Stargate Information Archive

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 Search     Help     Rules     Members V     Calendar V     Live Chat V  

> Stargate SG-1: General Discussion

This area is for general discussion of Stargate SG-1 only. SG-1 spoilers belong in the Spoilers & Speculation section. There are separate categories for Stargate Atlantis Discussion and Stargate Universe Discussion. Complete forum rules are available here.

SG-1 Index: General Discussion | Spoilers & Speculation | Specific Episode Discussion

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> F-302 in real life
SA-1
post Jun 16th 2006, 3:27 PM
Post #1


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: March 4th 2006
From: Northumberland (North-East) England
Member No.: 11,313
Gender: Male



Ok we have the F-302 in stargate, but could it be made in real life? and if yes why have we not made it yet. Some of the fighter planes that are around today need to have computers otherwise they would not be able to be flown by humans so we have that type of technology to control it. If we made them they would be far superior to the fighter planes we have today in manouvrability, so why not?

Sorry if this has been done before I did check and tried to put it in a topic about the 302's but it was closed.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dafmeister
post Jun 16th 2006, 3:29 PM
Post #2


General
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,926
Joined: April 10th 2003
From: North Wales, UK
Member No.: 1,340
Gender: Male



They do not have the tech to build it. A lot of the technology is taken from Goa'uld Death Gliders.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SA-1
post Jun 16th 2006, 3:30 PM
Post #3


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: March 4th 2006
From: Northumberland (North-East) England
Member No.: 11,313
Gender: Male



Ok can you elaborate please what tech would we need that we do not already have on earth in real life thanks.

EDIT:Ok scrub that comment

This post has been edited by SA-1: Jun 16th 2006, 3:31 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KillerMarv
post Jun 16th 2006, 3:32 PM
Post #4


Major General
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 3,441
Joined: April 7th 2006
From: Bucharest, Romania
Member No.: 11,622
Gender: Male



I assume you're referring most to it's design and it's handeling, because I don't think there is a chance in hell we can get some naquadria, or a Goa'uld hyperspace window generator to make it exactly like in Stargate biggrin.gif

But as we speak, there is a competition called the "X prize" in which civilian teams compete to design space flight accesible units, that can go into space and land at an accesible rate to everyone.

Companies with great budgets can invest in this, and a commercial space jets will soon be constructed after the technology is mastered. From that, I'm sure there is not such a big dsistance to designing fighters that can do the same thing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dafmeister
post Jun 16th 2006, 3:33 PM
Post #5


General
Group Icon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,926
Joined: April 10th 2003
From: North Wales, UK
Member No.: 1,340
Gender: Male



Sam said that G-Forces are almost eliminated during flight, there is no technology that can cancel out the G-forces pilots feel. There must some sort of technology that supports the fighters' structural integrity during flight into orbit, either that or it is built from an alloy made from materials not available on Earth. The engines used to maneuver during space flight were taken from a Death Glider also.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SA-1
post Jun 16th 2006, 3:35 PM
Post #6


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: March 4th 2006
From: Northumberland (North-East) England
Member No.: 11,313
Gender: Male



Sorry, yes marv I was talking about the handeling, design and mainly atmospheric flight.
So would the design of the 302 naturaly pull more G's than normal fighter jets?

This post has been edited by SA-1: Jun 16th 2006, 3:37 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ares
post Jun 18th 2006, 2:00 AM
Post #7


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,858
Joined: February 14th 2003
From: Mortaritaville!
Member No.: 672
Gender: Male



If they made an f-302, it would probably be one of the worst jets ever made. Since there is no such thing as a Goa'uld in life, there wouldn't be any of those upgrades available. About the only thing the jet would be good for is maybe target practice. The cockpit is of terrible design, eliminating it as a fighter. The lack of a tail wing would kill this thing on turns, which means any missle or fighter in the world can blow the sh*t outta this thing. We already have jets that are the best in the world...why waste money on one that would be a step back for us?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tsot
post Jun 18th 2006, 7:51 AM
Post #8


Civilian
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: March 17th 2005
From: Stratford-Upon-Avon, England, United Kingodm
Member No.: 8,482
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Ares @ Jun 18th 2006, 7:00 AM) *

If they made an f-302, it would probably be one of the worst jets ever made. Since there is no such thing as a Goa'uld in life, there wouldn't be any of those upgrades available. About the only thing the jet would be good for is maybe target practice. The cockpit is of terrible design, eliminating it as a fighter. The lack of a tail wing would kill this thing on turns, which means any missle or fighter in the world can blow the sh*t outta this thing. We already have jets that are the best in the world...why waste money on one that would be a step back for us?

Yeah and its called the British tornado aka eurofighter, the worlds most maneuverable dog fighter capable of mach 2 (costs alot tho)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Protoziggy90
post Jun 18th 2006, 10:40 AM
Post #9


Second Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 581
Joined: March 3rd 2006
From: NYC, NY, USA
Member No.: 11,304
Gender: Male



Actually the Israelis have a limited number of some sort of modified F-16 which supposedly can make a 180 degree turn in like 2 seconds at mach 2. Its supposed to be the most maneuverable in the world once it done. They actually plan on selling or sharing the technology with the US, but I don't remember what they get for it...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jetsetter
post Jun 18th 2006, 1:18 PM
Post #10


Chief Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: October 26th 2003
From: Northern California
Member No.: 2,618
Gender: Male



QUOTE(tsot @ Jun 18th 2006, 5:51 AM) *

Yeah and its called the British tornado aka eurofighter, the worlds most maneuverable dog fighter capable of mach 2 (costs alot tho)


I wouldn't say the eurofighter is "the worlds most maneuverable dog fighter". The F-22A and the Su-37 are most likely more maneuverable and capable in a dog fighting situation(you must also remeber that in real combat dog fights are very rare). Both the F-22A and the Su-37 have thrust vectoring which greatly improves the maneuverablility.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GoVols
post Jun 18th 2006, 1:25 PM
Post #11


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 375
Joined: March 25th 2006
From: Knoxvegas Tennessee
Member No.: 11,546
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Protoziggy90 @ Jun 18th 2006, 11:40 AM) *

Actually the Israelis have a limited number of some sort of modified F-16 which supposedly can make a 180 degree turn in like 2 seconds at mach 2. Its supposed to be the most maneuverable in the world once it done. They actually plan on selling or sharing the technology with the US, but I don't remember what they get for it...



They have already gotten it, didnt the US give them the f-16? Also, the US will continue to protect them from Iran and other islamo-facists that are intent in Isrial's destruction.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jetsetter
post Jun 18th 2006, 1:38 PM
Post #12


Chief Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: October 26th 2003
From: Northern California
Member No.: 2,618
Gender: Male



QUOTE(GoVols @ Jun 18th 2006, 11:25 AM) *

They have already gotten it, didnt the US give them the f-16? Also, the US will continue to protect them from Iran and other islamo-facists that are intent in Isrial's destruction.


The Israeli fighter you speak of is called the Lavi and it was never put into production. Today the Israelis do have a fighter called the F-16I but it is much less modified than the Lavi was. Some technology from the Lavi was sold by the Israelis to the Chinese who then went on to produce the J-10 fighter.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SA-1
post Jun 18th 2006, 3:22 PM
Post #13


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: March 4th 2006
From: Northumberland (North-East) England
Member No.: 11,313
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Ares @ Jun 18th 2006, 8:00 AM) *

If they made an f-302, it would probably be one of the worst jets ever made. Since there is no such thing as a Goa'uld in life, there wouldn't be any of those upgrades available. About the only thing the jet would be good for is maybe target practice. The cockpit is of terrible design, eliminating it as a fighter. The lack of a tail wing would kill this thing on turns, which means any missle or fighter in the world can blow the sh*t outta this thing. We already have jets that are the best in the world...why waste money on one that would be a step back for us?


Ok so you must be an engineer or a physicist. But can you please tell me why the cockpit is of terrible design, and I said in a earlier post that it won't have goa'uld modifications ( Iknow the difference between scfi and reality) so I said that it would only be for atmospheric flight have regular weaponry and have radar etc. And what does the tail wing matter there are plenty of planes around with out tail wings and the 302 does have tail fin's the design is just a flying wing and have you ever seen the 302 fly I don't know if it is because the shows physics is a bit different to reality's, I'd be glad if you could clear up those points for me.

Thanks

This post has been edited by SA-1: Jun 18th 2006, 3:23 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Protoziggy90
post Jun 18th 2006, 6:29 PM
Post #14


Second Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 581
Joined: March 3rd 2006
From: NYC, NY, USA
Member No.: 11,304
Gender: Male



QUOTE(jetsetter @ Jun 18th 2006, 2:38 PM) *

The Israeli fighter you speak of is called the Lavi and it was never put into production. Today the Israelis do have a fighter called the F-16I but it is much less modified than the Lavi was. Some technology from the Lavi was sold by the Israelis to the Chinese who then went on to produce the J-10 fighter.


Thats right, thank you.

Also, in regards to GoVols' question, the Israelies developed almost all the technology used in the F-16, and actually created the jet itself, but they didn't have the resources to build more than a few of them, so they actually gave the technology to the US for construction, in exchange for a certain number of the planes. The number was 250, which is the current number the Israelies are reported as having at the moment, which is also the largest number of them controlled by any country at this time, followed by the US.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GoVols
post Jun 18th 2006, 8:50 PM
Post #15


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 375
Joined: March 25th 2006
From: Knoxvegas Tennessee
Member No.: 11,546
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Protoziggy90 @ Jun 18th 2006, 7:29 PM) *

Thats right, thank you.

Also, in regards to GoVols' question, the Israelies developed almost all the technology used in the F-16, and actually created the jet itself, but they didn't have the resources to build more than a few of them, so they actually gave the technology to the US for construction, in exchange for a certain number of the planes. The number was 250, which is the current number the Israelies are reported as having at the moment, which is also the largest number of them controlled by any country at this time, followed by the US.



Wow Ziggy, i did not know that. I never really thought it looked like any of our other jets, with just a single enging and all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jetsetter
post Jun 18th 2006, 10:35 PM
Post #16


Chief Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: October 26th 2003
From: Northern California
Member No.: 2,618
Gender: Male



QUOTE(GoVols @ Jun 18th 2006, 6:50 PM) *

Wow Ziggy, i did not know that. I never really thought it looked like any of our other jets, with just a single enging and all.


The F-16 is single engined, 30 years old, and the USAF operated thousands of them. How could you miss that one? And by the way, the design of the F-16 is not from the Israel in any way.

» Click for Spoiler «


EDIT: Post has been placed in spoiler tags because of it's length.

This post has been edited by Dafmeister: Jun 19th 2006, 6:31 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Protoziggy90
post Jun 18th 2006, 11:07 PM
Post #17


Second Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 581
Joined: March 3rd 2006
From: NYC, NY, USA
Member No.: 11,304
Gender: Male



Dude, I read my information directly out of a book... I then looked at another book to make sure it wasn't just Israeli arrogance by the author in the first book... Both had the same info... I'm going to have to hold the facts from the books over a random news article...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jetsetter
post Jun 18th 2006, 11:55 PM
Post #18


Chief Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: October 26th 2003
From: Northern California
Member No.: 2,618
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Protoziggy90 @ Jun 18th 2006, 9:07 PM) *

Dude, I read my information directly out of a book... I then looked at another book to make sure it wasn't just Israeli arrogance by the author in the first book... Both had the same info... I'm going to have to hold the facts from the books over a random news article...


Global Security is one of the most respected websites on defence issues relating to the US and the world. The F-16I is the Block 52/60 F-16 which was designed by Lockheed. Israel does install some of its own electronics in the F-16I but thats it. Also, the Block 52/60 F-16 is already in service with other airforces, before Israel. And if you still think I am incorrect I consulted several books and other sources.

» Click for Spoiler «


EDIT: Post has been placed in spoiler tags because of it's length.

This post has been edited by Dafmeister: Jun 19th 2006, 6:32 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SA-1
post Jun 19th 2006, 4:56 AM
Post #19


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: March 4th 2006
From: Northumberland (North-East) England
Member No.: 11,313
Gender: Male



QUOTE(jetsetter @ Jun 18th 2006, 7:18 PM) *

I wouldn't say the eurofighter is "the worlds most maneuverable dog fighter". The F-22A and the Su-37 are most likely more maneuverable and capable in a dog fighting situation(you must also remeber that in real combat dog fights are very rare). Both the F-22A and the Su-37 have thrust vectoring which greatly improves the maneuverablility.


Actually the Typhoon Eurofighter is the most manouvarble plane and dog fighter made today


» Click for Spoiler «


EDIT: Post has been placed in spoiler tags because of it's length.

This post has been edited by Dafmeister: Jun 19th 2006, 6:28 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Protoziggy90
post Jun 19th 2006, 2:49 PM
Post #20


Second Lieutenant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 581
Joined: March 3rd 2006
From: NYC, NY, USA
Member No.: 11,304
Gender: Male



That might be the longest single post I've ever seen, pics included.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SA-1
post Jun 19th 2006, 4:36 PM
Post #21


Senior Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 398
Joined: March 4th 2006
From: Northumberland (North-East) England
Member No.: 11,313
Gender: Male



Thanks, I'm kind of proud of it that is the largest post I have ever made.

Anyway back to jets and the F-302.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
WaterDweller
post Jun 19th 2006, 5:46 PM
Post #22


Senior Airman
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 121
Joined: December 18th 2005
From: Troms?, Norway
Member No.: 10,692
Gender: Male



QUOTE(Protoziggy90 @ Jun 18th 2006, 5:40 PM) *

Actually the Israelis have a limited number of some sort of modified F-16 which supposedly can make a 180 degree turn in like 2 seconds at mach 2. Its supposed to be the most maneuverable in the world once it done. They actually plan on selling or sharing the technology with the US, but I don't remember what they get for it...


Not to burst anyone's bubble here, but... Wouldn't this kill, or mortally wound the pilot? I mean, the problem is already that a human being can only sustain so many G's, making a plane even more manouverable doesn't solve that problem. Doing a 180 degree turn in two seconds at mach two, without loosing speed (meaning ending up going mach 2 the other way), would make up towards 70 G's, right? And today pilots faint at like 10 G's... Even for a short exposure of a couple of seconds, this would still be extremely dangerous for the pilot.

(my calculations should be taken with a grain of salt, though. Didn't put a whole lot of work into them, and just applied some simple one-dimensional mechanics...)

This post has been edited by WaterDweller: Jun 19th 2006, 5:50 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jetsetter
post Jun 19th 2006, 6:24 PM
Post #23


Chief Master Sergeant
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 450
Joined: October 26th 2003
From: Northern California
Member No.: 2,618
Gender: Male



QUOTE
Actually the Typhoon Eurofighter is the most manouvarble plane and dog fighter made today


Says who?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ares
post Jun 19th 2006, 6:24 PM
Post #24


Colonel
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,858
Joined: February 14th 2003
From: Mortaritaville!
Member No.: 672
Gender: Male



QUOTE(SA-1 @ Jun 19th 2006, 5:22 AM) *

Ok so you must be an engineer or a physicist. But can you please tell me why the cockpit is of terrible design, and I said in a earlier post that it won't have goa'uld modifications ( Iknow the difference between scfi and reality) so I said that it would only be for atmospheric flight have regular weaponry and have radar etc. And what does the tail wing matter there are plenty of planes around with out tail wings and the 302 does have tail fin's the design is just a flying wing and have you ever seen the 302 fly I don't know if it is because the shows physics is a bit different to reality's, I'd be glad if you could clear up those points for me.

Thanks

Well, the 302 has only front and side viewing, the whole back part of it is blocked off. If you notice those F16 pics, you see the canopy is bubble-like and the pilot can see all around him. I'm going off memory of a 302, but the wing didn't look like it had any moveable parts. In order to go up, down, left, right, you gotta have some parts of the wing that are mobile in order to steer the thing. And you say some planes have no wing...like the B-2. Look how manuverable that thing is....it's not.

Another thing I forgot to add. Fuel problem. Since it has 2 engines, it would eat up fuel like there was no tomorrow. Without fuel tanks, this plane is gonna last like 15 mins before it crashes. And since it'll require the extra tanks, that'll leave less room for weapons. The plane is an overall bad design.

Regarding the eurofighter. Manuverability can be great but it's all about who tracks who first. If say, an F-16 went up against it, the EF would probably win. But there are some 16s out there with great radar jamming and could get a first shot in against the EF. Now if the EF went against the 22, it'd be no contest. The 22 could track the EF before the EF knew it was there. And even when the 22 got in range, there'd be no way to lock a missle on since the damn thing is stealth. I remember the 22 was dogfighting the 16 and the only time the 16 got a lock was when the 22 opened it's missile bay doors; and that was only for a second or two. So, the EF may have better manuverability but it's the 21st century, not the 40s. It's all about range, jamming and stealth these days.

EDIT: And no, I'm not an engineer or physicist. I just work on the damn thing, the f-16 that is.

This post has been edited by Ares: Jun 20th 2006, 2:35 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: November 26th 2014 - 9:37 PM
Stargate Information Archive

Stargate SG-1 © 1997-2013 MGM Worldwide Television, Inc.
Stargate Atlantis © 2004-2013 MGM Worldwide Television, Inc.
Text and images from this site may not be used without permission.

All comments on these pages belong to the author of those comments, and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Stargate Information Archive.