![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:12:29 GMT, Yeff wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:02:04 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote: If the brits really expected the EF to be a fighter/bomber I doubt they would have put the canards so far forward that they obscure the ground. They prolly would have been farther back, as they are in the rafale. Not that much of an issue for high-risk jobs, surely? (After all, what was the view like out of side-by-side strikers like the F-111 and A-6? Fine to one side, but to the right you're trying to see through the other crewman's helmet) It's been a long time since I read "Flight of the Intruder" but I seem to remember something about the BN's seat being lower and maybe further back than the pilots. Anyone know for sure? [cross-posted to RAMN added for an authoritative answer] The EF is showing a bit of techno-regression if they let something as simple as canards or fuselage metalwork interfere with the view. They need to talk to the F-35 folks about those skin mounted vid-cams and integrated seamless helmet display to allow the intrepid aviator to simply look through the body apparently. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|