• Iran unveils really weird looking fighter jet
    178 replies, posted
[QUOTE=OvB;39445753]also it lacks all-moving wings, even on the Canards. I'd seriously like to see this thing fly, or even get near supersonic. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] Though I'm not an aeronautical engineer so maybe it doesn't need them. I just know that every supersonic aircraft since the Bell X-1 has had them.[/QUOTE] Might not go supersonic, if its cheap enough they would throw some of their oil profits towards buying swarms of cheap aircraft to make up for any loss in effectiveness.
[QUOTE=Apache249;39445757]Fixed canards. That's certainly new to me.[/QUOTE] plenty of aircraft that have canards have ones that don't fully move [QUOTE=OvB;39445753]also it lacks all-moving wings, even on the Canards. I'd seriously like to see this thing fly, or even get near supersonic. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] Though I'm not an aeronautical engineer so maybe it doesn't need them. I just know that every supersonic aircraft since the Bell X-1 has had them.[/QUOTE] yeah, and the control surfaces on the wing itself look oddly small (then again maybe that's just the angle of the photos, there's no proper view from above or anything) engine intakes and nozzle look quite small proportionally to the rest of the aircraft too, compared to other single-engine fighters around
Looks excessively roomey to me as a pilot, most plane designs try to minimize excess space to reduce drag/ raise efficiency
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;39445777]plenty of aircraft that have canards have ones that don't fully move[/QUOTE] On fighters, though?
ew i hope it's just a weird angle and when flying it looks awesome
i'm gonna go with mockup, because there also doesn't seem to be any way to lock the canopy properly
I think it looks kinda cute, like something you'd put in your front lawn. I shall call it froggy!
Bunch of other pics here, [url]http://mod.ir/category/%DA%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%DB%8C-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3/%DA%AF%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D9%87%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%BE%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8A-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%87-%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%B1-313-%D8%A8%D8%A7-%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D8%A6%DB%8C%D8%B3-%D8%AC%D9%85%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1[/url]
[QUOTE=RAG Frag;39445702]Everytime this is said it comes closer to being false, it's just complacent thinking. I'm pretty interested to see if it functions and if the stealth design is just aesthetics[/QUOTE] Well considering the last time they made this sort of great announcement they unveiled a 1940's era seaplane with a machinegun on it, and that this thing looks like a retarded seagull I'm not particularly worried, especially since modern European and American aircraft will still outclass it.
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39445846]Well considering the last time they made this sort of great announcement they unveiled a 1940's era seaplane with a machinegun on it, and that this thing looks like a retarded seagull I'm not particularly worried, especially since modern European and American aircraft will still outclass it.[/QUOTE] well, this looks like what they were going for basically is a sub-sonic, cheap fighter that maybe has some stealth capability it very obviously isn't designed to go up against an f-22 or a eurofighter or something they will probably make a buttload of these if they can
That would be a sight, 5 of these vs. 1 F-22.
The jokers in this thread are forgetting that Iran is big into aerospace and has placed satellites in orbit with a more successful record than South Korea.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39445874]That would be a sight, 5 of these vs. 1 F-22.[/QUOTE] Probably 5 of these. Because at that point, the F-22 is pretty outgunned in terms of just missiles carried. A few misses, and it's down to guns on the last ones.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;39445913]The jokers in this thread are forgetting that Iran is big into aerospace and has placed satellites in orbit with a more successful record than South Korea.[/QUOTE] You gotta give them some credit for their technological steps given all the embargo's and what not because of their controversial nuclear program.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39445926]You gotta give them some credit for their technological steps given all the embargo's and what not because of their controversial nuclear program.[/QUOTE] Ahem. You're thinking of Best Korea. South Korea has launched 3 of its own rockets and is 1 for 3 for successful missions, while Iran is (if US data is correct) 3 for 6.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;39445995]Ahem. You're thinking of Best Korea. South Korea has launched 3 of its own rockets and is 1 for 3 for successful missions, while Iran is (if US data is correct) 3 for 6.[/QUOTE] no I'm thinking of Iran. Also it might not be a mockup, if you trust Iran's state it said it made a flight test.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39446006]Also it might not be a mockup, if you trust Iran's state it said it made a flight test.[/QUOTE] i dunno, i'd definitely say the one in the photos i a mockup a prototype or maybe even a production aircraft may have been flown already, but probably not this one that's not exactly controversial anyway, quite often there are mockups of military equipment used for displaying it
Or it could just be a elaborate hoax. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZxDPK6vDeNI[/url] supposed footage of its first flight, looks shady.. kind of like RC plane footage.
[QUOTE=Falubii;39445512]It wouldn't last very long.[/QUOTE] "it's not a western jet, that means it sucks :downs:"
Does this look strangely small to anyone else? Maybe I'm just used the thinking of massive F-15s and Harriers, but this looks to be as small as a WWII fighter if the cockpit is anything to go by.
[QUOTE=_Kent_;39446184]Does this look strangely small to anyone else? Maybe I'm just used the thinking of massive F-15s and Harriers, but this looks to be as small as a WWII fighter if the cockpit is anything to go by.[/QUOTE] Its about the size of a trainer aircraft.
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;39445913]The jokers in this thread are forgetting that Iran is big into aerospace and has placed satellites in orbit with a more successful record than South Korea.[/QUOTE] South Korea just uses American aircraft in their air force anyway. I'm not sure they're the best measure of aerospace success. edit: forgot about the T-50 This one appears to be based on the Shafaq [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkwLw9lqzXY[/media]
Looks.... nice
This aircraft is so ugly that even Jesus Christ himself would want to destroy it.
[QUOTE=Uber|nooB;39445588]in all seriousness though that's some major anhedral going on at the wing tips, i wonder why they did that[/QUOTE] Makes the system unstable which in turn lets it maneuver better BUT in that case, it's going to need lots of computers to keep it flying.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;39446482]Thank god wars are won by looks these days.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.fototime.com/C83C4651DDEE24D/orig.jpg[/IMG] The morale of these tankers can't be too high! :v:
Looks like a fighter jet from some Gundam anime.
Watch as our trillions of dollars of spending to the military industrial complex get outclassed by Wario's mustache.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;39446482]Thank god wars are won by looks these days.[/QUOTE] They aren't won by looks these days but I'm sure they are won by things that look way better, like: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/F-15_and_F-22.JPG/800px-F-15_and_F-22.JPG[/img] (The one on the right)
This goddamn thread. Most of it consists of "HURRR IT SUCKS LEL XD" How biased retard one can be [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] It's like everything is automatically shit if it isn't produced by NATO countries or Russia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.