![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ed Rasimus wrote:
"Ed Majden" wrote: In part, I agree but aren't you making an un-fair comparison? Modern electronics give these new aircraft their superior capability. Don't forget that the F-104 was designed with 1950's technology. It's just like comparing TV sets. The old tube designs packed up ever few months where the new solid state types seem to last forever. I think that Rutan was trying to point out that airframe wise, there isn't that much of an improvement with today's designs. He thinks that modern fighters should be much faster and higher performers than they are. The stealth fighter would be impossible to fly without the on board flight control computers that control them. The 104 radar was pretty Mickey Mouse as compared to modern FCS radars. If fitted with an up-dated system it would still be a high performer, at least as good as an F-16 I would think. I would hope that modern aircraft would be more reliable. Any of you pilot types fly both types? Well, haven't you made my argument for me? Rutan was indicated as saying (I didn't see the show, but someone else provided the start of this thread) that there hasn't been much progress in military aircraft since the days of the 104. Here's the quote: He claimed that the large aircraft manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter. He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the past thus holding back aircraft design technology. Well, I think we've done a darn good job with regard to thrust/weight, specific fuel consumption, lift/drag, sustainability of G, agility, reliability, sensors, weapons, integration, security of comm, survivability, ECM, defensive systems, etc. etc. Either the aircraft industry has been remarkably progressive, or they haven't. Can't have it both ways. I agree with your original assessment (e.g: Rutan is full of bovine excretement). We've all heard about Rutan's Voyager that circumnavigated the globe unrefueled back in 1986, however, the record for the world's longest flight in history (64 days, 22 hours, 19 minutes w/o touching the ground) belongs to two men flying the venerable old Cessna 172 back in the 1950's... "To refuel, men in a stake truck would drive a desert road at about 80 mph and, with the plane flying overhead about the same speed, attach a gas line to a rope thrown from the Cessna. The gas would then be pumped, a procedure that took only a few minutes. Those on the ground also would resupply the pilots with food and clothing." With regards to military A/C, you've said it a million times already in your outstanding contributions to RAM. Each one of your posts is chock full of information and you've clearly explained why each successive generation of fighter and attack aircraft has been a vast improvement over the previous generation. Rutan is full of bovine excretement, indeed! -Mike Marron |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
X-Prize is currently live on Discovery Science Channel | Roger Halstead | Home Built | 50 | October 10th 04 11:49 AM |
Letter from Jess Meyers | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 142 | July 21st 04 02:17 AM |
spaceship one | Pianome | Home Built | 169 | June 30th 04 05:47 AM |
Aeronautical Engineering Help needed | Marc A. Lefebvre US-775 | Home Built | 94 | January 11th 04 12:33 PM |
Burt Rutan | Tarver Engineering | Home Built | 0 | August 28th 03 04:15 PM |