Nied

Yeah discussions like these are why the internet invented the "Not this sh*t again" guy. In addition to what you mentioned I'll add that the life cycle costs and maintenance/uptime features the Super Hornet are vastly better than any of the Super Tomcat proposals out there (remember kids, an aircraft that's in the hangar for an overhaul is an aircraft that isn't dropping bombs or protecting the fleet).

Well if the reactor is fusing air sucked into the intakes, the weight of the fuel isn't important since it's pulling it from the outside. A hotter reaction isn't really a bad thing when your entire engine design is based upon heating air for reaction mass. Hell that might explain why the YF-19 and YF-21 have issues with overheating in an atmosphere.

I think we have a good candidate for a reaction mass/fuel: Half empty cans of beer.

All you need for fusion is to push the nuclei of two atoms together with enough force to overcome their electrostatic repulsion and they fus in to one larger atom. Stars do that with such an overwhelming amount of mass that their atoms are literally crushed together by the sheer mass of the material above them. You can also do this with intense heat (the method used in a hydrogen bomb), powerful magnetic fields (like are used in many modern attempts at fusion power, and most likely what are used in TNTs), even (theoretically) ultrasonic soundwaves.

Thermonuclear refers to a very specific type of fusion reaction, so it's at least clear that a TNT is based around some form of hot fusion reaction. There are official cut away diagrams of the Valkyrie's FF-2001 turbines that show what looks like a tokamak toroid within the engine. I've gone back and forth on this but one possibility is that OT allows for fusion reactors efficient enough to get a net positive reaction out of heavier elements like Carbon Nitrogen and Oxygen. If that's the case a TNT powered aircraft could just divert part of the air being sucked into the turbines to the reactor to undergo fusion, giving it the effectively unlimited range listed in various sources. It would also allow it to "burn" whatever reaction mass you toss in to the fusion reactor.

It's not hard to separate hydrogen from water through electrolysis, the left over oxygen could be shunted to the pilot's life support system or into the engines as extra reaction mass. I imagine that in most situations the engines wouldn't use the fusion plasma for direct thrust at all, rather a heat exchanger would superheat the reaction mass (air in the atmosphere, water in space) which would then go out the back as thrust. Actually that might be how the afterburner setting works on a thermonuclear turbine: under normal thrust levels the engine uses a high efficiency heat exchanger to superheat air/water for thrust, but when the afterburner setting is engaged raw plasma from the fusion reactor is dumped into the stream as well bumping up the heating effect further.

Word from within Boeing is that they've been in "Bataan Deathmarch" mode for a good year now trying to get it up and running, with no real end in sight.

And now a blackhawk is buzzing around my office near Pac Bell Stadium. I haven't seen this much military hardware in the skies over SF since fleetweek!

Aerobatic performers hanging mid air on their props has become downright commonplace in performances. Especially with the combination of immense power and lightweight construction you see on a lot of newer aerobatic planes. Look up videos of any of Sean Tucker's performances for a good example of the type of aerodynamics defying stuff you can do with a modern aerobat.

I really should have known I'd get that answer...

Any Bay area MWers have any idea why an F/A-18 would have been buzzing around over Alcatraz last Thursday?

Man I love Faux news. They go out of their way to make the pilot sound like an idiot who totaled the jet, when in actuality it's a fairly common accident and most likely the plane will be repaired and put back in service in no time.

Gah! That reminds me, I have work to do...

They put enlarged wingroots on the Super Gripen and used them to house re-designed maingear and fuel, and then stuffed more fuel in the cavity opened up by moving the gear out. It also frees up enough room under the belly to replace the centerline pylon with two. Looking at some of the other roll out photos on Saab's website it looks like this is the full Super Gripen package, structural improvements and all.

I can't tell from the photos but does this one have the new wingroots/main gear Saab had proposed for the Super Gripen or are they just demoing the new engine and NORA?

Speaking of which. The latest issue of International Air Power review is out and has an article on F-14s in the IRIAF by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop. From skimming it in Borders it looks like a lot of their book with a handful of new items, but I picked it up anyway. Once I get home from work I'll have a chance to actually read it, and I'll make sure to mention anything interesting once I do.

Someone's got old info...

And just like that ATA no longer exists.

Ugh. The Victor is precisely what I had in mind when I was talking about other ugly British aircraft. It's covered in odd bulges, droopy bits, parts sticking out at odd angles and that refueling probe poking out of the top of the nose like it's some kind of Narwhal. The Lightning is little better: the big fat fuselage with the pregnant looking belly tank, engines stacked on top of each other for god knows what reason, the weird little wings, mal-proportioned canopy, and missiles mounted on it's fat cheeks. I'm always shocked how quickly the UK went from having the engineers at Supermarine tweaking the Spitfire until it looked pretty, and making planes like the Hunter and the Vulcan to, well, those two.

Well notional Su-37. The MKI doesn't have the wet tail fins or IIRC any of the advanced composites and metals in the structure. That combined with the extra seat taking up space that could go to fuel should give it less range. On the otehr hand some of the russian avionics were replaced by Israeli, French and Indian equipment. It can't supercruise like the Typhoon, nor does it have the type of powerful computer suites backing and fusing data the data like the Typhoon and the Raptor. Those two alone should give either a powerful edge over an MKI.

In any category except looks. I swear that had to be one of the ugliest aircraft ever made. It's like every engineer in the British isles decided to start beating their designs soundly with the ugly stick after the Hawker Hunter was made.

Add in some good Israeli avionics and you could get a decent cheap fighter fleet. Might even make the Mig-23 something more than useless.

Of course it could. It's got a superior sensor suite, superior speed (low level supercruise even) and is roughly comparable in terms of maneuverability until you get into really low speeds (where the Su-37's TVC comes into play). The Tiffy is no Raptor but I want whatever the people saying it'd be easy game for an F-15 or Flanker are smoking, because it's gotta be good stuff.

Meh. It's a -200, get the HDTV instead.

I was just coming back to say that!