w/ the kind of tech U have,alteration 2 d original wing dezyn is but a walk in the park s they say,d only prohibition being only cost & bzyds frm the luks of ,it,duznt evn require wing reengineering,I tink maybe it can evn acomodate fanjets w rework on hardpoints area in2 pylons.In the case of STOL,pitch capable inboard pylons dat tilt engines upwards a certain small degri may perhaps aid STO taxying & the evr familiar Thrust Reversers shall reduce landing runs,maybe dats a solution 2 the delays
all propfan produces the less than desired speed required 2 cover the farthest possible range & at a shortest given time.tho dis is not related 2 fuel consumption s jets r fuel guzzlers,drinks quickly,needs replenishing mor often,tho fan maybe mor economical,its slow,covers less distance,requires mor fuel 2 continue,both comes 2 almos de same,but frm noise stand-point,Hi-bypass turbofans of today is clearly mor advantageous s it is so silent,Airbus Co.shud make A400 in2 a fanjet transporter
features & figures r all very impresiv,but therein lies itz closest competitor d Illyushin IL76 wic tho already 40 yrs ol,figures r evn marginaly mor impresiv,the only problem w/ it,simply being itz n ol dezyn,yester type metals,vry hands-on,other than auto-pilot, it has no automational features & here is where d 400M is advantagez,where tho cabin crew r fewer,yet works equaly s efectiv but the rationale of still carrying-on w/ propfan over ducted fanjets is anybody's guess,wic givs betta thrust
airbus are copying boeing.
a320 looks like the 737
a330 looks like the 777
a340 looks like the 707
a350 looks like the 787
a380 has two decks like the 747
a400 looks like the C-17
a320 neo looks like the 737 MAX
there looking at boeings planes then trying to make a better version of it!
concorde232 1 month ago
w/ the kind of tech U have,alteration 2 d original wing dezyn is but a walk in the park s they say,d only prohibition being only cost & bzyds frm the luks of ,it,duznt evn require wing reengineering,I tink maybe it can evn acomodate fanjets w rework on hardpoints area in2 pylons.In the case of STOL,pitch capable inboard pylons dat tilt engines upwards a certain small degri may perhaps aid STO taxying & the evr familiar Thrust Reversers shall reduce landing runs,maybe dats a solution 2 the delays
beaggyboy 5 months ago
all propfan produces the less than desired speed required 2 cover the farthest possible range & at a shortest given time.tho dis is not related 2 fuel consumption s jets r fuel guzzlers,drinks quickly,needs replenishing mor often,tho fan maybe mor economical,its slow,covers less distance,requires mor fuel 2 continue,both comes 2 almos de same,but frm noise stand-point,Hi-bypass turbofans of today is clearly mor advantageous s it is so silent,Airbus Co.shud make A400 in2 a fanjet transporter
beaggyboy 5 months ago
features & figures r all very impresiv,but therein lies itz closest competitor d Illyushin IL76 wic tho already 40 yrs ol,figures r evn marginaly mor impresiv,the only problem w/ it,simply being itz n ol dezyn,yester type metals,vry hands-on,other than auto-pilot, it has no automational features & here is where d 400M is advantagez,where tho cabin crew r fewer,yet works equaly s efectiv but the rationale of still carrying-on w/ propfan over ducted fanjets is anybody's guess,wic givs betta thrust
beaggyboy 5 months ago
i hate that music
ddioppp 6 months ago
"defensive aids" ....to show flares/decoys as a 'feature' for a military aircraft is coming very close to putting 'wings' in a feature list...
TheTrueRandomness 8 months ago