Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The Bar / Re: Interesting Paul Czysz Interview
« Last post by LowObservable on Today at 05:06:22 pm »
Fascinating stuff. Not that I had not heard it before. I am very familiar with the ESA guy's quote because he said that to me as well (and then denied he had said it, but this kind of explodes that cockamamy story). And the Steve Wurst story... his concept was pretty ambitious and it was hard to make bits of it converge, but it was not fantasy.

Was NASP really a cover for something? That's a long discussion, but NASP was so utterly weird that one wonders.

Also: Some people who make silly comments about methane ought to read this transcript. As should others who make sillier comments about fairytales.
As for a Helo recovery limiting the mass that can be recovered, I thought that as well. But then I thought most midair parachute grabs that have been done in the past have used aircraft, so a C130 or C17 or C5 or even a big Ant would enable quite a heavy mass to be recovered at a reasonable distance. But I wonder what the FAA safety/cert case for this looks like.

I  also think recovery of parachute with a Helo will not be easy. The risk is that the  rotor down draft will collapse the canopy, even a ram air type, just as contact is being made;- just ask anyone whoís flown a parapente in moderatel turbulence.....they fold, twist up into a knot and drop like a stone..... then you cut away to deploy the reserve. I know this has been demonstrated with little canopies and a small Heloís for the Genesis mission (the attempted real recovery failed) so Iím not claiming itís impossible. I might have expected to have seen a practice work up under way.
Propulsion / Re: Mach Effect MEGA Thruster
« Last post by Graham1973 on Today at 03:11:11 pm »
Article on Ars-Technica, which also covers the EM-Drive.  Apologies for the sarcasm.

It was bound to happen eventually. A group of researchers that may actually be competent and well-funded is investigating alternative thrust concepts. This includes our favorite, the WTF-thruster EM-drive, as well as something called a Mach-Effect thruster. The results, presented at Space Propulsion 2018, are pretty much as expected: a big fat meh.
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by Moose on Today at 02:56:33 pm »
Today's Iridium launch from California.
Aerospace / Re: Chengdu J-20 news, pictures, analysis Part III
« Last post by kcran567 on Today at 02:27:14 pm »
Sounds like Pierre Sprey has been visiting India and has a few new followers there (Stealth is a Myth), India PR.

The possibility mentioned that the J-20 had its lens reflector deployed makes sense. Wouldn't Indian operators know the difference? 

Could atmospheric conditions make stealth aircraft more visible (wet, rain), wonder what the conditions were if indeed India was able to track with the MKIs or AWACs. Just putting it out there.
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by Flyaway on Today at 02:04:47 pm »
No, thatís clearly not what I was saying and the histrionic representation of an extreme position reflects poorly on your argument.

No need to project.  I just find it telling that the only people complaining are those who make their scratch by churning out hit pieces on military programs.

Itís a valid question to ask if there is sufficient public (i.e. by the media, by the public and by their representives in public) scrutiny if important

How much of the public is even qualified to form a valid opinion?  Consider how many bought the, "F-35 was slaughtered by an F-16 in a dogfight contest" idiocy.

Yes but youíve always against proper scrutiny of this project. You seem to think that taxpayers should just cough up however many dollars it takes all in defense of excessive secrecy. Or is it the case that the costs wouldnít stand up to such scrutiny. And donít come up with the argument thatís already being scrutinised as thatís no argument at all when itís done behind a curtain.
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by dark sidius on Today at 01:57:23 pm »
Keeping the B-21 in high classified is the better idea possible, national security have no price , and nobody in public have realy a need to know about it. We must wait the roll out it's like that, the B-21 is so important for USAF and futur airpower , we can wait some years .
Early Aircraft Projects / Re: Koolhoven FK.35 as biplane
« Last post by Apophenia on Today at 01:56:53 pm »
Old post, I know, but just to point out that the biplane was not "anther project". The F.K.35 was designed from the outset to be a convertible airframe - able to assembled as either a monoplane or as an unstaggered, equal-span biplane.

A display model was also made of the monoplane configuration equipped with twin floats. Presumably, the biplane could also take a pontoon undercarriage.
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by Flyaway on Today at 01:55:49 pm »
Israel becomes first country to deploy 'world's most advanced' fighter jet amid doubts about funding in UK

Israel says it has become the first country in the world to carry out combat airstrikes with the new F-35 stealth fighter, the advanced warplane that will soon be used by Britain and other militaries around the world.

The UK has committed to purchasing 138 of the aircraft, built in the US by Lockheed Martin, and has so far bought 48 jets at a cost of £9.1 billion. But The Telegraph revealed last week that government is reconsidering its pledge to purchase the remaining 90 because of the vast cost of the £190 million American stealth fighter.

The Ministry of Defence is reportedly thinking of instead about buying European-made Eurofighter Typhoons, which are roughly half the cost of the F-35, and made by a European consortium that includes the UK.

A decision to go back on the F-35 purchases could spark a major row between the UK and the Trump administration, which has made a priority of selling US weapons to American allies.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10