User Panel
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Boeing aerospace engineer here, also a ground combat vet who has seen F/A-18's in action. Do me a favor and just finish your degree and get some experience in the field before you spout your ignorance and give all of us a bad reputation. Why am I wrong? Nice try, but I'm not doing your homework for you. AeroE and I have real work to do. Then why should I listen to you? You're not even trying anymore, kid. Finish your frat rushes and try again in a few years. |
|
Quoted:
You're not even trying anymore, kid. Finish your frat rushes and try again in a few years. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Boeing aerospace engineer here, also a ground combat vet who has seen F/A-18's in action. Do me a favor and just finish your degree and get some experience in the field before you spout your ignorance and give all of us a bad reputation. Why am I wrong? Nice try, but I'm not doing your homework for you. AeroE and I have real work to do. Then why should I listen to you? You're not even trying anymore, kid. Finish your frat rushes and try again in a few years. No. I'm not the one not trying. |
|
|
Correction: the OP is trying - trying very hard to be an arrogant troll. |
|
Quoted:
The Hornet will push through Mach 1 in a combat config no problem under 10,000... I've done it with pylons and externals. Energy addition isn't be greatest, true, but that is only half the equation. Ultimately what matters is the man in the box. Top end speed is overrated anyways, unless you're talking F-22 capability.... and the only jet that can do what the F-22 does is the F-22. My guess is you don't have any fighter time. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low Eta: When I said, "...break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight" I meant, given a normal combat armament and fuel. The Hornet will push through Mach 1 in a combat config no problem under 10,000... I've done it with pylons and externals. Energy addition isn't be greatest, true, but that is only half the equation. Ultimately what matters is the man in the box. Top end speed is overrated anyways, unless you're talking F-22 capability.... and the only jet that can do what the F-22 does is the F-22. My guess is you don't have any fighter time. Did OP reply to this or just totally pretend to not see it. It's funny that when someone says they've done what he thinks the plane can't do, he just pretends it didn't happen. Hey OP, maybe you can make yourself look like more of an ass and try to tell this guy he didn't do it. |
|
Quoted:
Obama has spent the last five years doing his job. Following your logical, that would make any person in opposition to his success detached from reality. I don't accept your reasoning. The F/A-18 does it's job. That doesn't mean that another aircraft couldn't do it better and/or cheaper. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Due to the incessant nagging and condescending implications derived from the many questions regarding my authority to speak on this subject, I feel that I must admit that I am not a member of the military nor am I a mouth-breathing gamer. I am an unemployed full time student in my fourth and final year studying Aeronautical Engineering. So you nothing of actually killing people? So you nothing of written language? I do. The F-18 has spent the last 13 years doing what it was designed to do at a high misson readiness rate, but I guess you have almost graduated so reality does not matter. Obama has spent the last five years doing his job. Following your logical, that would make any person in opposition to his success detached from reality. I don't accept your reasoning. The F/A-18 does it's job. That doesn't mean that another aircraft couldn't do it better and/or cheaper. I don't shit about military planes, but I do know that when a military plane proves to be able to multiple jobs and be reliable at the same time, you got yourself a winner across all fronts and it is not easy to accomplish that. Look at how many aircraft the F/A 18 platform replaced. No more F4 Phantoms, A6 Intruders, F14 Tomcats, A7 Corsairs.... |
|
The OP has entered the Pit Thread ... in a trolltastic manner.
|
|
Quoted:
Nah, you didn't respond to me, but whatever. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Nah, you didn't respond to me, but whatever. I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. |
|
Quoted:
I meant that during initial conception the YF-16 and YF-17 where intended for the same purpose. The F-16 was cheaper, but the Navy insisted on the two engine requirement. <tangent> In the early 70s there was an attempt to modify the F-16 for carrier operations but that fell through mostly because the Navy was already funding the Cobra program.</tangent> Anyway, the F/A-18 was not the only contender in the LWF program and it certainly wasn't the cheapest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-18 Super Hornet has been one of the few success stories in recent US military weapons acquisition. It may not be a master at any single mission, but it performs a variety of missions quite well. And it does so at a price point that is untouchable. Because it is so inexpensive compared to the alternatives, we could buy enough of them to blot out the sun if we wanted to do so. And though it doesn't equal the F-22 or F-35 in many regards, it is still better than anything else we have in the inventory when it comes to multi-role performance. It is certainly good enough and inexpensive enough that we can produce them in the kind of numbers to dominate any potential enemies out there. The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. Please fill in for me when the F-16 became carrier operations capable, and explain to me which F16 is equivalent in that role to the F/A-18. I meant that during initial conception the YF-16 and YF-17 where intended for the same purpose. The F-16 was cheaper, but the Navy insisted on the two engine requirement. <tangent> In the early 70s there was an attempt to modify the F-16 for carrier operations but that fell through mostly because the Navy was already funding the Cobra program.</tangent> Anyway, the F/A-18 was not the only contender in the LWF program and it certainly wasn't the cheapest. The YF-16 and YF-17 were demonstrator aircraft. The difference between the 16 and the 18 goes far beyond having a dual engine requirement. You're arguing with SMEs on something you really don't understand. |
|
Quoted:
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Nah, you didn't respond to me, but whatever. I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. You know what they say about assuming...... Staying for the lulz. |
|
Quoted:
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Nah, you didn't respond to me, but whatever. I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. That was a common misconception about the Baby Hornets about 18 years ago. It was incorrect then, it is still incorrect. |
|
Quoted:
The YF-16 and YF-17 were demonstrator aircraft. The difference between the 16 and the 18 goes far beyond having a dual engine requirement. You're arguing with SMEs on something you really don't understand. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-18 Super Hornet has been one of the few success stories in recent US military weapons acquisition. It may not be a master at any single mission, but it performs a variety of missions quite well. And it does so at a price point that is untouchable. Because it is so inexpensive compared to the alternatives, we could buy enough of them to blot out the sun if we wanted to do so. And though it doesn't equal the F-22 or F-35 in many regards, it is still better than anything else we have in the inventory when it comes to multi-role performance. It is certainly good enough and inexpensive enough that we can produce them in the kind of numbers to dominate any potential enemies out there. The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. Please fill in for me when the F-16 became carrier operations capable, and explain to me which F16 is equivalent in that role to the F/A-18. I meant that during initial conception the YF-16 and YF-17 where intended for the same purpose. The F-16 was cheaper, but the Navy insisted on the two engine requirement. <tangent> In the early 70s there was an attempt to modify the F-16 for carrier operations but that fell through mostly because the Navy was already funding the Cobra program.</tangent> Anyway, the F/A-18 was not the only contender in the LWF program and it certainly wasn't the cheapest. The YF-16 and YF-17 were demonstrator aircraft. The difference between the 16 and the 18 goes far beyond having a dual engine requirement. You're arguing with SMEs on something you really don't understand. Did I say that it didn't? Go read about the LWF and NACF programs. |
|
Quoted:
Did I say that it didn't? Go read about the LWF and NACF programs. View Quote To rephrase -- you implied that the reason we went with the one over the other was because one had dual engines. That's one reason. There were certainly others, but to compare current F/16 and F/A-18 performance and argue we should have gone with the F-16 because it's cheaper now (it isn't, but using your argument) is silly. We don't choose aircraft only by cost -- certainly not carrier aircraft. As you would know if you knew anything about them -- but you don't. |
|
I've never had a problem with Hornets on any of the like 7 or 8 games I've flown them on being turds except for the ones that don't have AMRAAMs not being able to murder multiple targets beyond Sidewinder lock range fast enough
|
|
|
Quoted:
I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Nah, you didn't respond to me, but whatever. I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. So what else have you been wrong about? You're going to graduate? I hope the fuck not. That should be easy information to acquire and you couldn't even do that. Not only did you screw that up, you're a pompous ass and argue with everyone that has real world experience. Tell us and be truthful, how often do you get hung up on a nail by your underwear at school? Boy, yes I'm calling you boy, please have this attitude face to face with someone. Make sure there's video of it so we can see you get bitch slapped the way you've been bitch slapped for 11 pages. I spent 20 years in the mitary, ground pounding but am at my second airline flying. The last thing I want is you having anything to do with any aircraft, anywhere. You're going to have a rude awakening when you finally stop feeding off your mothers boob and get into the real world. You're a parrot with nothing more that a rote understanding of what you're in college for and you have yourself on a pedestal that's only got three legs. I could only hope to be there in person to see it collapse the way your Bs argument about the hornet came crashing down after you finally and barely responded to the drivers. |
|
View Quote Catch the 2 wire on that pass? |
|
Quoted:
Seems like this thread has been a trap from the beginning. http://i59.tinypic.com/2n248qc.jpg View Quote I see what you did there |
|
Quoted:
Due to the incessant nagging and condescending implications derived from the many questions regarding my authority to speak on this subject, I feel that I must admit that I am not a member of the military nor am I a mouth-breathing gamer. I am an unemployed full time student in my fourth and final year studying Aeronautical Engineering. View Quote OP, If you finish school, go find a recruiter and get some time in the field. I don't care which branch, but you'll find spec sheets don't tell the whole story. I've got a BS in Aeronautics and 20 years military aviation maintenance experience, I didn't deal with the F14 but in the Corps the F/A-18 was a welcome replacement for the F-4. The Phantom was a good platform for its day but it took twice the maintainers to keep it up and the Hornet would just outfly it (I didn't say outrun it). My brother was an AT in the Navy and worked on Tomcats, something about being a PITA to keep them flying comes to mind. It was a sad day when I saw some of VMFA-235 old F-4S being converted into drones at MCAS Cherry Point, but I knew it would be good training for our aviators and better to see them go down flying than made into beer cans. Nothing against beer in cans. Old Marine |
|
Quoted:
I remember people like this from when I was active duty Navy: folks with bizarre almost romantic affection for the F-14; and ho-lee fuck did they have it out for the Hornet. The funny thing is none of these guys were ever from, or had ever been in, an F-14 squadron. View Quote Were they by chance F-14 RIOs? You know, the guys that the F/A -18 would make unemployed? I do understand the love for the Tomcat though... and really, much of it had to to with combat radius, and the Phoenix missile. Losing the AIM-54 was a definite reduction in capability. |
|
Quoted:
So what else have you been wrong about? You're going to graduate? I hope the fuck not. That should be easy information to acquire and you couldn't even do that. Not only did you screw that up, you're a pompous ass and argue with everyone that has real world experience. Tell us and be truthful, how often do you get hung up on a nail by your underwear at school? Boy, yes I'm calling you boy, please have this attitude face to face with someone. Make sure there's video of it so we can see you get bitch slapped the way you've been bitch slapped for 11 pages. I spent 20 years in the mitary, ground pounding but am at my second airline flying. The last thing I want is you having anything to do with any aircraft, anywhere. You're going to have a rude awakening when you finally stop feeding off your mothers boob and get into the real world. You're a parrot with nothing more that a rote understanding of what you're in college for and you have yourself on a pedestal that's only got three legs. I could only hope to be there in person to see it collapse the way your Bs argument about the hornet came crashing down after you finally and barely responded to the drivers. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Nah, you didn't respond to me, but whatever. I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. So what else have you been wrong about? You're going to graduate? I hope the fuck not. That should be easy information to acquire and you couldn't even do that. Not only did you screw that up, you're a pompous ass and argue with everyone that has real world experience. Tell us and be truthful, how often do you get hung up on a nail by your underwear at school? Boy, yes I'm calling you boy, please have this attitude face to face with someone. Make sure there's video of it so we can see you get bitch slapped the way you've been bitch slapped for 11 pages. I spent 20 years in the mitary, ground pounding but am at my second airline flying. The last thing I want is you having anything to do with any aircraft, anywhere. You're going to have a rude awakening when you finally stop feeding off your mothers boob and get into the real world. You're a parrot with nothing more that a rote understanding of what you're in college for and you have yourself on a pedestal that's only got three legs. I could only hope to be there in person to see it collapse the way your Bs argument about the hornet came crashing down after you finally and barely responded to the drivers. Don't over estimate your influence. I could not care less what you think. |
|
On a side note, as a guy who knows nothing about aircraft, how viable are the newest F/A 18s with the proposed weapon pods and whatnot that decrease the radar cross section and whatnot?
Obviously, it isn't a raptor...but how viable are some of the efforts to modernize and update legacy aircraft like the Hornet vs buying F35s? |
|
Quoted:
Don't over estimate your influence. I could not care less what you think. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. So what else have you been wrong about? You're going to graduate? I hope the fuck not. That should be easy information to acquire and you couldn't even do that. Not only did you screw that up, you're a pompous ass and argue with everyone that has real world experience. Tell us and be truthful, how often do you get hung up on a nail by your underwear at school? Boy, yes I'm calling you boy, please have this attitude face to face with someone. Make sure there's video of it so we can see you get bitch slapped the way you've been bitch slapped for 11 pages. I spent 20 years in the mitary, ground pounding but am at my second airline flying. The last thing I want is you having anything to do with any aircraft, anywhere. You're going to have a rude awakening when you finally stop feeding off your mothers boob and get into the real world. You're a parrot with nothing more that a rote understanding of what you're in college for and you have yourself on a pedestal that's only got three legs. I could only hope to be there in person to see it collapse the way your Bs argument about the hornet came crashing down after you finally and barely responded to the drivers. Don't over estimate your influence. I could not care less what you think. The part in red: Do you understand where the term "sophomoric" comes from? Tha part in blue: You will. Old guys like us are the ones who do the hiring. Let us know how that works out for you. |
|
Quoted:
The part in red: Do you understand where the term "sophomoric" comes from? Tha part in blue: You will. Old guys like us are the ones who do the hiring. Let us know how that works out for you. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> I was under the impression that the F/A-18 was incapable of breaking mach during horizontal acceleration. I was basing this from a study I did in my second year on the F/A-18B. So what else have you been wrong about? You're going to graduate? I hope the fuck not. That should be easy information to acquire and you couldn't even do that. Not only did you screw that up, you're a pompous ass and argue with everyone that has real world experience. Tell us and be truthful, how often do you get hung up on a nail by your underwear at school? Boy, yes I'm calling you boy, please have this attitude face to face with someone. Make sure there's video of it so we can see you get bitch slapped the way you've been bitch slapped for 11 pages. I spent 20 years in the mitary, ground pounding but am at my second airline flying. The last thing I want is you having anything to do with any aircraft, anywhere. You're going to have a rude awakening when you finally stop feeding off your mothers boob and get into the real world. You're a parrot with nothing more that a rote understanding of what you're in college for and you have yourself on a pedestal that's only got three legs. I could only hope to be there in person to see it collapse the way your Bs argument about the hornet came crashing down after you finally and barely responded to the drivers. Don't over estimate your influence. I could not care less what you think. The part in red: Do you understand where the term "sophomoric" comes from? Tha part in blue: You will. Old guys like us are the ones who do the hiring. Let us know how that works out for you. <inserts condescending reductive generalization> |
|
Quoted: Quoted: ... Nice try, but I'm not doing your homework for you. AeroE and I have real work to do. Then why should I listen to you? lol. you're overacting here. "i am taking classes in order to learn the profession that you guys are already experts in. why should i listen to you experts, anyway?" no sane person is going to ask that, so congratulations for your successful 9 page troll. you got some attention, and even a pit thread out of the deal. had you not overplayed your hand, you probably could have convinced people that you were serious for a few more pages. it was a solid first effort, but you need to work on your stamina.
|
|
Damn. I go away and fly a 4 ship mission for 4 hours, and this thread has blown up.
|
|
OP, I'm no math or engineering genius but I would suggest you ask for your money back from you school for not teaching you this basic tenet.
EVERYTHING that flies is a compromise.......everything. It's not magic (well, except helo's) it's just the way it is. |
|
The F/A-18 series is a fine aircraft for what it was designed to do, be a replacement for the A-7 and F-4, augment "heavier" carrier borne bombers, and augment fleet air defense interceptors. The good news for the U.S. Navy is their acquisition strategy in the 1990s has paid off. They have not needed a true heavy carrier borne bomber nor a real fleet air defense interceptor. The F/A-18 has been more than enough to bomb Third World militaries and terrorist groups. Boeing has done a pretty good job of introducing updates that will allow the F/A-18 to resume its role as a "swing" aircraft after fifth and sixth generation aircraft start coming on line.
|
|
Nobody cares about your opinion, especially when it starts off sounding whiny, complaining, and obviously looking to pick an argument.
|
|
Quoted:
I'm way late to this thread, but one of the OPs entering arguments is way off. The FA -18 didn't replace the F-14, it replaced the A-7. View Quote The Legacy Hornet actually replaced F-4, A-7, and an a few A-6 Intruder in Navy and USMC squadrons. The only Navy F-4 Squadrons it replaced were VF-151 and 161. The only Navy A-6 Intruder replaced was VA-34. The only F-14 squadron to go to Hornets was VF-201, which was a Reserve Squadron. All the rest were A-7 squadrons. |
|
Quoted:
The Legacy Hornet actually replaced F-4, A-7, and an a few A-6 Intruder in Navy and USMC squadrons. The only Navy F-4 Squadrons it replaced were VF-151 and 161. The only Navy A-6 Intruder replaced was VA-34. The only F-14 squadron to go to Hornets was VF-201, which was a Reserve Squadron. All the rest were A-7 squadrons. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm way late to this thread, but one of the OPs entering arguments is way off. The FA -18 didn't replace the F-14, it replaced the A-7. The Legacy Hornet actually replaced F-4, A-7, and an a few A-6 Intruder in Navy and USMC squadrons. The only Navy F-4 Squadrons it replaced were VF-151 and 161. The only Navy A-6 Intruder replaced was VA-34. The only F-14 squadron to go to Hornets was VF-201, which was a Reserve Squadron. All the rest were A-7 squadrons. Sneetches. |
|
|
Quoted:
On a side note, as a guy who knows nothing about aircraft, how viable are the newest F/A 18s with the proposed weapon pods and whatnot that decrease the radar cross section and whatnot? Obviously, it isn't a raptor...but how viable are some of the efforts to modernize and update legacy aircraft like the Hornet vs buying F35s? View Quote If we were to just look at it just from the standpoint of aerodynamic drag, it could well be a benefit. The drag index of external stores, and empty pylons for that matter, racks up quickly. With respect to RCS, who knows. But, again, it is favorable to carrying individual external stores. Range. To match the range of the F-35, the F-18E/F would need external fuel tanks - which reduce max speed and increase radar signature. As much as everyone likes to dismiss the F-35 as a slowpoke, the F-35 can carry 2 AMRAAMs and 2 2000lb class bombs internally, with a max Mach of 1.6M, 700 KCAS. That's superior to the F-18 and F-18E/F, and probably as good, if not better than other 4th gen aircraft. |
|
|
Quoted:
Regards less of your emotions, the F/A-18's only A2A advantage (against the f-16) is electronic. His only hope WVR would be to get the fight slow and horizontal. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
And BTW I have seen the F/A-18 A+ handle a Viper like it was child's play! Regards less of your emotions, the F/A-18's only A2A advantage (against the f-16) is electronic. His only hope WVR would be to get the fight slow and horizontal. 35AOA > 25AOA |
|
Quoted:
The F/A-18 was designed to perform well at low speeds primarily because it needs to perform carrier operations. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, Salmonid, get back in your lane and tell us how or whether the proposed overwing conformal tank might affect transonic/supersonic performance. I'm glad you asked. According to Beoing, the conformal tanks would not cause any additional cruise drag. This was largely true of the F-15 and F-16. Unfortunately you do not have to be a rocket surgeon to see that any additional external protrusion can cause an exponential increase in wave drag during transonic flight (especially during acceleration). In this cause, the CFTs would cause a massive increase in wave drag and exacerbate the already poor transonic performance of an aircraft designed for (comparatively) slow speed stability. Furthermore, the F/A-18 lacks power. The CFTs would only make an already bad T/W worse. Newsflash, low speed stability is VERY important in both dogfights and CAS missions. A very high top speed is only important for two things, getting to the fight, and getting away from it. The F/A-18 suffers a little in top end speed, but once it gets there, it can do its job much better. The F/A-18 was designed to perform well at low speeds primarily because it needs to perform carrier operations. No, it wasn't; in fact, the F/A-18 airframe was designed for maneuverability at high speed. By itself, the airframe is unstable and squirrley as hell, thus the reason for quadruple redundant EFCS, the LEX, and other items. In mech mode, it was only supposed to be able to be directed away from populated areas and then let the pilot eject. Fortunately mech has worked well enough to allow flight to landing on multiple occasions. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
L
Quoted:
I think he's either confusing Helos with bumble bees (which I've seen data that says they shouldn't be able to fly) or he's just remembering some traditional anecdote that get's passed down. Doesn't mean the OP isn't still retarded, if that's the case. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Read very carefully junior...... Just because mathematically something works or doesnt't work and is the correct equations on paper does not mean in a real world application that it will perform as the math equation says. That is what these apples are all about!!! Your proving your ineptitude of reading comprehension with every post. So that is why I didn't quote previous replies. Mathematically a helicopter should not be able to leave the ground based on the varies equations to create lift and thrust and whatever else. But holy fuck me in the goat ass helicopters lift off the ground and do cool shit. Directional drilling with a bent motor requires specific trig equations to determine the amount of inclination(build/drop angle) and azimuth to hit our target. I have been on many wells were my math said to slide 90 right for 6.8 feet and I would buil 2 degrees over 45 feet. Holy fucking shit batman I didn't build any angle and had to resort to triple the length of slide and built only 2 degrees over 96 feet. So college boy, hope that helps you understand your not some genius just because you read something in some bullshit book by some bullshit author who has no real world experience and sits behind a desk their whole lives. This statement is pure retardation; but if I'm not picking up on sarcasm and you're just trolling OP, carry on. I think he's either confusing Helos with bumble bees (which I've seen data that says they shouldn't be able to fly) or he's just remembering some traditional anecdote that get's passed down. Doesn't mean the OP isn't still retarded, if that's the case. He may have been thinking of Hummingbirds, but that doesn't detract from the level of retardation displayed by our own special 14er "aeronautical engineer". This thread had made me really miss CMJohnson. . Sincerely. What ever happened to him? |
|
Holy shit. I only read random posts in this thread but it sure seems to be 100lbs of stupid in in 50lb bag.
|
|
Quoted:
Strange that the OP has chosen to comment on just about everyones post except for the Hornet pilot that posted up, and said something contrary to the OPs beliefs.... As for helicopters, screw the physics. I am a wizard that uses magic and the souls of the vanquished to fly on. View Quote Bullshit. Everybody knows that you turn money into noise, and beat the air into submission. |
|
|
It's not going to happen this thread, but OP is really not going to enjoy his first trip into the pool after graduation. Poor kid might drown.
|
|
Quoted:
And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer If he starts mouth-foaming about the F16A, we'll know it's a cmj retread. |
|
Quoted:
If he starts mouth-foaming about the F16A, we'll know it's a cmj retread. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer If he starts mouth-foaming about the F16A, we'll know it's a cmj retread. He hasn't mentioned turbo-props, so if its my troll account, its pretty low-key. Plus as far as I know the F18 is a pretty good program (my uncle, air force suprisingly, worked F18 program in the late 1970s. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.