| Author |
Message |
|
fretmarks
|
 Posted: Jun 24, 2008 - 11:56 PM
|
 
|
|
Regular User
Joined: Jun 01, 2004
Posts: 53
|
|
em745 wrote:
strykerxo wrote:
What would an F-22 demo team such a the Thunderbirds, be like?
Um... prohibitively expensive would be my guess. 
em745, is that a screen grab from Jane's USAF? |
_________________
Austin 1, Fox 3!
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Sep 08, 2008 - 3:35 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tinito_16
|
|
Posted: Jun 25, 2008 - 12:36 AM
|
|
|
Active member
Joined: May 31, 2007
Posts: 235
Status: Offline
|
| I think that's from Flight Simulator. I had one just like that but then I bought the AlphaSim F-22, it's still not updated for FSX but it works ok. |
_________________
"Like the coldest winter chill, heaven beside you...hell within" Alice In Chains
|
|
|
|
|
|
em745
|
|
Posted: Jun 25, 2008 - 01:34 PM
|
|
|
Regular User
Joined: Oct 18, 2007
Posts: 28
Status: Offline
|
|
Obamanite wrote:
Well, other than the fact that the airplane pictured is actually a YF-22
Actually, that model seems like a "mutt" more than anything. It has the YF's forward-set intakes and wing leading edge sweep, but the stabs and rear edge of the wings are more F like.
Also, the angles on the tails' front and rear edges are slightly off.
fretmarks wrote:
em745, is that a screen grab from Jane's USAF?
It's from an "add-ons" site for M$ Flight Sim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Viper_
|
|
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 06:52 PM
|
|
|
Frequent Poster
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
|
Hello!
I've read that F/A-22 has thrust-to-weight ratio better than 1. Actually many other fighter jets produce enough power to achieve this ratio.
But does it means that the jet can accelerate when going straight upwards?
However in this video the Raptor actually stalls. Does it need more speed to acclerate when going upwards or what is going on? I'd guess that flying at higher speeds the situation is different because on this example the Raptor has barely taken off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D4F0G4aIuU
Thanks for your answers.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guysmiley
|
|
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 07:20 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: May 26, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 07:51 PM
|
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 344
Status: Offline
|
| and then there is always the obvious "maybe he wasnt at full thrust" |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Viper_
|
|
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 08:33 PM
|
|
|
Frequent Poster
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
|
|
Guysmiley wrote:
Thank you very much for your links! For somehow I didn't even thought about the search which probably reveals even more topics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iJDAM
|
|
Posted: Jun 26, 2008 - 11:23 PM
|
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 26, 2008
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
and then there is always the obvious "maybe he wasnt at full thrust"
good point |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanite
|
|
Posted: Jun 27, 2008 - 02:24 AM
|
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 26, 2008
Posts: 289
Status: Offline
|
| Dude, if you look at the F-22 when it supposedly "stalls" going straight up, do you notice something? Yes, that's right, no afterburners. If the F-16 could and can accelerate going straight up, the F-22 can do so in spades. That beast generates some 80,000 lbs. of thrust, and that's sea level static. A certain pilot in a certain board also talked about climbing pretty much straight up and breaking 60,000 feet going past Mach 2 while having to ease up on the burner lest he, well, literally burned the plane... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
em745
|
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2008 - 07:39 PM
|
|
|
Regular User
Joined: Oct 18, 2007
Posts: 28
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obamanite
|
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2008 - 08:04 PM
|
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 26, 2008
Posts: 289
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
em745
|
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2008 - 10:07 PM
|
|
|
Regular User
Joined: Oct 18, 2007
Posts: 28
Status: Offline
|
|
Obamanite wrote:
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iJDAM
|
|
Posted: Jun 29, 2008 - 11:07 PM
|
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jun 26, 2008
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
|
Obamanite wrote:
Oh ya, that Chinese dude. That person doesn't even speak english. He probably uses google translator to speak judging by the amount of words that are out of context. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guysmiley
|
|
Posted: Jun 30, 2008 - 04:03 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: May 26, 2005
Posts: 1093
|
| And the Pirates of the Caribbean theme music is the icing on that non-sequitur cake. Wow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_Viper_
|
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2008 - 05:28 PM
|
|
|
Frequent Poster
Joined: Aug 02, 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
|
|
Obamanite wrote:
Dude, if you look at the F-22 when it supposedly "stalls" going straight up, do you notice something? Yes, that's right, no afterburners. If the F-16 could and can accelerate going straight up, the F-22 can do so in spades. That beast generates some 80,000 lbs. of thrust, and that's sea level static. A certain pilot in a certain board also talked about climbing pretty much straight up and breaking 60,000 feet going past Mach 2 while having to ease up on the burner lest he, well, literally burned the plane...
Erhm in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D4F0G4aIuU there are definitely afterburners on. At 0:36 shows that clearly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
