|
Member
(09-16-2012, 11:45 PM)
|
#53
Didn't the Chinese copy the eurofighter design some time ago but abandoned the project due to the eurofighters designed in dependency on constant software input to keep it flying level as it was deliberately unstable as possible.
I can design an F1 car, doesn't mean I could fit anything inside that would approach 30s of a HRT's performance let alone the fine intricacies that let the top teams drive away into the distance of the 99% similar looking backmarker. |
|
Online Ho Champ
(09-16-2012, 11:55 PM)
|
#54
...the f22 is a totally different plane than the f 35. The raptor may be considered a failure because it was expensive so if you lose one vs one of your enemies yeah its not worth it. The F 35 however the JSF was more affordable from the gate and will serve all 4 branches of the military. Maybe the navy version is going to take a long time because they ahve to deal with salt water being an extra problem.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 12:05 AM)
|
#56
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate a bit, please?
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 12:10 AM)
|
#58
It's pretty damn clear what he's saying, the Eurofighter Typhoon is an extremely unstable aircraft left on its own devices - However it's kept in the air by computers and software, making constant calculations and adjustments a pilot would never be able to. So copying that plane without nailing the computer part would make it a disaster plane - Hence they copied it but had to abandon it as they were missing the important part of it all.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 12:11 AM)
|
#59
A eurofighter is in essence too unstable to fly there is no possible way for a pilot to make the hundreds of tiny adjustments constantly required to stop it tumbling out of the air uncontrolled, this is a good thing in a air superiority fighter as that instability makes it manoeuvre at insane G's both positive and negative however a advanced suite of electronics is required to keep it under control and prevent the plane from turning into a lawn dart 10 feet after the runway. So what you end up with is a plane that is easy to fly but with incredible performance, the Chinese supposedly made a copy but had to abandon it due to not being able to overcome the electronics required.
|
|
(09-17-2012, 12:13 AM)
|
#60
A lot of the stuff China/Russia copy looks similar on the outside but on the inside its botched and shit gone wrong.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 12:27 AM)
|
#62
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 12:31 AM)
|
#64
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 12:51 AM)
|
#70
The most difficult variant is apparently the version being developed for the Marines/RAF because STOVL (short take off, vertical landing) is an expensive capability. In particular, wikipedia has this to say about the engine in this variant:
Quote:
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 01:25 AM)
|
#85
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 01:26 AM)
|
#86
I mean "wut" as in I'd like some information on that, a link to something.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 01:27 AM)
|
#87
Actually the C / carrier variant is the most problematic and delayed version currently problems with the landing hook not working and the next variant not expected to be ready for another 2 years and the carriage cracking with the stress of landings has delayed it to 2020, 2 years past the estimated B / stovl in service date as its currently working nicely. The salt water issue required a different coating on the turbine blades which has different heat characteristics but is a well known issue so shouldn't create any real problems. A buddy of mine flies F-22's and he says they can go supersonic even 1000ft underwater and have a launch base on the moon.
Last edited by dalin80; 09-17-2012 at 01:29 AM.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 01:28 AM)
|
#89
Probably because it's a bunch of bull, because that's the first I hear of it and you'd think something like that would be pretty well covered being so advanced. So unless he's telling you classified information I'm going to need some proof before believing it.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 01:30 AM)
|
#90
edit: We were pretty drunk when discussing this, so it may have been some info he wasn't necessarily supposed to share... |
|
Became a moderator just to tag himself.
(09-17-2012, 01:36 AM)
|
#96
Last edited by ThoseDeafMutes; 09-17-2012 at 01:40 AM.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 01:39 AM)
|
#99
http://www.dailytech.com/USAF+to+Fix...ticle25303.htm
Quote:
Last edited by Sethos; 09-17-2012 at 01:43 AM.
|
|
Member
(09-17-2012, 01:41 AM)
|
#100
I've never heard that the F-22 is equipped with that capabilty, maybe its highly classified, until now! lolz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suter_%...ter_program%29 |