China the puppetmaster?

[Chrono_Wanderer]

LOL Su25 loos like a Harrier

[Novdid]

Interesting.

The WIGE that is.

[Dr Mordrid]

THAT'S IT!! The Pelican. I think that would be a tremendous idea for both military and civian transportation.

BTW: this is the Russian ALSIN page (Center for Ekranoplan Technologies);

http://www.aquaglide.ru/index_e.htm

Interesting site....

Dr. Mordrid

[Chrono_Wanderer]

hmm... interesting find Doc!

Maybe they should make a fighter w/submarine + plane + land support

Am I asking for too much

[Dr Mordrid]

I'd love to have one of those Ekranoplan Aquaglides for our cottage on Lake Huron....except the waters get just a bit higher than .35 meters

Dr. Mordrid

[Chrono_Wanderer]

LOL. A good alternative than walking in the "lake"

[KvHagedorn]

The "Pelican"? Looks like a classic bad idea to me. Flying low to take advantage of "ground effect".. Ha! Somebody's not living in the real world! Now what do you think will happen when that monstrosity has some sort of problem? No time to correct (and something that big would be particularly unforgiving) and certainly no chance for the crew to bail out. I seriously doubt that anyone responsible would give the go-ahead to such a project.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
The "Pelican"? Looks like a classic bad idea to me. Flying low to take advantage of "ground effect".. Ha! Somebody's not living in the real world! Now what do you think will happen when that monstrosity has some sort of problem? No time to correct (and something that big would be particularly unforgiving) and certainly no chance for the crew to bail out. I seriously doubt that anyone responsible would give the go-ahead to such a project.

Check again, KvH. The Soviet project was huge, and they had a successful 400 metric ton craft. And it says they could fly AS LOW AS 20ft. With a 500ft wingspan, it should be pretty efficient all the way up to 250ft above the water. Also, how could this have "no time to correct" when we've been flying inherently unstable jets at supersonic speeds for years? Personally, I'd feel safer in the Pelican.

And so what if something catastrophic happened? Let's see, it would plummet a couple hundred feet. Big deal. I doubt it's naturally bouyant, but it wouldn't be very hard to have some kind of emergency buoyancy gear built into the hull.

[Dr Mordrid]

Yup. As low as 20 ft but as high as 20,000 ft (or higher) with one helluva load.

Dr. Mordrid

[Greebe]

Doc, your information is only somewhat correct and is very dated for the times.

Ask an AE which of us is correct, seeing that you cannot possibly be convinced otherwise.

[K6-III]

Personally, I'd prefer the airship.

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by Greebe
Doc, your information is only somewhat correct and is very dated for the times.

Ask an AE which of us is correct, seeing that you cannot possibly be convinced otherwise.

We had this arguement on ICQ already, and I'm sure there are AE's on either side of this issue, but if you insist....

The forward swept wings (FSW's) demonstration on the X-29 may well have been cancelled for funding/policital reasons as you stated, but the other reasons given in the official reports include that FSW puts high stresses on the wing root and along the wings axis that rear-swept wings don't.

Yes, as you noted todays composites are better than those used in the X-29 and could make possible FSW planes like the so-called F-121 Switchblade (which may or may not be in development). You're probably correct on this, but at what cost do we use them?

IMO FSW means a more expensive and complex design to get the same level of structural integrity as a RSW design, meaning fewer $$ left over for other performance/safety features and fewer planes built....thus un-learning what we supposedly learned with the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to bang/buck. In short KISS: KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do that thing.

Also; while FSW's can handle higher angles of attack and produce a slightly greater lift, what about using canards and/or thrust vectoring on an RSW to give similar results? The best examples of this are the Russian RSW fighters that can already handle extremely high angles of attack and do mind-bending maneuvers.

So the question really is: if many of FSW's "tricks" can be, or nearly be, achieved with a more structurally simple, cheaper and easier to build design (RSW) why bother with it? Just for fun or to prove it can be one?

IMO this makes FSW a solution searching for a problem.

This doesn't even take into account the question of why we should bother building another F-111 style manned fighter/bomber when the move to unmanned attack aircraft (UCAV's) is so strong and they can be build for a small fraction of the cost of a manned bomber?

Some people learned the lessons taught by the Predator when it comes to the utility of unmanned attack aircraft, and it wasn't even designed to be one.

The huge advantages of UCAV's are that there is no POW potential since the "pilot" is sitting at a console in the middle of some ocean plus its harder to shoot down a whole swarm of smaller (and thus stealthier) unmanned fighter/bombers to deliver the same amount of ordinance. Not to mention it's estimated on many military sites that one could fit 2-3 times as many UCAV's on a carrier vs. manned aircraft...at least.

More and more the job of the "fighter" is not so much being an interceptor and dogfighting as it is to act as a missile and bombing platform....and you don't need a man on board to do those jobs, especially if you use stand-off weapons.

Dr. Mordrid

[Greebe]

Tech from that time (FS wing design and composite construction) has massively improved and whatever clown wrote up that the design wasn't worth the effort is a fool. Yes that's correct, even Dryden has DW's running around.

The fact is it does have it's advantages and just because you want to believe outdated and flawed info does not negate it's benifits, hense why Sukhoi designed the SU-37 and no just because it looks similar does not make it a copy.

The F-121 swingwing multi role tactical fighter uses it's wing in a forward swept position for exactly the reasons I stated and once I thought had achieved nirvana ie convincing you otherwise or maybe for the first time in MURC history knocked you off that high horse ie incombatable position you always maintain. But instead now you are taking the position that UCAV's would null and void all this makes me puke. Do you always try to change the subject when wrong?

Not saying you aren't correct where UCAV's are more maneuverable, and without the G force limitations a man could never withstand. But this is nether here nor there when it comes to the subject of manned forward swept wing tactical fighters. It was that after all I had a problem with the contemptous arguments you've presented against the SU-37 and it's maker Sukhoi.

One of the biggest problems with all that I've read here is that you are a product of the baby boomer cold war generation and can't see past it's influence on the typical American psyche.

BTW when the cold war ended, the US and Russians started sharing information. More to the point the Russian's wanted to see how the F-16 was built and for the US... well that just happens to be the SU-27. So as far as them copying the F15 that's a laugh. Why would we want to know how they made that fantastic aircraft if it was simply a copy of something we already had?

[GT98]

Originally posted by Greebe


BTW when the cold war ended, the US and Russians started sharing information. More to the point the Russian's wanted to see how the F-16 was built and for the US... well that just happens to be the SU-27. So as far as them copying the F15 that's a laugh. Why would we want to know how they made that fantastic aircraft if it was simply a copy of something we already had?

Well its called improving on something already...ask the Japanese...they take take US designs and improve on them.

[KvHagedorn]

In my humble opinion, the best-looking fighter jets ever were the ME262 and the F16. There is something off-putting about the arched-back look of the Sukhoi and its nose is a bit large.