[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

/k/ Weapons

Warning: All the content of this page originally come from 4chan.org. This is only a partial archive made to avoid destruction. Some posts and images may be missing. All the messages below have been posted by anonymous users and we do not guarantee any truth of what they said.
For any illegal content, please contact me so that I can immediatly destroy it!

Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:12:50 No.27664931

[Missing image file: ]

What is the best fighter plane if we're talking purely about turning? Which fighter has the best turn radius?


>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:14:23 No.27664942
>>27664931
>What is the best fighter plane if we're talking purely about turning? Which fighter has the best turn radius?
One of the Sukhois with 3D thrust vectoring... say Su-30. Those things can turn o an dime.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:16:32 No.27664967
>>27664942
The F-22 has thrust vectoring too, although its only 2D.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:17:59 No.27664977
>>27664942
In terms of sustained and instantaneous turn rates the F-16 is the best in the world. Higher thrust to weight ratio and more G available than any flanker or fulcrum.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:18:08 No.27664983
Su-35 probably, T-50 would be the progression of that I guess

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:19:00 No.27664989
>>27664977
Which is why people shouldn't freak out if an F-16 can beat an F-35 in certain regimes of flight. It's world class.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:19:31 No.27664993
the one without a pilot

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:19:43 No.27664996
>>27664942
>>27664967

I know what thrust vectoring is, but what is the difference between 2D and 3D?

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:26:57 No.27665051
>>27664977
b8, the MiG-29M has a higher T/W than the F-16 and the F-22 is even better than that.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:28:28 No.27665064
>>27664996
2 dimensional, 3 dimensional. Also TVC doesnt necessarily turn better than a tradional fighter. More often than not they're actually quicker to bleed energy as they cut more into the turn. The real benefit if TV in a fight is better stall recovery and retaining control at high AoA. But a good pilot knows riding stalls and bleeding E is a bad thing.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:28:48 No.27665067
>>27664931
High or low speed?

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:29:10 No.27665072
>>27665051

I know that Thrust/Weight is a good way to estimate maneuverability, but it isn't an exact measurement.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:29:37 No.27665077
>>27664996
>I know what thrust vectoring is, but what is the difference between 2D and 3D?
It comes down to the available degrees of freedom (DOF). 2D refers to single-axis only (either pitch or yaw but not both). 3D is true multi-axis or pitch and yaw control at the same time.

That's how flight instructors explained it to us anyway.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:34:09 No.27665112
If I had to guess, i'd say something like the Su-47 or some other obscure technology demonstrator.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:34:44 No.27665119
>>27664967
>>27665064
>F22 TVC is 2D
What, do they do a differential between the nozzles to help with roll?

Yaw TVC is pretty worthless for an aircraft btw tbh fam

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:34:56 No.27665123
>>27665077
Can't you achieve 3D thrust vectoring with a 2D system like the raptor by literally controlling engine thrust?

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:35:15 No.27665129
>>27665112
Well you would guess wrong since the Su-47 is terrible

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:35:57 No.27665136
>>27664931
>What is the best fighter plane if we're talking purely about turning?
Fokker Dr.I

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:36:10 No.27665139
>>27665067

Both. We've have three categories:

1. Best Slow Speed Turner
2. Best High Speed Turner
3. Best Turner Overall

For number 3, let's aim for a speed envelope of Mach 0.6-1.6 because I read that is the speed zone where most aerial combat actually happens.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:36:46 No.27665146
>>27664996
2D vectors in two dimensions. Up/down, left/right. 3D vectors in all directions; pitch/roll/yaw/whateverthefuck.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:37:55 No.27665159
>>27665139
Alrighty, I assume we have to exclude the raptor as well then.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:38:51 No.27665166
>>27665159

Why would we exclude the Raptor?

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:39:16 No.27665172
>>27665139
>Mach 0.6-1.6 because I read that is the speed zone where most aerial combat actually happens.

1. You read wrong
2. Turning of any kind, i.e. an actual dogfight, bleeds speed, a true turning fight will have both aircraft flying slower than 400mph

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:41:55 No.27665203
>>27665129
Yes, it's a trash airframe, but the OP asked which has the tightest turning radius. I'm fairly sure the Berkut would be near the top.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:42:43 No.27665208
>>27665172

We're not talking about dog-fighting. Just pure turning. This isn't about what fighter is best overall, because we all know that is the F-35. We're just talking about what can make the tightest turns.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:42:55 No.27665212
>tightest turning radius
>says nothing about speed

It'll be some shitty biplane.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:43:51 No.27665222
>>27665123
Not really since you're missing degrees of freedom and you must supplement it then with aerodynamic control surfaces, such as ailerons or elevator. However, even then some orientations will not be possible directly from the initial position and will require you to execute several different maneuvers to arrive at the desired position. That takes time & space.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:44:05 No.27665224
>>27665166
Because it automatically wins in all categories?

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:44:25 No.27665228
>>27665212

valid, thread's over.

and i'm disappointed none of you said "it depends"

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:45:38 No.27665240
>>27665224

>Because it automatically wins in all categories?

There is nothing wrong with that. If the F-22 is best at all speeds, then so be it. But how do you know?

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:51:01 No.27665278
>>27665228
>>27665212

Okay then, revised three categories.

1. Slow (Less than Mach 1.0)
2. Moderate (Mach 1.0-2.0)
3. Fast (Above Mach 2.0)

Forget about this: >>27665139

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 04:57:13 No.27665342
>>27665212
Jetshitters can't handle my turns

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 05:45:40 No.27665780
>>27665208
>We're not talking about dog-fighting. Just pure turning.

And pure turning, apex corner speed, will be <400mph, genius

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 05:47:17 No.27665794
>>27665203
>fairly sure the Berkut would be near the top.

And you'd be fairly wrong

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 05:49:47 No.27665825
>>27665278

yeah those are all ridiculous speeds.

slow would be like 150-200 knots, medium 200-400, fast 400+ knots. a fast fight would get to a slow fight within about 6.9 seconds. at slow it doesn't really matter the Hornet wins with its crazy high alpha at low airspeed performance since both jets have one good jink left anyway.

the winner gets blown out of the air by an AMRAAM or an Adder anyway since they've pissed away all their knots.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 05:51:22 No.27665843
>>27665278
>turning
>above mach speed

Just give up, you guys literally know nothing about physics and acm, honestly aviation threads should be banned

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 05:53:59 No.27665864
>>27664931
A helicopter.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 06:07:25 No.27665999
>>27665136
best answer, could turn tight as virgin.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 06:12:09 No.27666034
>>27664931
>¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 06:12:43 No.27666042
>>27665864
this

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 06:15:15 No.27666063
At hat speed?
At 60 knots indicated, a piper cub can circle inside a football field. At the same speed, an F16 falls out of the sky.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 06:38:44 No.27666230
>>27665342
>Jetshitters can't handle my turns

Brrrt Brrrt brrrt

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 06:44:18 No.27666267
>>27666230
If that's supposed to a reference to the A-10 it has a shit turn radius too.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 08:48:34 No.27666860
An I-153 Chaika. You never said modern fighter.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 08:52:59 No.27666874
>>27666860
>I-153 Chaika

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 09:26:07 No.27667011
>>27665342
Do tell sir.

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 09:42:57 No.27667076
F/A-10

>>
Anonymous 2015-10-23 11:52:07 No.27667457
>>27664931
Su-37







[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

Contact me | All the content on this website come from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Dofus quêtes

Page loaded in 0.021768 seconds.