Global Aircraft [Return To GAC Homepage]   -   [About GAC Search]   -   [Help]
    Images     Definitions     Planes     Profiles     Directory     Forum     Iungam Search     IungamBot 
Global Aircraft Search Results Search Again    
  You searched for: jetwhiz
Showing matches 1 - 10 of about 15 total. 
GAC Forum Matches  (forum posts on the GAC site that match your search) Search took 0.0056 secs.

There are approximately 18 post(s) total in this directory.
Entries found for the GAC Forum.

1.
Date Posted: 2008-05-09 02:13:00.
Subject: GALiRe Testarea
Name: jetwhiz
Message: bold
strike
italics
under
http://www.globalaircraft.org/
GAC.org
jetwhiz at ufl.edu
jetwhiz's Email


121212 202020
red yeller
small
medium
large
heading

left


center


right


Monday, May 19, 2008 -- 6:18:54 PM PDT


test me
test
    $x = 3;
$y = 2;

YOYOYO!
jetwhiz wrote:
Yo man!

  • bull [*]
  • bull
  • bull
  • first
  • second
  • third
  • first
  • second
  • third


~jetwhiz

Monday, May 19, 2008 -- 6:18:54 PM PDT
2.
Date Posted: 2013-09-29 03:33:00.
Subject: GALiRe Testarea
Name: jetwhiz
Message: http://www.google.com

http://www.google.com
~jetwhiz

Sunday, September 29, 2013 -- 3:33:36 AM PDT
3.
Date Posted: 2010-11-16 13:19:11.
Subject: Information about standard aircraft lights at nigh
Name: jetwhiz
Message: Welcome, Nesh!

This resource can describe it better than I could in only words --
Aerospaceweb.org -> Aircraft Lights & Beacons

The key points is that there are typically white, red and green lights. They normally do not need to be located in specific locations, but some must be visible from certain perspectives.

For instance, for navigation lights a red light must be visible on the left side of the aircraft and a green light must be visible on the right side. The only requirement specified by the FAA is that they must be "spaced laterally as far apart as practicable" -- typically this means near the wingtips.
~jetwhiz

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 -- 1:19:11 PM PDT
4.
Date Posted: 2009-09-05 16:43:07.
Subject: SR-75 Penetrator?
Name: jetwhiz
Message: The drawings and models look like an SR-71 / XB-70 hybrid of some sort. I wouldn't get too excited about it though ... satellites make much more realistic high-speed / high-altitude spy craft than the Blackbird. The operating and maintenance costs of it were far too high to be sustainable, especially when you can just send out a UAV, the Dragon Lady or use a satellite.

A bomber version of that aircraft might be more useful.
~jetwhiz

Saturday, September 05, 2009 -- 4:43:07 PM PDT
5.
Date Posted: 2009-07-11 19:06:23.
Subject: The worst plane ever to fly
Name: jetwhiz
Message:
F6hellcat wrote:
yeah the V-22 is up there. what about the Hun? or maybe the F-111? according to John Boyd's Energy-Maneuvering theory, the F-111 was not superior to the MiG in almost every aspect.

Maybe, but the F-111 was still the cool kid on the block





~jetwhiz

Saturday, July 11, 2009 -- 7:06:23 PM PDT
6.
Date Posted: 2009-05-21 18:44:23.
Subject: The worst plane ever to fly
Name: jetwhiz
Message:
Roxons wrote:
how about the The Caproni Ca-60 Transaereo 'Capronisimo'

Haha, yeah I think that has me beat. What about the RAF RE7 as far as production aircraft go ...
~jetwhiz

Thursday, May 21, 2009 -- 6:44:23 PM PDT
7.
Date Posted: 2009-05-18 13:41:28.
Subject: The worst plane ever to fly
Name: jetwhiz
Message:
Roxons wrote:
Why the V-22? it has been a revolutionary design...

True, the V-22 has overcome many difficulties in its time, many of which plagued V/STOL aircraft for well over half a century. A significant portion of the V-22's life was spent attempting to overcome these issues, and many of them have been worked out ... at the cost of many lives.

The design is far from new and revolutionary, however. The American X-18 and X-19 (Curtiss X-200), in particular, did an excellent job spearheading the future V-22 design and principles. I think the X-19 could have easily been the first V-22, if Curtiss had been willing to put more interest and funding into the project (the military was certainly interested even back then). Many countries had also been toying with the idea, at various levels of success; the Russian Yak-38, for instance, was even successful enough to enter 'combat'.

The first decade of the V-22's life were relatively pathetic. Many more modifications, training exercises and desperate attempts at keeping the project alive have allowed the V-22 to limp its way into the history books, but I personally find it to be far from an impressive aircraft. I guess it isn't entirely the Osprey's fault that it had such a rough start, and the military seems to be gung-ho about it. The bottom line is that they really need this design, and so it's pretty much guaranteed to succeed.
~jetwhiz

Tuesday, May 19, 2009 -- 11:58:04 AM PDT
8.
Date Posted: 2009-05-05 17:59:15.
Subject: The worst plane ever to fly
Name: jetwhiz
Message:
Roxons wrote:
Id have to say that the TU-144 is the worst...

Although not the best, it was still a relatively important aircraft ... even NASA adopted a -144 for SST testing in the '90s. My vote would go to the X-27, but then again that never even got a chance to fly. How about the V-22 then?


~jetwhiz

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 -- 6:03:15 PM PDT
9.
Date Posted: 2008-05-10 01:55:43.
Subject: GALiRe Testarea
Name: jetwhiz
Message: TEXT
~jetwhiz

Monday, May 19, 2008 -- 9:29:17 PM PDT
10.
Date Posted: 2009-09-27 09:23:03.
Subject: SR-75 Penetrator?
Name: firstsgt_cap
Message: It's all just a bunch of hype from people who want to see new and faster aircraft. In this economy, such things disappear if they existed to begin with. As soon as the cold war ended, stuff like that stopped. Which is why the F-22 has been under such scrutiny and is now not being produced beyond it's current number of 187 (186 if you count the one that crashed).

Basically, like jetwhiz said, there is no purpose for such an aircraft when we have satellites that are more cost effective, and more capable.

15 post found
  

[    Submit A Site    |    Legal Notice    |    Privacy Policy    ]


Copyright © 2000-2007,
The Global Aircraft Organization


GAS v 1,8,1