J-20... The New Generation Fighter III
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be put in, or they can or cannot. I'm saying one piece isn't easy fabrication, and that not everyone nation as a general statement. Maybe you should read and think what someone is trying to say before typing.
And sometimes not in this case it is cause some nations can't produce it cause their technology standards aren't up to scratch. Sometimes if a nation can make it, its cause they just aren't up to par with others, not that they don't want to.
CottageLV
Banned Idiot
Please use proper English, hard to understand. It was like deciphering the Enigma machine for me.
CottageLV
Banned Idiot
Safety isn't the issue for canopies. Doesn't matter whether if the canopy is one-piece or two-piece, as soon as the bird strikes, it will break. That's a golden rule. Unless you put tank armour on the canopy, it won't be much good.
Plus, who said two-piece canopies are stronger? Think of the canopy as an arched bridge. Do you guys think a half arch is stronger or a full arch is stronger?
And as for F-2 being a low altitude fighter, that's a joke. Even low flying fighters fly at least few hundred meters above the ground/sea level, that is much higher than most birds would fly at. The only time they descend to low altitude is during attack maneuvers or landings. Do you guys really think that a highly trained pilot, worth about 25-50 million dollars, would be stupid enough to not spot a group of birds before making the maneuver? It is a common sense, most bird strikes occur at takeoff and landing. These are almost impossible to avoid for pilots and they are not in their control.
In conclusion, there is no strong proof that single piece canopies are stronger, and even if they are, how often would they be hit? Higher probability than normal planes?
Plus, who said two-piece canopies are stronger? Think of the canopy as an arched bridge. Do you guys think a half arch is stronger or a full arch is stronger?
And as for F-2 being a low altitude fighter, that's a joke. Even low flying fighters fly at least few hundred meters above the ground/sea level, that is much higher than most birds would fly at. The only time they descend to low altitude is during attack maneuvers or landings. Do you guys really think that a highly trained pilot, worth about 25-50 million dollars, would be stupid enough to not spot a group of birds before making the maneuver? It is a common sense, most bird strikes occur at takeoff and landing. These are almost impossible to avoid for pilots and they are not in their control.
In conclusion, there is no strong proof that single piece canopies are stronger, and even if they are, how often would they be hit? Higher probability than normal planes?
Just a point of information: birds where seen by radar approaching Scotland from Iceland flying at 10 km. They were intercepted by aircraft and proved to be swans. A few years later swans were equipped with sensors and radio's and they flew from Iceland to Scotland at about 10 m.
Adding to this canopy issue... Do you really think that it matters a lot whether you have a full arch or a half arch? There is certain limit that is tested by frozen chicken being shot at certain speed and angle... Every plane. But if a plane flies on its average speed there is not much you can do then pray. You cannot spot the bird at that speed so hitting is pretty impossible to avoid when it is in your path. And they do fly on various heights. Not all bird stay at treetops.
The only reason to go for more parts canopy is weight related. You can increase the thickness in front and decrease as much on the top and back. The negative part is that thicker canopy decrease pilot visibility. Maybe they added the one piece also for less RCS from frontal part.
The only reason to go for more parts canopy is weight related. You can increase the thickness in front and decrease as much on the top and back. The negative part is that thicker canopy decrease pilot visibility. Maybe they added the one piece also for less RCS from frontal part.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
No actually, really depends on the size of the bird.
Everyone but you it would seem.
That is completely the wrong analogy. It's basic material science, not structural science.
The joke is that no-one has said anything about the F2 being a low altitude fighter. It is a mainly a naval fighter, and that is why a stronger canopy is a good idea as has already been explained.
Really depends on mission profile. For low level penetration attack runs, it is not uncommon for fighters to drop to below 50 meters for extended periods. Besides, even at a few hundred meters up, there are still plenty of birds that regularly go that far up, and those tend to be the bigger birds that can do some serious damage if hit.
With the speed fighters typically fly at and the size of the birds (ie visual detection range), if a fighter pilot is unlucky enough to have a bird in his path, the chances of him spotting it in time to do much about it is pretty small.
Personally, I find it offensive for someone who obviously have no flying experience to call real pilots 'stupid' because of his own lack of understanding of how things work.
You do realize that just because you personally is unaware of something doesn't mean that something isn't true right?
Just do a quick search and you should find plenty of sources explaining why two-piece canopies are structurally stronger than single piece ones.
MiG-29
Banned Idiot
DIMENSIONS
Length 14.855m (J-7II);
15.591m (J-7C probe bellow the nose intake not the one of the picture);МиГ-21Ф-13 (length:15,76 including probe. 13.46 excludng probe)
14.885m (J-7E probe on top of the nose intake, not like MiG-21F13, on the picture)
both MiG-21F13 and J-7 have lengths of 13.46mtrs excluding probes
Last edited:
So use 13.46 meters without the probe to do the estimate? Go for it. I've done enough of them, so getting kind of sick of these.
EDIT: Decided to do the estimate in the end. 20.2 meters.
Last edited:
- Status