| Author |
Message |
|
fiskerwad
|
 Posted: Oct 10, 2010 - 02:16 PM
|
 
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Nov 13, 2004 - 07:43 PM
Posts: 706
Location: 76101
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 18, 2013 - 3:56 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
|
Posted: Oct 10, 2010 - 07:02 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
|
avon1944 wrote:
The Chicago Tribune did actually print an article with the front page headlines entitled, "MIDWAY VICTORY DUE TO BROKEN JAP CODES." Fortunately, the Japanese didn't see it. Tribune owner Robert McCormick was sternly told never to let this happen again, and it never did.
Those of course were the days when the press actually cared about national security (and ultimate victory) in a time of war. Unlike today where, when it comes to national security, all they care about is exposing a perceived nefarious DoD operation in the name of public's "need to know" when in fact their true intent is winning some journalistic praise to inflate their egos and the consequences to our troops and airmen be damned.
....but I'm not bitter....  |
_________________
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
|
|
|
|
|
|
shep1978
|
|
Posted: Oct 11, 2010 - 11:01 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Apr 04, 2009 - 05:00 PM
Posts: 1395
Location: UK
Status: Offline
|
|
primorsky wrote:
The only similarities between T-50 and T-10(Flanker) family are widely separated engines and the extended fuselage aft (tail "stinger"). But these features are far from being identical in both designs anyway.
I don't think anyone would claim they were identical but one was most certainly based on the other. A five year old could see it it's so obvious. Its like saying the F-2 wasn't based on the F-16 design!
The new nozzles aren't a definate either yet, not according to Michael Pogosjan anyway and work on the second phase engine for the T-50 hasn't even started, again according to Michael Pogosjan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exorcet
|
|
Posted: Oct 11, 2010 - 04:32 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Oct 07, 2009 - 04:35 PM
Posts: 154
Location: US
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
I don't think anyone would claim they were identical but one was most certainly based on the other. A five year old could see it it's so obvious. Its like saying the F-2 wasn't based on the F-16 design!
The new nozzles aren't a definate either yet, not according to Michael Pogosjan anyway and work on the second phase engine for the T-50 hasn't even started, again according to Michael Pogosjan.
I disagree. One based on the other, no. One borrowing from the other, yes. It's no different from the F-22/F-15 relationship. If it's not broke don't fix it. The F-22 and PAK-FA probably were not designed from the outset to resemble their predeccessors, but since the same people worked on both generations of aircraft*, they probably could not help using knowledge gained in the past. This, to me, doesn't make the PAK-FA a Su-27 model.
*YF-22 1990, Boeing MDD merger late 90's, F-22 1997. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scorpion1alpha
|
|
Posted: Oct 17, 2010 - 04:36 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator
Joined: Oct 21, 2005 - 01:47 AM
Posts: 1375
Status: Offline
|
OK, I'm not in the mood for a warning like in the F-22/Typhoon topic.
For those that want to continue talking and arguing about the T-50, go to the Modern Military Aircraft Forum and find the split topic there or find one of the existing T-50 threads.
The speculative nonsense won't continue here. |
_________________
I'm watching...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
