esecallum, where to begin?
Firstly your posts, would you please put your comments into good old fashioned sentence and paragraph form. Your writing's and therefore you’re
meaning, are difficult to understand and disjointed. The word "I" is a first person pronoun, it is meant to be used in capital
highlight that the speaker is talking for themselves, this is not a teenagers mobile phone text message so please use correct English to be understood
As for the rest,
i am afraid you are totally wrong.
How so? You make a statement and then don't indicate what you mean.
the complexity you mention is absurd.
the f35 for example has a huge fan for vtol lift...
including the complexity...
Really? And do you know how much it is costing to develop the F-35B lift fan so that it will be reliable
?... Billions is the correct answer.
the missiles are simply put into a disc shaped turret.
to fire one the disc shaped turret pops out for 1 second shoots the missile at the target and pops into the airframe flush with the
NO! it isn’t simple to put into a disc shaped turret. This would require a totally new airframe design. It would be almost impossible to modify
existing airframes to accommodate this. It would require you to cut a huge circle at least 10 ft across, more or less in the centre of the aircraft
and at least several feet deep to fit your mechanism, umbilicals and drive motors. Where do you intend on putting the fuel, engines and structural
load bearing members like the wing carry through spars/box? The only aircraft with something like this already designed into it is the F-35B. And as I
said given that there are virtually no air to air missile designs much under 9/10 ft in length, even short range ones, you are going to end up with
one VERY large diameter turret that will weigh with all its power accessories an awful lot.
JUST LIKE THE STEALTH BOMBER which does a very similar thing with missiles.
The B-2 uses a ROTARY launcher in an internal bay, NOT your turret. It is also able to do this because it is a bomber, much larger than a fighter and
the internal weapon bays are therefore able to be very large indeed.
NO WAY CAN U REFUTE THAT..
I wasn't refuting the B-2 rotary launcher YOU brought that up. But I DID just refute why a turret type launcher won’t work on a fighter.
My objections are not spurious
i fear the reason you are making spuriuos objections is simple envy.
you did not think of it first so you try to dismiss the idea.
when everyone has forgotten then you will claim the idea as your own...
i find that morally reprehensible.
, they are engineering FACT. Your
idea is the spurious suggestion here. And as a matter of fact yes I did
think of it, about 20+ years ago as a teenager. And I think you will find that lots of other people both professional and amateur have as well. Matter
of fact I am willing to bet that most teenage boys who are military aircraft technology enthusiasts think of this idea. However they quickly realise
as they get older or become engineers themselves that it isn't practical. Don’t worry I won't be claiming this idea, you are NOT the first person
to think of this idea esecallum, so maybe YOU should stop claiming it as your own. I would also point out that some of the people you have been
arguing with here ARE actually engineers and DO know what they are talking about. So what did you say your credentials were again?
[edit on 2-8-2007 by thebozeian]