CLEARANCE: Top Secret
- Jan 2, 2006
- Reaction score
What other UCAVs have afterburners?totoro said:now that i think of it, some other ucav demonstrators have afterburning engines installed but no one talked about their potential supersonic use. Does afterburning engine automatically mean the whole aircraft is designed for supersonic flight? If not, why use afterburner at all?
It isn't supersonic. It's too short. It would have serious wave drag issues and control issues.totoro said:now that i think of it, some other ucav demonstrators have afterburning engines installed but no one talked about their potential supersonic use. Does afterburning engine automatically mean the whole aircraft is designed for supersonic flight? If not, why use afterburner at all?
It seems I read alternating news storiessferrin said:I guess security in the West is just another "quaint" idea consigned to the dustbin.
I do have an idea of whether or not it's supersonic; it isn't. As for the afterburner, you just have to pull the flame holders and spray bars out. As noted up thread, it's an existing engine. They aren't going to make too many mods to the engine just to get an aerodynamic developmental prototype flying.totoro said:i have no idea if the aircraft is supersonic. but i am wondering what do non-afterburning engines used in combat planes look like? how do their nozzles look? does anyone have some images? (the ones i managed to google are quite small and not detailed, but it seems such engines don't really have nozzles like this, but have simpler nozzles)
IF the engine is afterburning one, it wouldn't be a simple switch to non afterburning one. we're talking a 1 to 1,5 meter longer/shorter engine, a few hundred kilos more/less and center of gravity of the whole plane being pushed back, compared to plane with a non-afterburning engine.
pretty much all planes are designed around the engine requirements. some planes did have different variants of engines installed but i can't think of many (any?) examples where nonafterburning engine was switched for an afterburning one, let alone vice-versa. Can someone list a few of such examples?
Afterburner, subsonic: North American F-86D, Lockheed F-94C. This is just from memory, there might be more examples.totoro said:so what other aircraft, demonstrators or not, have ever been installed with afterburner but were not capable of supersonic flight? and what other aircraft had, at any point during their lifetime, changed their engines from afterburning one to a non afterburning one?
Am i imagining things, or are you measuring "lethality" on choice of paint?Vahe Demirjian said:Sharp Sword looks to be a lethal drone compared to the X-45 and X-47. If the X-45 and X-47 are painted dark gray, why did the Chinese decide to paint the Sharp Sword black and not dark gray?
On another question, isn't the Sharp Sword suitable for both land and carrier operations?
I think YES ! At least YOU seem to be.don't have them on video stealing CATIA files we've sunk to the level of Kemag when it's as obvious as the sky is blue? Okay. . .
Is there any evidence that the afterburner is NOT operational? Did they just ditch the afterburner and slap the nozzle on the end of a shorter engine? And why would nozzle setting on a stationary aircraft determine anything anyway? And I don't believe anybody has said anything about copying being good/bad, just that it makes things easier. Theft on the other hand is completely worthy of condemnation. YMMV.chuck4 said:Leaving the charming digression about whether it speaks well or ill of the chinese to avail themselves of good defence ideas where they find them (Speaks very well of the right sort of hubris that doesn't go to their heads, unlike the wrong sort sometimes exhibited on this board, IMHO), I just like to ask why does the engine nozzle on that drone look like it is in full open, after burner position if it is only capable of dry thrust?