Aiming Steered Missiles-No Fancy Plane Required.

With a missile rack that rotates on horizontal axis (i.e. not in line with the flight path), you are likely to screw with the aircrafts centre of gravity for a start. Secondly, firing a rail launch missile sideways to the flight trajectory? I expect the aircraft would not appreciate this either. Equally firing a drop-and-launch missile at up to 90 degrees frm the flight trajectory would be most entertaining.

Anyway, the thread subject was Aiming Steered Missiles, so I would like to put forward the "pecking pigeon" targetting system as devised during WW2 (I think). I can't find a good link to this but I'm sure one of our more resourceful members could find something to help explain it

[edit on 2/8/2007 by Experimental]

Originally posted by thebozeian
esecallum, where to begin?

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 withmissiles.

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.

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.

LEE.


[edit on 2-8-2007 by thebozeian]

i suggested rotatable pylons...
but u claimed the missile would tumble...

which is nonsense


no no no
you keep changing the goalposts...

first you bought the boulton into it.


when i answered with the lancaster u started lying...
i mean what are those gun turrets for?

decoration?

u ignored and talked about turrets.


then u started talking about complexity...


missiles can be fired from steerable pylons...

MY ORIGINAL IDEA.

u point and shoot from a similar launcher as in a sholder lauch cannister...
a small charge fires it like a bullet...

ON BOATS U SEE MISSILE BATTERIES FIRING AT A TARGET...

ON PLANES U DONT NEED BATTERIES...
THE MISSILES ARE STORED IN LIGHT CANNISTERS..

and you cannot dodge aaf...

its impossible...


by the time u see a bullet

u r already hit...

#
no tumbling...

at all

YOU CAN FIRE A SIDEWAY MISSILE AT HIGH SPEED IN ANY DIRECTION...

Prove that everything you say is possible esecallum because the experts here say it's not possible nor practical.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by esecallum
i suggested rotatable pylons...
but u claimed the missile would tumble...

which is nonsense

So, a missile flying at mach 1.5 perpendicular to the airflow won't get rendered unusable, tumble etc?

when i answered with the lancaster u started lying...
i mean what are those gun turrets for?
decoration?
u ignored and talked about turrets.

With guns it sort of works because nearly all the acceleration of the projectile is in the barrel, so the bullet is going at about mach 3 with about 150 mph to the side, which makes very little difference.

then u started talking about complexity...
missiles can be fired from steerable pylons...
MY ORIGINAL IDEA.
u point and shoot from a similar launcher as in a sholder lauch cannister...
a small charge fires it like a bullet...
ON BOATS U SEE MISSILE BATTERIES FIRING AT A TARGET...
ON PLANES U DONT NEED BATTERIES...
THE MISSILES ARE STORED IN LIGHT CANNISTERS..

And how do they steer? Or don't you need motors, servos etc anymore?

and you cannot dodge aaf...
its impossible...
by the time u see a bullet
u r already hit...

Really? So according to you, virtually every plane used in WW2 should have been hit, since every AA gun should have hit.

#
no tumbling...

at all

YOU CAN FIRE A SIDEWAY MISSILE AT HIGH SPEED IN ANY DIRECTION...

So tell us, how do you know so much about this subject? Are you an expert?







[edit on 3-8-2007 by apex]

when i answered with the lancaster u started lying...

Actually it was me who brought up the Defiant, Lee was agreeing with me, can't you even keep track of who you are speaking to?

Regarding the turrets, as you have already had explained to you, these were defensive positions on large bombers, they were relatively successful on these aircraft because aircraft like the Lancaster were designed to carry heavy loads in a straight line.

Lancasters however, in common with every other turret equipped bomber, WERE shot down in large numbers whenever they encountered small agile fighters because the were still vulnerable. I have press reports from 1939/40 which tell of RAF Wellingtons (like the Lancaster, a turret equipped heavy bomber which was the best in service at the time) fighting off squadrons of attacking Bf 109's with their defensive turrets. The trouble with this was that it was all propagandist nonsense, what the RAF commanders really knew was happening (and what the public learned when the real records were revealed after the war) that these aircraft were being shot down in droves because the powered gun turret was not the miracle defence it was previously held up to be.

Note esecallum, how after this experience (and later with the Lancasters etc) from the Mosquito onwards and right through to the Vulcan and Victor, Britain did not equip any bombers with gun turrets at all.

The reason for this was that steerable defensive guns added weight and complexity whilst reducing performance and made the bomber vulnerable.

Note also that the Lancaster models which dropped the 22,000lb Grand Slam bombs in 1944-45 were completely successful and also carried no turrets other than the tail turret (previous models had three turrets - nose, tail and mid upper).

Now missiles are much heavier and bulkier than guns, also you speak of steerable pylons rather than turrets. Steerable pylons already exist, have done for over 30 years, and are in daily use on the Tornadoes of the UK, Italy, Germany and Saudi Arabia.

The reason for these is because the Tornado is a swing wing aircraft which carries its weapons under the wings, if the pylons did not turn to keep the weapons pointing straight forwards as the wing changes sweep angle the force of the airflow would rip them off and/or make the plane uncontrollable. Yet you are proposing to wilfully steer the pylons against the airflow! Madness.

You want pictures to prove these steerable pylons exist and I am not 'misleading' you?







[edit on 3-8-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by esecallum
look i too can use old aircraft to bolster my postion.

the avro lancaster was hugely successful AND IT HAD 2 TURRETS...

YOU GOT THAT?

2 ANTI AIRCRAFT TURRETS...

and it shot down thousands of nazi planes.

Urm... No. It had three. One front, one rear, one on the top. 1+1+1=3. I can honestly say this because I've spent several weeks working on a lancaster bomber. If you don't believe me, look up the Toronto Aeronautical Museum's restoration of lancaster FM104 (also with some pieces of FM118 which was found after 50 years on a shooting range).

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 surface.

And how much will that system weigh, how much space will it take up? Particularly on an F-35, which is supposed to be rather light.

JUST LIKE THE STEALTH BOMBER which does a very similar thing with missiles.

Review those words and rethink the sentence.

By the way, rotary launch is only used with 2000-lb or nuclear weapons. Not missiles. Research is a good thing.

NO WAY CAN U REFUTE THAT..

Now, I'm really sorry to say this, but here goes: That is the most nearsighted, narrow-minded statement I have ever seen on ATS. Not only are you saying that, which is in and of itself illogical, but you're saying it to an entire group of established members (regardless of who you pointed it at. Say something like that and I'm proud to say that basically the entire team of experts here are against you) who know what they're talking about, and have successfully refuted countless statements in the past. They're in quite good practice, I assure you.

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.

I can only say one thing: This is complete and utter garbage. Accusations like this degrade ATS and if you insult one of the esteemed members of this forum you insult the entire establishment of ATS.

YOU CAN FIRE A SIDEWAY MISSILE AT HIGH SPEED IN ANY DIRECTION...

Yes, you can. Funny thing though, aircraft are designed to fly in a symmetrical, balanced way. If you were to have an external missile pointed sideways, you suddenly have a lot of assymetrical drag on the aircraft. At 500 knots you either a) pinwheel or b) get the missile/pylon/wing ripped off. Neither of these is fun.

And since missiles are poorly constructed for being on an internal carousel it's going to have to be rather external, won't it?

If a mod wants to warn me or punish me in some way because of the words in this post, that's your call. I just felt that something seriously needed to be said here. I'm disappointed that threads with ideas have to turn this way.

Request mod lock/delete to fix the flame war.

There was a Lancaster bomber that came down from a Canadian museum (Forgot which one) that had been restored since the war. I now remember it had one nose turret, mid top mounted turret (my friends took pictures while in it), and a tail turret. It came down to the local airport for an airshow and static display.

It looked like it had 4 Mustangs for engines mounted on the wings.

Shattered OUT...

Esecallum, you have got thought-out, knowledgeable replies from such members as Tom Bedlam, Waynos, Thebozeian and ShatteredSkies, all of whom either work with aircraft or have a great working knowledge of them. Darkpr0 was even involved in the restoration of a Lancaster.

To argue with them is to politely ask a snarling pitbull to move off the footpath. It ain't budgin'.
After accusing these members of being wrong, you are lucky they came back and even bothered to type out a non-rude, factual reply to you.
If you want to get you point of view across, stop attacking established ATS members (i.e, everyone that has so far replied to your thread) and take the time to type out your thoughts in a legiable, researched manner so they don't look like that pitbulls dinner.

Show some respect to these people who have taken the time to respond to your rather naive and rude posts, and then perhaps this thread can move on.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
If a mod wants to warn me or punish me in some way because of the words in this post, that's your call. I just felt that something seriously needed to be said here. I'm disappointed that threads with ideas have to turn this way.

Darkpr0, and for that matter everyone else, if you were censured by mods for saying what you did in such a restrained tone, then I would suggest this sites days were numbered and we would all reconsider our membeship. You are the least of this threads problems.

Request mod lock/delete to fix the flame war.

What, and miss all the fun as esecallum explains his engineering genius and how he also invented the wheel with three sides, lightbulbs and a cat that is usefull for something?

LEE.

Ohh all right I'll bite one more time.

esecallum, either you are suffering from schizophrenia(If this is true then I genuinely feel sorry for you), are deliberately trolling the forum, or are playing a clever game to get attention and more ATS points. If it's the latter two then your game is fast coming to an end my friend. You cannot keep abusing people here, call them liars, and accuse them of saying things they did not say.

Firstly you have been repeatedly asked to put your responses in a CLEAR manner and use standard sentence and paragraphing. If English is not your first language, we dont expect perfection but please try harder or use a service like Babel fish. And please spell the word "I" as an "I" NOT "i", get it?

(Mods please take note, esecallum is frequently using some TXT style abbreviations like "u" and posting pointless large quotes)

And now for what you have said,

i suggested rotatable pylons...
but u claimed the missile would tumble...

which is nonsense

NO, YOU suggested a pop up turret when you were talking to ME. You mentioned the steerable pylon in your first post on page one. You said the following about pop up turrets

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 surface.

Now are you going to accuse me of inventing that? And it isnt nonsense the missile WOULD very likely tumble if fired sideways at high speed if not be ripped apart and possibly the aircraft as well.

no no no
you keep changing the goalposts...

first you bought the boulton into it.

No I didn't waynos did, I merely agreed with him on that word I asked you to look up in the dictionary "ANALOGY". The only person changing the goalposts is you.

when i answered with the lancaster u started lying...
i mean what are those gun turrets for?

decoration?

This statement doesnt even make sense, I never even talked about the Lancaster, you mentioned it in reply to my first post. I didn't discuss it or start "lying" about it.

u ignored and talked about turrets.


then u started talking about complexity...

I didn't ignore you. It was YOU who brought up the idea of pop up turrets and it was YOU who mentioned the Lancaster turrets. And YES I did mention the absurd complexity of YOUR pop up turret idea.

missiles can be fired from steerable pylons...

MY ORIGINAL IDEA.

The only movable pylons are on swing wing aircraft like the Tornado and F-111, and they are designed to always point the pylon and its payload forward regardless of what angle the wing is swept at. The simple reason is that if they didnt and the pylon if it pointed to the side like you suggest, would either rip off in the slipstream or cause the aircraft to loose control because of massive drag. So no it isnt YOUR ORIGINAL IDEA, its already been done but to do the opposite of what you suggest because your idea DOESNT WORK!

u point and shoot from a similar launcher as in a sholder lauch cannister...
a small charge fires it like a bullet...

ON BOATS U SEE MISSILE BATTERIES FIRING AT A TARGET...

ON PLANES U DONT NEED BATTERIES...
THE MISSILES ARE STORED IN LIGHT CANNISTERS...

What would be the point of putting it in a canister that would be at least 10ft long, there are no air to air missiles under about 9ft in length? We don't need them now, how would this be any better? It will still cause massive drag when you rotate it off axis to the direction the aircraft is moving in, and "hey presto" you ripped the pylon or wing off your aircraft or span out of control.

and you cannot dodge aaf...

its impossible...


by the time u see a bullet

u r already hit...

#
no tumbling...

at all

This has got nothing to do with steerable missile pylons or pop up missile turrets. And NO I DIDN'T bring it up or mention it, so why have you put it in a reply to me?

YOU CAN FIRE A SIDEWAY MISSILE AT HIGH SPEED IN ANY DIRECTION...

You need to go back to shool and study basic physics and or talk to someone who understands aerodynamics. You cannot fire a missile sideways at high speed, it will go out of control or be destroyed by the aerodynamic forces involved.

We are all still waiting for you to explain your expertise in this area and why you think you know more than us.

LEE.

Originally posted by thebozeian
What, and miss all the fun as esecallum explains his engineering genius and how he also invented the wheel with three sides,

So THAT'S how those funky cars get their mileage...

lightbulbs

You mean the ones that are being replaced by longer-lasting, and more environmentally friendly ones?

and a cat that is usefull for something?

See the definition on "cat", particularly the section saying that "a cat is a quadruped with no known function. Alterations on the above do not qualify as cats."

This thread is almost as good as that '747 to orbit' one - very very funny with very little actual understanding of any physics!

Please mods, dont lock it, this is hilarious!

Originally posted by thebozeian
You are the least of this threads problems.

Somehow I feel as though my duties have been neglected...

This thread is almost as good as that '747 to orbit' one - very very funny with very little actual understanding of any physics!

If we wanted to see a whole lot of well-informed people placing the truth squarely in front of someone who doesn't seem to have any elementary understanding about what they're doing, we'd be watching and posting about a Bush press conference.

Sorry, had to get that Bush crack in here somewhere.

After accusing these members of being wrong, you are lucky they came back and even bothered to type out a non-rude, factual reply to you.

I feel so left out...

Originally posted by thebozeian
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

As for the rest,



[edit on 2-8-2007 by thebozeian]

look.


i did not inmsult anyone.

an observation is not an insult.

a truth is not an insult unless you you are being incorrect.



you are wrong about a missile tumbling.

the shuttle flies backwards at mach 25.on re-entry.
it turns forwards and at certain times IT IS SIDEWAYS to the flight path at up to mach 25 !!!!!!!.

ALL UNDER CONTROL.

WITHOUT TUMBLING.




i mean an aircraft like a 747 or any other aircraft has a cross sectional area hundreds of time bigger.

flying aginst the wind at the nose.

A MISSILE IS A TINY LITTLE THING.

and it's cylindrical too.

so it's not even a flat surface AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE FLIGHT PATH.

BECAUSE IT'S CURVED!

i write short sentances.



I WRITE THIS WAY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT EASILY.



also a wing can be imagined to be made up of hundreds of missiles at right angles stuck together.

the tornado aircraft proves my point you can have pylons which can turn.

you say you are a designer but you must be over 25 which means you are incapable of fresh thought as your mind would have ossified.

i dare say if you had been alive when the wright brothers flew at kity hawk you would have proved to the world on paper it was impossible.

going back further in time you would said the same thing when the first wheel was invented.

in your own post you proved that missiles dont tumble when you said they have a wide angle of firing.

747 to orbit was based on the fact that any object travelling parallel to the earhs surface at an ever increasing speed would experience a lifting force based on:- a =v squared /r after wing lift was exhausted in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.but you denied that just because you are conditioned.

the 747 to orbit was proved with calculations and equations but again your ingrained prejudices prevent you from

[edit on 3-8-2007 by esecallum]

[edit on 3-8-2007 by esecallum]

I guess no one has sat esecallum down to explain to him the concept of Alpha (Angle-of-Attack)?

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by esecallum

the shuttle flies backwards at mach 25.on re-entry.
it turns forwards and at certain times IT IS SIDEWAYS to the flight path at up to mach 25 !!!!!!!.

ALL UNDER CONTROL.

WITHOUT TUMBLING.

The Shuttle performs its reentry burn and then reorientates while its outside the atmosphere - thats why it doesn't tumble, no opposing forces.

i mean an aircraft like a 747 or any other aircraft has a cross sectional area hundreds of time bigger.

flying aginst the wind at the nose.

Yes, against the nose, not side on to the nose - you need to learn more about structural engineering.

A MISSILE IS A TINY LITTLE THING.

and it's cylindrical too.

so it's not even a flat surface AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE FLIGHT PATH.

BECAUSE IT'S CURVED!

A curved surface presents a greater cross sectional area, so thats most certainly not a good thing in this case.

I WRITE THIS WAY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT EASILY.

Its a pity we can't put advanced physics and engineering in the same manner - you obviously don't understand the realities of the situation here.

also a wing can be imagined to be made up of hundreds of missiles at right angles stuck together.

Again you fail drastically at any semblance of engineering. You can't just keep piling on the weight and cross sectional area onto a wing and expect it to function.

the tornado aircraft proves my point you can have pylons which can turn.

No it doesn't, the Tornado has pylons which rotate only to keep the payload directly streamlined to the direction of airflow.

If anything, the Tornado's pylons disprove you, but I get the feeling you aren't going to accept that.

you say you are a designer but you must be over 25 which means you are incapable of fresh thought as your mind would have ossified.

i dare say if you had been alive when the wright brothers flew at kity hawk you would have proved to the world on paper it was impossible.

going back further in time you would said the same thing when the first wheel was invented.

in your own post you proved that missiles dont tumble when you said they have a wide angle of firing.

747 to orbit was based on the fact that any object travelling parallel to the earhs surface at an ever increasing speed would experience a lifting force based on:- a =v squared /r after wing lift was exhausted in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.but you denied that just because you are conditioned.

the 747 to orbit was proved with calculations and equations but again your ingrained prejudices prevent you from

Ahh you are the same person, I didn't bother to go back and check.

How about you get an education and then come back and discuss this with us - neither your missile theory nor your 747 theory are at all workable.

Firstly thanks Darkpr0 and RichardPrice this is an interesting trip isn't it?
Darkpr0 when you replied this

and a cat that is usefull for something?




See the definition on "cat", particularly the section saying that "a cat is a quadruped with no known function. Alterations on the above do not qualify as cats."

I nearly spat out my late night beer on the monitor and p###ed myself laughing. Maybe it's my non standard sense of humour, but that is quite possibly the funniest post I have come across. Please keep me laughing, it helps me through this thread.And no, the lightbulbs in question are not the eco friendly type, they would be esecallum's special non working type!

If we wanted to see a whole lot of well-informed people placing the truth squarely in front of someone who doesn't seem to have any elementary understanding about what they're doing, we'd be watching and posting about a Bush press conference.

Sorry, had to get that Bush crack in here somewhere.

Since we can't get into the white house this is the next best entertainment.

Thanks RichardPrice for taging me and doing that rebutting job on my behalf. I was getting a bit tired and perplexed by how a member of the flat earth society can continue to deny REALITY.

And now for our esteemed thread starter

i did not inmsult anyone.

an observation is not an insult.

a truth is not an insult unless you you are being incorrect.

...Except when you call them liars.

you are wrong about a missile tumbling.

"wake up everyone, its groundhog day!"

the shuttle flies backwards at mach 25.on re-entry.
it turns forwards and at certain times IT IS SIDEWAYS to the flight path at up to mach 25 !!!!!!!.

ALL UNDER CONTROL.

WITHOUT TUMBLING.

I believe RichardPrice has covered this perfectly well. When it flies backwards in orbit there's no air genius! No air equals no aerodynamic drag, and it performs it's backflip and deburn rentry manouvre BEFORE it hits the earths atmosphere.

A MISSILE IS A TINY LITTLE THING.

and it's cylindrical too.

so it's not even a flat surface AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE FLIGHT PATH.

BECAUSE IT'S CURVED!

Again Richard has covered this well, the reason cylinders dont make good wings is because they create more drag and less lift. Read a book sometime.

i write short sentances.



I WRITE THIS WAY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT EASILY.

If this is writing clearly in short sentences I would hate to see you being unclear. And with this one exception "I" see you are still spelling "I" as an "i". Here at least you are consistent.

also a wing can be imagined to be made up of hundreds of missiles at right angles stuck together.

Yes rather like trying to clutch at a handful of straws.

the tornado aircraft proves my point you can have pylons which can turn.

Please reread what myself, Richard and waynos have said, the pylon is designed to always remain pointing forward for a reason.

you say you are a designer but you must be over 25 which means you are incapable of fresh thought as your mind would have ossified.

I never said I was a designer, but yes I am over 25 so I have learnt a thing or two and am open to ideas that actually work. And I already said I thought of the turret missile idea as a teenager 20+ years ago and it doesnt work! Ossified? esecallum have you been playing in the dictionary again? I told you to look up analogy, not ossify.

i dare say if you had been alive when the wright brothers flew at kity hawk you would have proved to the world on paper it was impossible.

going back further in time you would said the same thing when the first wheel was invented.

Blah, blah, blah... and you would have told them to take off sideways and put a quadruped with no known function in charge.

in your own post you proved that missiles dont tumble when you said they have a wide angle of firing.

I was talking about helmet mounted cueing and high off bore sight axis acquisitions. NOT actually firing the missile side ways. Please take a look at this technology by looking up "AIM-9 Sidewinder" and how they work or similar missiles on Wikipedia, and read the whole thing carefully.

747 to orbit was based on the fact that any object travelling parallel to the earhs surface at an ever increasing speed would experience a lifting force based on:- a =v squared /r after wing lift was exhausted in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.but you denied that just because you are conditioned.

Yes, once again I never mentioned this but by now we are all getting used to your idiosyncrasies. I must say I haven't seen to many 747's in orbit recently, perhaps one day they can join you up there?

Looking forward to your next post, hopefully also based upon your new found set of physics.

LEE.

Originally posted by esecallum
i did not inmsult anyone.

You called at least one person a liar. This is an insult. N'est-ce pas?

a truth is not an insult unless you you are being incorrect.

Oh, goodie ! You seem to be otherwise incapable of denying ignorance. You are refuting valid points with examples that are not clearly explained or well-thought out. See the below point for an example of my own.

you are wrong about a missile tumbling.

the shuttle flies backwards at mach 25.on re-entry.
it turns forwards and at certain times IT IS SIDEWAYS to the flight path at up to mach 25 !!!!!!!.

ALL UNDER CONTROL.

WITHOUT TUMBLING.

It's generally accepted to be a bad idea to refute aerodynamic points with examples in which no air is present. Note the word that usually precedes "shuttle" to see exactly where many of the craft's maneuvering happens, including this stage in reentry.

i mean an aircraft like a 747 or any other aircraft has a cross sectional area hundreds of time bigger.

flying aginst the wind at the nose.

A MISSILE IS A TINY LITTLE THING.

Yeah, but the 747 is moving at Mach 0.7-0.8 (somewhere around there) forward, with maybe up to 40 knots wind at worst from a right angle.

The missile, were it launched directly sideways would have, based on its attitude relative to the oncoming wind, possibly all the way up to Mach 1.5 as a side wind. The force is significantly more. And past Mach 1, you get the problem of air not going around the missile but rather piling up. If the thing isn't ripped apart, it's definitely going to tumble.

i write short sentances.

Your observational abilities do you credit.

also a wing can be imagined to be made up of hundreds of missiles at right angles stuck together.

And in a very convenient aerodynamic shape that is formed such that rather than cause turbulence, the air flows over and reseals the seam formed by the wing without causing turbulence or the following tumbling.

the tornado aircraft proves my point you can have pylons which can turn.

Yes, but they never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever point the missiles sideways. Ever. I'm just speaking from a position outside the know, but there may or may not be a somewhat valid reason behind this. Then again, they might just be too lazy to give it a try.

you say you are a designer but you must be over 25 which means you are incapable of fresh thought as your mind would have ossified.

If you want someone capable of fresh thought, I'm 17, and have worked beside my uncle who works for Pratt and Whitney as an engineer. Not only this, but I've been studying my arse off on aircraft of all kinds to move into a field of aeronautical engineering.

You want to talk fresh ideas? If you so desire, once this discussion is finally worked out, I'll submit an idea of my own that has been boiling around in my brain to demonstrate proper procedure here. Da?

in your own post you proved that missiles dont tumble when you said they have a wide angle of firing.

They're launched forward and through some magical, fairy-tale means change their direction while in flight in such a way that they don't tumble. Maybe this is due to the presence of large complicated microchips inside things like the aircraft from whence it was launched as well as the missile itself.

the 747 to orbit was proved with calculations and equations but again your ingrained prejudices prevent you from

Originally posted by esecallum
i did not inmsult anyone.

See the definition of "contradiction" for further clarification.

I nearly spat out my late night beer on the monitor and p###ed myself laughing.

It's what I do.

Also, if you want this combined with a factual reply, say something nasty about a Su-27/30/33/34/35/37/etc. THEN I have my fun

[edit on 8/5/2007 by Darkpr0]

[edit on 8/5/2007 by Darkpr0]

[edit on 8/5/2007 by Darkpr0]

Hmmmmmmm.

Flying the aircraft in a straight line and pointing the missiles sideways....

Pointing the missiles sideways is imposible and many ATS "brothers" have already debunked this myth off pointing the missiles sideways because they will just blow up in a thousand peices because off the wind pressure.

Letting the aircraft fly in a straight path is nowaydays the most suicidal idea ever!!

Just imagine the ease off the Falcons/Eagle`s/(S)Hornets/Flankers/Fulcrums off shooting this aircraft down with such a ease that the pilots only need to know how to fly and shoot the missiles and then you would see those straight flying aerocraft plunge down like rain in a monsoon.

Originally posted by Darkpr0

It's what I do

.

And for someone 20 years my junior (physically perhaps? not mentally ) you do it with an exceedingly dry, mature wit. This is important, as it's the number one requirement if you want to become an aircraft engineer.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Also, if you want this combined with a factual reply, say something nasty about a Su-27/30/33/34/35/37/etc. THEN I have my fun

I would never bag the Flanker family anymore than I would any western aircraft costing 2/3 times as much. In fact if fitted with western engines and avionics I believe they would be superior to anything bar the Raptor. However given that this been such fun we have been having, maybe I should just tell you they are crap anyway. That way we both get what we want.

LEE.