@edensk yeah ik the engines could never get there, but im saying it would have diff engines just saying the route he took was different than i would expect but its cool
Very good design! I especially like the engine design although with engines this size I would imagine it could get supersonic but they are only turbofans so it is a bit confusing. Subsonic high efficency makes sense but more than likely irl it would be supersonic at lower payloads and with a shorter range kind of like the a-6, but its a different way to go i guess and thats what makes it cool!
i agree with @SodiumIodide about some things being misrepresented, it seems you talk down a lot on the F-35. regarding information collection, wikipedia states only public values for certain variants and therefore is not very reliable. True speed of aircraft and other values are usually hidden from the public as much as possible. Another thing needed to truly gauge an aircraft is how it is used which also seems to be missing here. Its not that you didnt use facts, you did with some inaccuracies , but you left out a lot of key information as well. @CharlesDeGaulle
and guys lets just all agree that clearly the potato is better than all of these. i mean the potato almost killed off an entire country, i dont think any plane has done that exception b-52
actually advanced IR missiles like the AIM-9X Block II also have optical tracking combined with IR so it could still shoot it down that way. dont forget radar guided missiles as well as this aircraft is sure to have a large radar signature. i bet at close range you could still get an AIM-120B on target @X4JB
yes ships do have s band radar but again that gets a detect not a track you cannot launch missiles on a detect only. it effectively turns the radar into a advanced warning system diminishing most of the danger for the F-35. @CharlesDeGaulle
and another few things
1. the F-35 actually does have a good turn rate the poor dogfight performance is more myth than fact
2. the F-22 is more maneuverable than the rafale (the published numbers do not reflect the upgraded FCAS turn rates in the raptor)
3. carrier compatibility doesnt really mean much in terms of fighter performance and the quality of the airframe the exception being the F-35C and F-35B vs the F-35A model since the B and C have different kinematics and are heavier and more expensive than the a model
I also noticed you pointed out the rafale could detect the F-35 on its radar, when in reality the F-35 has only been detected (not tracked) by long band radar. The rafale like all other fighters have short band. Even if it was detected, the radar would only give a general direction of where the plane is and you could not get a track or a lock. IRST on the other hand could detect an F-35 from a side or rear aspect or even a front aspect depending on how fast the F-35 is going. Even if the IRST gets a track at long-range any radar-guided missiles would be useless because when they go mad dog they would not detect the F-35 or they would easily be duped by countermeasures. Any IR-guided missiles would only be fired within around 10 miles so any long-range track with the IRST would be useless.
You said stealth isn't important and I must disagree, not being able to get a track on a plane is very important combat point. If he can fire a missile at you from 20nm and you can only fire from 10 you are at a great disadvantage. I hope you found this information useful and if you have any further questions i would be happy to answer them for you. :)
Just as a reference point, the F-15EX is powered by two GE-110s which each produce 29000lbs of thrust the Rafale has two engine with 17000lbs of thrust. While the F-15EX is substantially heavier it still has the possibility of beating the rafale. Especially since the engines are brand new and the readings of lbs of thrust are normally much lower than the actual on newer engines
@BaconAircraft thnx
@realSavageMan oh cool lol
@Kangy thnx :)
+1@CoolPeach thnx man
@realSavageMan WSU in Kansas
@realSavageMan
@Krmo
@ChiChiWerx
@asteroidbook345
WaRcRiMe
lol @asteroidbook345
absolute horse shit buddy
+1so uh that first picture actually violates site rules 😐
tracks, weve been asking for years
+20did you say lynx Arma 3 PTSD kicks in
+1lighter and turn down the shininess a bit
@edensk yeah ik the engines could never get there, but im saying it would have diff engines just saying the route he took was different than i would expect but its cool
Very good design! I especially like the engine design although with engines this size I would imagine it could get supersonic but they are only turbofans so it is a bit confusing. Subsonic high efficency makes sense but more than likely irl it would be supersonic at lower payloads and with a shorter range kind of like the a-6, but its a different way to go i guess and thats what makes it cool!
+1this is not ok buddy you didnt even change anything
yeah! i love the way you made the wings btw rlly good job! @RachelGardner
really good job especially on the wings and the flight model certainly got some attention. I love it! keep it up!
so in theory one could do this...
https://memeguy.com/photos/images/-ikea-362747.jpg
cool
rlly good job!
perfect. seriously one of my favorite builds
@Thecatbaron visibly turned on lmao lets go
unpopular mechanics 😂😂😂😂
+5whoa nice
you said yall
😳
IM POOR I SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING THIS WITH SOME OF MY 3D MODELING STUFF!!! UGWY BUDBGSAKDNGFJAKDJMAI
lmao we could have been making money this whole time
nvm i got it. looks like a ton of bogdan stuff and some asteroidbook and a lot of other low part count stuff
im sure the team at jundroo is working on obtaining an ip and lawsuit or at least a cease and desist order
me and the bois going to pick up our variable intake ramp F-15s and nukes
+1because pencil sausage.
pin it
im confused whats going on?
+1i agree with @SodiumIodide about some things being misrepresented, it seems you talk down a lot on the F-35. regarding information collection, wikipedia states only public values for certain variants and therefore is not very reliable. True speed of aircraft and other values are usually hidden from the public as much as possible. Another thing needed to truly gauge an aircraft is how it is used which also seems to be missing here. Its not that you didnt use facts, you did with some inaccuracies , but you left out a lot of key information as well. @CharlesDeGaulle
+1so its a military cargo/resupply ship
+1no i didnt ask for that @X4JB
for u to be cringe and to make a joke that no one laughed at? @X4JB
+1and also as we have see in the past few days plane= hate crime
so yeah
ah yes a key piece of information @frame
see a potato almost wiped out a whole country
no plane i know has done that 😂
and guys lets just all agree that clearly the potato is better than all of these. i mean the potato almost killed off an entire country, i dont think any plane has done that exception b-52
+2actually advanced IR missiles like the AIM-9X Block II also have optical tracking combined with IR so it could still shoot it down that way. dont forget radar guided missiles as well as this aircraft is sure to have a large radar signature. i bet at close range you could still get an AIM-120B on target @X4JB
i hope this turns into a joke and not drama 😂
+1and clearly potatos are the meta in the aircraft game just put one in any engine and boom 😂
very well put @Kangy
+1yes ships do have s band radar but again that gets a detect not a track you cannot launch missiles on a detect only. it effectively turns the radar into a advanced warning system diminishing most of the danger for the F-35. @CharlesDeGaulle
and another few things
+11. the F-35 actually does have a good turn rate the poor dogfight performance is more myth than fact
2. the F-22 is more maneuverable than the rafale (the published numbers do not reflect the upgraded FCAS turn rates in the raptor)
3. carrier compatibility doesnt really mean much in terms of fighter performance and the quality of the airframe the exception being the F-35C and F-35B vs the F-35A model since the B and C have different kinematics and are heavier and more expensive than the a model
@ChiChiWerx howd I do? lol
I also noticed you pointed out the rafale could detect the F-35 on its radar, when in reality the F-35 has only been detected (not tracked) by long band radar. The rafale like all other fighters have short band. Even if it was detected, the radar would only give a general direction of where the plane is and you could not get a track or a lock. IRST on the other hand could detect an F-35 from a side or rear aspect or even a front aspect depending on how fast the F-35 is going. Even if the IRST gets a track at long-range any radar-guided missiles would be useless because when they go mad dog they would not detect the F-35 or they would easily be duped by countermeasures. Any IR-guided missiles would only be fired within around 10 miles so any long-range track with the IRST would be useless.
You said stealth isn't important and I must disagree, not being able to get a track on a plane is very important combat point. If he can fire a missile at you from 20nm and you can only fire from 10 you are at a great disadvantage. I hope you found this information useful and if you have any further questions i would be happy to answer them for you. :)
Just as a reference point, the F-15EX is powered by two GE-110s which each produce 29000lbs of thrust the Rafale has two engine with 17000lbs of thrust. While the F-15EX is substantially heavier it still has the possibility of beating the rafale. Especially since the engines are brand new and the readings of lbs of thrust are normally much lower than the actual on newer engines