Thread 64121071

Are slim airframes better?

>>64121071 (OP)
IMPLESSIVE!

>>64121071 (OP)
Are flat bows better?

>>64121071 (OP)
This is a product of Chinese breast envy, the average Chinese breast capacity lags behind America's by at least 30%. I'd go on but I'm not entirely sure if that is a woman who posted that on a second look.

>>64121106
seething janny deleted the thread

I only have a limited amount of fucks to give. Arguing with a political fanatic about aerodynamics is not worth my energy.

>>64121110
based janny cleaning up chinkspam

>>64121071 (OP)
That's just chinese noboobs coping.

>>64121110
Seethe more chinkesoid

>While guns are the primary topic, threads involving any other sort of weapons, from swords and knives to tanks and jet fighters, come up frequently as well.
Why is janny removing this thread? It belongs on this board

>>64121075
>>64121078
>>64121071 (OP)
All of you are insufferable
What happened to talking about weapons on k. Now its just feces slinging and spam on both sides. For shame.

>>64121140
the perils of popularity unfortunately

airspeed actually mattered in the days before beyond-visual-range kills. not so much anymore. there's a reason nothing new has flown faster than the obsolete mig-31 (itself produced over 50 years ago).

>>64121140
I'm sorry your shitty low-effort twitter nobody screencap thread got met with mockery like always. Perhaps you might want to consider making a thread that isn't total dogshit for once?

>>64121071 (OP)
Now as a real and non meme answer slim airframes seem to be a more popular choice for stealth. The f22,j-20,fcas, gcap, kaan, the chinese 6th gens, and the american 6th gen seem to have pretty flat side profiles. This probably indicates that there is some use in keeping it flat, but the f35 will not be flying sideways so all aspect is not going to be required when its job is to fly in and destroy the things that could detect it before it can show its side.

>>64121140
do chinks really think they will have droids like its star wars instead of actually drowning in the sea

The claim that one engine leads to a thicker plane and therefore worse aero is erroneous or at least dishonest.
While one engine might lead to more volume in the vertical plane it also means less volume in the horizontal plane. On a per volume basis a single engine produces more thrust and more efficiently.

So, no, the F35 isn't fat because of single engine, I would guess it had more to do with dimensions constraints like length restriction + capability requirements like internal bomb bay, fuel load etc.

>>64121071 (OP)
>China can't make a decent single-engine fighter let alone anything capable of STOVL
>Here's why that's good.
>By some Chinese girl(?) (guy?)

>>64121155
Year after year you're falling further behind and all you can do is crash out and write implessive

Just increase your manufacturing rate lil bro

>>64121155
>>64121144
Lol im not the BYC spammer. Just dropping my 2cents. No weapons discussions can actually be done on these threads. I contributed atleast 1>>64121158 non implessive post. Maybe if you guys tried this board would be a better place. Ciao this really isnt my board.

>>64121170
>retard doesn't know the history of his own country
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-x.htm

>>64121181
You're getting a cent a post because you're a filthy chink spammer. Vely disnooourableee

>>64121071 (OP)
They basically shit on their own ws-10 and ws-15 engines by admitting that even a single f135 is equivalent to two of them. Now what happens when the f47 is flying with 2 xa102s?

>>64121192
Bro is crashing out again

>>64121204
>Bro is crashing out again

>>64121177
>Just increase your manufacturing rate lil bro
Uh... we did. The F-35 production rate in 2025 is the highest its ever been. Every 18 months we produce as many 5th-gens as China has over the last 12 years.

>>64121195
And that's why the Super Hornet has 1 F119...

>>64121162
They seem to think so and there are already chinese bots being used in ukraine by the russians. Now will they actually be useful in a fight. Remains to be seen. I dont imagine a 3 hour battery life getting anywhere tho.

>>64121071 (OP)
cross sectional area (cord), and the first and second derivatives of it are important to transonic and supersonic drag.

Fundamentally the F35A and C are compromised by sharing an airframe with the B model, whether that has a major impact to the mission effectiveness is debatable.

>>64121188
I'm not seeing anything in that article about China having a STOVL fighter after all

>>64121231
Unlike the US, China didn't gimp their designs by forcing their engineers to comply with the requirement of a CALF program. Btw, that only requirement failed, the F-35B turned to be 30-40% heavier than the specification but the F135 600 improvements couldn't improve thrust in the same degree.

>>64121248
What design?

>>64121248
Vely impleassive. Velah powerfah China with gen 9 fightora

>>64121262
>the stupid VTO PR stunt
That crap has less useful payload than a Harrier II if it's restricted to VTO. It can't even do VL with fuel and weapons, the useful payload is just 1500-2000 kg.

>>64121248
Bruh, I was joking when I posted >>64121170
But here you are actually trying to argue that almost verbatim.
>>China can't make a decent single-engine fighter let alone anything capable of STOVL
>>Here's why that's good.

>>64121299
How much payload can a Chinese fighter carry during vertical takeoff?

>>64121222
what

>>64121308
>why aren't they doing the same stupid mistakes as us

Memeflag /pol/shit (Indian, Serb, or other unwanted) reposted to /k/. Choke on a dick since you clearly like them enough to relate aircraft to "slim" men instead of attractive women.

>>64121071 (OP)
This is a retarded Pierre Sprey era argument.
The X-35 was Slim Amy and could do STOVL. The airframe required changes due to necessary reinforcements, fuel, weapons and cooling requirements.
The fact of the matter is that if you completely 86 the B variant, you cannot make a smaller F-35A and C without severely compromising the range and payload.
>>64121229
But the A and C are not compromised. Again, making a slimmer A and C variant would reduce weapons capacity and range.
People already whine about muh payload with the F-35, and people want to make that problem worse for the sake of improving drag characteristics?

>>64121319
You have saved many face by posting this auspicious comment. Now the fact that
>China can't make a decent single-engine fighter let alone anything capable of STOVL
is indeed a good thing.

>>64121345
>The US can't make a lunar lander in current year
Pretending retardation doesn't make you less retarded.