posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:08 PM
jettseller, i will not disscuss with you, you are a guy that maybe likes those stupids americans holywood movies
yes, the f15 suck accelerating above 5000mts,i have a huge cuantify of colaborators that said that, the reason is tha .8-.9 bybass turbofan, that
saturn 5 afirmation is only propaganda..., the f100 -110 works good at low level
Engieneer, the cannard-delta DONT make a plane unstable, the gravity center change position does, the cannard induces lift vortex over the main wing,
there some missinterpretations about that....
sucker navy planes, f14,f18,f4,etc.... the problem is that almost always the designs are original for the air force, the navy requierements are
any modern plane can do the cobra (hell even the Orao), the problem is in wich speed-heigh and how many energy lost, that maneuvvre is very risky in
unstable design only works good on the f16 in vertical turns
Mig29-f18 and maybe f14 have an limited supercruiser capacity
the best configuration for an unstable plane is delta-cannard thats the "bad/unstable airframe relation" of the f16
vectorial thrust only works with an fraction of the power (forget to use afterburners-at least in american designs-)
the f22 looks like an f15-mig25 son, it not use low wing configuration, and have an big proportion of its area pointing donwn, it have an big nose,
and a wing designed for supercruiser, is stealth ,yes, but mainly by RAM, yes it also have details stealth design.
I don't know you even bother Jetsetter, these guys are not interested in truth - only in slamming the US anytime they can