Are these aircrafts more superior to their F5 counterparts?
Photo 1: obviously a computer generated rendering. Photo 2: a mystery how both planes taxi, engines supposedly working, with the inlets shut with rubber covers. A possible answer: the heat distortion behind the plane closer to the camera is a good photoshop job.
Plus: notice how the two planes in photo 2 substantially differ, engine inlet wise. The plane closer to us has square inlets, while the plane in the background has round ones.
In reply to the ignorant "Anonymous" posts from March 18, 2009.The inlet covers are actually grills to minimize the chance of F.O.D. one prototype has red grills and the second are yellow. Also, one prototype has white painted inlets and the second one has them yellow, those appear round because of the heat distortion and the depth of the lens' field of view... Trust me on it, those 2 prototypes are very real, not photoshop creations.
This airplane is a piece of garbage. Even if it has been 'improved' (from an F-5) it is still severly restricted in loadout (especially if meant for air-to-ground). It's a propaganda piece and a lousy one at that. I pity the poor man that ends up getting shot down in that thing when Iran gets a slap down here in the next year or so.
L.A.O. is likely correct. The Saeqeh appears to have the F-5's slatted auxiliary air intakes along the sides of the fuselage, just ahead of the vertical stabilizers. They're to augment airflow to the engines during landing, takeoff and taxiing. Even if the front intakes were completely plugged, the engines could operate using these second intakes.As for performance, I'm sure the Saeqeh - like its F-5 ancestor - is a decent, cost-effective little plane. The F-5 is still an extremely effective and very maneuverable (720 degrees/sec roll rate) light fighter and ground attack platform. It's still used for adversay training by the USAF, and in the hands of a good pilot, it presents a formidable challenge to almost any opponent. I doubt it has the claimed 3000km range, though. Not with those engines.
Anonymous 4:30 PM. So much for "in the next year or so.". Here we are two years later and still, nothing has happened. The only "garbage" (rubbish) here, is from you.
Post a Comment