Military Aviation > Air Power
Future of dogfighting
Gripen:
Didnt they say nuke subs would never work?
too risky to the crew?
etc etc...
Globetrotter:
well, if you ask me, an aeroplane has much more probabilities to fall than a submarine to "crash". And I think it wouldn't be nice for the people nearby the accident....
Globetrotter:
how could I be soo stupid!
We (Argentina) have already got the solution 8) 8) 8) bio-jet fuel.
Just take a look:
http://www.milavia.net/forum/index.php?topic=751.0
RecceJet:
--- Quote from: Flanker.94 on July 06, 2007, 03:39:09 PM ---I added the UAVs and I restarted the poll.
--- End quote ---
After reading all the views for and against the listed atttributes, I'm still maintaining my opinion of Stealth being the most important. Happy to keep debating it too, hehe ;D
Raptor:
You guys are being too narrow-minded. Think of the possibilities. Forget the fuel. Work on an engine that consumes so little of it it's almost negligible. We could just use hydrogen for the first little take-off, (Adding some lighter-than-air possibilities) and then use the rotary motion on each engine (In twin engs) to power the other. Sure, difficult, and absorbs a lot of power, but you could say have the fuel at only half the original consumption rate.
And what about lift. The take-off stage uses the most fuel, so you get the picture.
bio-jet fuel sounds like a good idea. But eventually you'll use up all that too. Or at least the basic resources... I'm thinking fill up with your evenings trash then use nitrous oxide to burn so hard you have rocket fuel. ;D
Ah, the sub bit. If the sub blows up in the ocean there's a lot less of a chance that nearby folks will get affected. If a plane blows up over NYC all the beautiful irradiated bits and pieces come falling down and everybody dies of cancer.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version