an extremely untrue statement ;) And Russians did, and still do buy the Fisher space pen ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
504 Wolverine Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Yeah, totally untrue. What do you do when the lead snaps and floats around the cabin, possibly blocking your air system? As GG says, they use a pen. [/url]
nscode Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Then the nasa guy telling the story on TV is a lier :D It's just an illustration anyway.. ;) Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Force_Feedback Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 All footage I've seen of Russians at Mir/Soyuz(TMA)/ISS always showed them writing with pencil-like objects (they're too thin to be pens, and had a destinguishable tip). So either someone is lying out there, or some people don't want to admit their conservative thinking. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
D-Scythe Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 D-Scythe, don't get me wrong, but where do you get all this info? Is it based on facts or just your opinion? I ask this because what your're saying is incorrect. What, about the limitations of the delta wing? Honestly, you can just google it if you want. Some sites may be full of BS, and others won't get into too much detail, but you'd get the general idea. The RAF G's tests include 9 G's sustained during 15 seconds and I saw non-pilots doing it with no g-suit help, only standar respiratory procedures. There's a huge difference from slowly working your way up to 9Gs then sustaining that for 10-15 seconds then jumping from 1 to 9 in a short time period. In extreme cases, such a rapid onset of g-forces may induce G-LOC. And I didn't even mentioned the test the USAF did a few years back on a pilot, he sustained 12 G's during several seconds. The pilot had big constitution and had no problem in holding it during the entire test. Now it's my turn to ask you for proof. I have an old issue of Air International stating that the Mirage 2000's can hold it's own against an F-16 Block50/52 with no problems. At medium altitudes the F-16 would have the edge but the Mirage wins at Medium to Higher altitudes. Did I ever say the M2000 cannot hold its own? I just said that there were limitations to the delta wing and that it is not uber. The F-16As are much less heavier than a Charlie version, so in theory it could outperform most fighters in the dogfight regime. Which is why I included it with the F-16CJ Block 50s as one of the more agile fighters...?
Trident Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Like ForceFeedback said 13.5g is the structural limit, beyond that point you will get permanent deformation of structural components. 1.5x9g=13.5g (9g being the maximum design load condition), standard practise for structural design in western aircraft :) As D-Scythe remarked the main asset of the Mirage2000 is its instantaneous turn rate (that and an impressive roll-rate) and Mirage airshow displays are of course cleverly devised to take advantage of this. Its sustained performance is not quite as good as that of the F-16, Hornet and Flanker. It does make for very nice displays, I've seen it my self at le Bourget last year. Another Mirage speciality is high altitude and high Mach number performance, due to the comparatively low by-pass ratio of the M53 engine (have a look at the flight data section of the website in the original message).
jj_pt Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 What, about the limitations of the delta wing? Honestly, you can just google it if you want. Some sites may be full of BS, and others won't get into too much detail, but you'd get the general idea. I wasn't referring to that point exactly, just the other points I quote after that. I'm aware of the Delta Wing limitations. :) There's a huge difference from slowly working your way up to 9Gs then sustaining that for 10-15 seconds then jumping from 1 to 9 in a short time period. In extreme cases, such a rapid onset of g-forces may induce G-LOC. Of course, but that wasn't what I read from your statement. :) Now it's my turn to ask you for proof. Sure, I would gladly give it to you if I knew the name of the documentary with the footage of the event. Did I ever say the M2000 cannot hold its own? I just said that there were limitations to the delta wing and that it is not uber. I was just complementing your statement, nothing else. Which is why I included it with the F-16CJ Block 50s as one of the more agile fighters...? Sounds fine to me. [sIGPIC]http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/userbars/A-10C_UserBar_01.gif[/sIGPIC]
TucksonSonny Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 The most maneuverable non tvc fighter is the ef2k PERIOD. DELL Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 940 2,93 GHz @3 GHz, 8 MB cache | 8.192 MB 1.067 MHz Tri Channel DDR3 | 512 MB ATI® Radeon™ 4850 | 500 GB 7200 rpm Serial ATA | Samsung SM 2693 HM 25.5 " | HOTAS Cougar Thrustmaster |
Crusty Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 Hmm, was my first post written in invisible mode???..hehe Just gimme a sopwith Camel and ill show you manouvreability.........vroom, rat-at-at-at-at:icon_toil oo err...missus:animals_bunny: ** Anti-Pastie**
Megile Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 MIG-25 is the most manoeuvrable plane.... at mach 3 ;)
GGTharos Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 I somehow really ... doubt that. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Pilotasso Posted April 9, 2006 Posted April 9, 2006 MIG-25 is the most manoeuvrable plane.... at mach 3 ;) At mach 3 it can only go straight. Controll surfaces wont work for manuever. .
Crusty Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Oh yea, GT?...so just what plane is more manouvreable at mach 3...eh? oo err...missus:animals_bunny: ** Anti-Pastie**
Force_Feedback Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Oh yea, GT?...so just what plane is more manouvreable at mach 3...eh? He'll say the F-15....:rolleyes: Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:
nscode Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 ...and others would say the Su-27 :rolleyes: And they would be right :cool: ;) :D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Crusty Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 And they would be right :cool: ;) :D Hehe...did you actually read megile's post:D oo err...missus:animals_bunny: ** Anti-Pastie**
Frostie Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 For what its worth I too saw the 12g test on the stocky American guy and he held it together quite well. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
nscode Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 Hehe...did you actually read megile's post:D And did you actually see the ";)" in mine? :D Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.
Crusty Posted April 10, 2006 Posted April 10, 2006 AAAH... seeing 3 different ones sent my tiny brain into smilie confusion...I shoulda known....:icon_axe: oo err...missus:animals_bunny: ** Anti-Pastie**
Guest IguanaKing Posted April 11, 2006 Posted April 11, 2006 Speaking of space technology. Have you guys seen the new orbiter NASA has planned to replace the shuttle. Its a capsule. :D Some time in the 60's, the Soviets sent NASA engineers the world's smallest diameter drill bit. The NASA engineers drilled a hole down the radial center of that bit and sent it back to them. :cool:
Recommended Posts