Dazzler
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2008
- Messages
- 9,163
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
- Location
No I mean pilot feedback after flying it.
It barely made its first flight, patience.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No I mean pilot feedback after flying it.
It probably is the trainer. 2 seater with same engine would mean big trade off on weapons.
Aircraft design is more about fulfilling requirements than moving booty on the ramp. The B model is clearly influenced by PAF's approach of squeezing maximum out of everything. The side mounted canopy shouts "save some space" all too loud. The bulkier spine is to add as much fuel and avionics as possible. Trim down the spine and youll lose range. Comparing it with the f-16 is not justified, as the falcon already enjoys more range, and CFTs only help its cause. In blk 52, the spine is solely meant to add more avionics and EW equipment, thats it.
See this baby?
it is easily the ugliest thing in the sky, but it is the first to enter and last to leave the battlefield and can wreak havoc on enemy assets, radars and other infrastructure and serves as a crucial asset in US Naval Aviation's arsenal.
New Recruit
Is has gained some weight but still its not that bad. I thik its looking goox
Become a part of shitty look and feel + pregant aircrafts.... shittest aero features... canopy is tooo way big ... matlab may kise motay say jisam pe patha sa face lagadoon yaan phir pathlay say jisam pe mooota sa moo fit kardon.. man there is HUGE Designers and Experts engineering... the people who work on the features of look and feel as well as aero features are SENSELESS and I stand on my words. Look what American made... years of years spends on design just to make weapon aggressive, superb aerodynamic features as well as everything is 100% balance.
your example more like
usnay bhi tu doo katal kiye thay agar mainay eek karlya tu kya huwa lol man designing is complete profession. The above aircraft design is 60s league. Secondly JF is not technically designed for dual seater. Also no need to tell us that the design of dual seater was initiated and requirements made by PAF. We can easily speculate this pregnant aircraft design was DEFINITELY initiated by.... AHO!
Yeah but as a trainer the jet is probably ok man. It needs to operate in a more restricted flight envelope and the 'puffiness' is probably the additional equipment for training.
But if this is a 2 seater attack version.....yep that would be a disaster. This probably won't be even reasonably agile for the role.
On technical grounds, this aircraft is no where near agility, aerodynamics as well as tooo bulky to hold many things in a small airframe.
Bro we were not tooooooo excited about aerodynamics and agility when we first saw JF17A either. Now we have seen it perform at airshows and parade!!On technical grounds, this aircraft is no where near agility, aerodynamics as well as tooo bulky to hold many things in a small airframe.
Become a part of shitty look and feel + pregant aircrafts.... shittest aero features... canopy is tooo way big ... matlab may kise motay say jisam pe patha sa face lagadoon yaan phir pathlay say jisam pe mooota sa moo fit kardon.. man there is HUGE Designers and Experts engineering... the people who work on the features of look and feel as well as aero features are SENSELESS and I stand on my words. Look what American made... years of years spends on design just to make weapon aggressive, superb aerodynamic features as well as everything is 100% balance.
your example more like
usnay bhi tu doo katal kiye thay agar mainay eek karlya tu kya huwa lol man designing is complete profession. The above aircraft design is 60s league. Secondly JF is not technically designed for dual seater. Also no need to tell us that the design of dual seater was initiated and requirements made by PAF. We can easily speculate this pregnant aircraft design was DEFINITELY initiated by.... AHO!
Bro we were not tooooooo excited about aerodynamics and agility when we first saw JF17A either. Now we have seen it perform at airshows and parade!!
I hope this will meet the requirement, whatever it is made for!! Looks were never the preference as we all know.
BTW, i asked you a question regarding that turn rate comparison of JFT and F16. I hope you can reply to that in that thread?
the tail inclination will add maneuverablityYour logic is deeply flawed. Read on aircraft design philosophies to understand important aspects of aircraft design. And please, stop competing it with other systems that were designed to fulfill different roles by their respective developers.
On a sidenote, people claiming it being less agile need to awake and smell the coffee, as the canopy design itself will not add additional drag during different flight regimes. The triplex fly by wire should actually improve its maneuverability.
Now, examples of Draggy canopies: