超级军网留个备份：发一张2005年2月15日在子陵军事回复别人的帖 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/26 07:16:46
]]
老子陵啊:L
麻痹的，子陵让一帮狗日的给搞垮了！！汉奸、BKC和民猪成群！！！:@ :@
怀念2002~2005的老子陵~~:')
怀念2002~2005的老子陵~~:')
怀念子陵！自从发现了子陵就告别了舰船，自从没了子陵，就上了超大
原帖由 明月清风 于 2007-9-29 22:21 发表
怀念子陵！自从发现了子陵就告别了舰船，自从没了子陵，就上了超大
除了舰船，一样的经历。当初的子陵真的很好啊，可惜了……
不去子陵好多年了，以前特别喜欢那里的血腥视频，呵呵。[:a3:] [:a16:]
老埃不是退出cd了么？怎么又滚回来了？
原帖由 子肥鱼 于 2007-9-29 21:36 发表
麻痹的，子陵让一帮狗日的给搞垮了！！汉奸、BKC和民猪成群！！！:@ :@
怀念2002~2005的老子陵~~:')
明明是被土鳖和谐了！真可悲！
子陵已经不是那个子陵了·······
升级马甲回归，提请版主处理
多少年的记忆了啊 怀念那时的欢乐时光 河蟹社会啊～～！！！
原帖由 明月清风 于 2007-9-29 22:21 发表
怀念子陵！自从发现了子陵就告别了舰船，自从没了子陵，就上了超大
:handshake :handshake :handshake :handshake :handshake 眼泪哗哗地啊。。。。。
原帖由 火花四射 于 2007-9-30 00:24 发表
升级马甲回归，提请版主处理
你是不是有病啊？
升级马甲难道不应该处理吗？难道我说了要处理你？;P ;P
多管闲事，这么喜欢作土鳖的狗，可惜土鳖东厂也不要草狗～～～～嘻嘻
我骂土鳖几句，就跳出来维护主子.这个狗奴才满忠心的吗
封了我，你能得到几根骨头啊？～～～～哈
封了我，你能得到几根骨头啊？～～～～哈
楼上的编辑一下自己的发言吧，政治观点不同不用在空版吵，也不需要用这么激烈的语言吧。这语言已经确实已经有些过分了。
原帖由 天堂风暴 于 2007-9-30 01:46 发表
楼上的编辑一下自己的发言吧，政治观点不同不用在空版吵，也不需要用这么激烈的语言吧。这语言已经确实已经有些过分了。
我也不想和他吵，可惜他总是骚扰我～～～我犯愁啊～～～～
原帖由 暗箭1017 于 2007-9-30 01:54 发表
我也不想和他吵，可惜他总是骚扰我～～～我犯愁啊～～～～
至少这个帖子里，两个人语言风格对比太强烈了，用这种激烈的语言发言，肯定不会有好处。
另外，这里是你先把讨论往政治上引的。
原帖由 天堂风暴 于 2007-9-30 01:56 发表
至少这个帖子里，两个人语言风格对比太强烈了，用这种激烈的语言发言，肯定不会有好处。
我和他的事情。你不知情，他曾经用短信骚扰我，又跑到群里骂人，在论坛3天两头找人封我
我真的怀疑他是不是有神经病
原帖由 暗箭1017 于 2007-9-30 02:00 发表
我和他的事情。你不知情，他曾经用短信骚扰我，又跑到群里骂人，在论坛3天两头找人封我
我真的怀疑他是不是有神经病
如果是真的，可以向版主投诉啊。不用在公开的场合回骂吧。
原帖由 天堂风暴 于 2007-9-30 01:57 发表
另外，这里是你先把讨论往政治上引的。
不是吧，我前面先有人骂什么汉奸，BKC什么的，ZL的确是土鳖封的，怎么能嫁祸BKC呢？我澄清一下
火花至少在这个帖子里没有先骂人。
: :L “X-29这种浑身上下除了机翼都是从F-5战斗机拷贝过来的东西”
;funk 原来X29不是钢铁工厂的;P
;funk 原来X29不是钢铁工厂的;P
X-29Two X-29 aircraft, featuring one of the most unusual designs in aviation history, were flown at the NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (now the Dryden Flight Research Center), Edwards, Calif., as technology demonstrators to investigate advanced concepts and technologies. The multi-phased program was conducted from 1984 to 1992 and provided an engineering data base that is available in the design and development of future aircraft.
The X-29 almost looked like it was flying backward. Its forward swept wings were mounted well back on the fuselage, while its canards — horizontal stabilizers to control pitch — were in front of the wings instead of on the tail. The complex geometries of the wings and canards combined to provide exceptional maneuverability, supersonic performance, and a light structure. Air moving over the forward-swept wings tended to flow inward toward the root of the wing instead of outward toward the wing tip as occurs on an aft swept wing. This reverse air flow did not allow the wing tips and their ailerons to stall (lose lift) at high angles of attack (direction of the fuselage relative to the air flow).
The concepts and technologies the fighter-size X-29 explored were the use of advanced composites in aircraft construction; variable camber wing surfaces; the unique forward-swept wing and its thin supercritical airfoil; strake flaps; close-coupled canards; and a computerized fly-by-wire flight control system to maintain control of the otherwise unstable aircraft.
Research results showed that the configuration of forward swept wings, coupled with movable canards, gave pilots excellent control response at up to 45 degrees angle of attack. During its flight history, the X-29s were flown on 422 research missions — 242 by aircraft No. 1 in the Phase 1 portion of the program; 120 flights by aircraft No. 2 in Phase 2; and 60 flights in a follow-on "vortex control" phase. An additional 12 non-research flights with X-29 No. 1 and 2 non-research flights with X-29 No. 2 raised the total number of flights with the two aircraft to 436.
Program HistoryBefore World War II, there were some gliders with forward-swept wings, and the NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Hampton, Va., did some wind-tunnel work on the concept in 1931. Germany developed a motor-driven aircraft with forward-swept wings during the war known as the Ju-287. The concept, however, was not successful because the technology and materials did not exist then to construct the wing rigid enough to overcome bending and twisting forces without making the aircraft too heavy.
The introduction of composite materials in the 1970s opened a new field of aircraft construction, making it possible to design rugged airframes and structures stronger than those made of conventional materials, yet lightweight and able to withstand tremendous aerodynamic forces.
Construction of the X-29's thin supercritical wing was made possible because of its composite construction. State-of-the-art composites permit aeroelastic tailoring, which allows the wing some bending but limits twisting and eliminates structural divergence within the flight envelope (i.e., deformation of the wing or breaking off in flight).
In 1977, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory (now the Wright Laboratory), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, issued proposals for a research aircraft designed to explore the forward swept wing concept. The aircraft was also intended to validate studies that said it should provide better control and lift qualities in extreme maneuvers, and possibly reduce aerodynamic drag as well as fly more efficiently at cruise speeds.
From several proposals, Grumman Aircraft Corporation was chosen in December 1981 to receive an $87 million contract to build two X-29 aircraft. They were to become the first new X-series aircraft in more than a decade. First flight of the No. 1 X-29 was Dec. 14, 1984, while the No. 2 aircraft first flew on May 23, 1989. Both first flights were from the NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, later renamed the Dryden Flight Research Center.
Flight-Control System
The flight control surfaces on the X-29 were the forward-mounted canards, which shared the lifting load with the wings and provided primary pitch control; the wing flaperons (combination flaps and ailerons), used to change wing camber and function as ailerons for roll control when used asymmetrically; and the strake flaps on each side of the rudder that augmented the canards with pitch control. The control surfaces were linked electronically to a triple-redundant digital fly-by-wire flight control system (with analog back up) that provided an artificial stability.
The particular forward swept wing, close-coupled canard design used on the X-29 was unstable. The X-29's flight control system compensated for this instability by sensing flight conditions such as attitude and speed, and through computer processing, continually adjusted the control surfaces with up to 40 commands each second. This arrangement was made to reduce drag. Conventionally configured aircraft achieved stability by balancing lift loads on the wing with opposing downward loads on the tail at the cost of drag. The X-29 avoided this drag penalty through its relaxed static stability.
Each of the three digital flight control computers had an analog backup. If one of the digital computers failed, the remaining two took over. If two of the digital computers failed, the flight control system switched to the analog mode. If one of the analog computers failed, the two remaining analog computers took over. The risk of total systems failure was equivalent in the X-29 to the risk of mechanical failure in a conventional system.
Phase 1 FlightsThe No. 1 aircraft demonstrated in 242 research flights that, because the air moving over the forward-swept wing flowed inward, rather than outward as it does on a rearward-swept wing, the wing tips remained unstalled at the moderate angles of attack flown by X-29 No. 1. Phase 1 flights also demonstrated that the aeroelastic tailored wing did, in fact, prevent structural divergence of the wing within the flight envelope, and that the control laws and control surface effectiveness were adequate to provide artificial stability for this otherwise extremely unstable aircraft and provided good handling qualities for the pilots.
The aircraft's supercritical airfoil also enhanced maneuvering and cruise capabilities in the transonic regime. Developed by NASA and originally tested on an F-8 at Dryden in the 1970s, supercritical airfoils — flatter on the upper wing surface than conventional airfoils — delayed and softened the onset of shock waves on the upper wing surface, reducing drag. The phase 1 flights also demonstrated that the aircraft could fly safely and reliably, even in tight turns.
Phase 2 FlightsThe No. 2 X-29 investigated the aircraft's high angle of attack characteristics and the military utility of its forward-swept wing/canard configuration during 120 research flights. In Phase 2, flying at up to 67 degrees angle of attack (also called high alpha), the aircraft demonstrated much better control and maneuvering qualities than computational methods and simulation models had predicted. The No. 1 X-29 was limited to 21 degrees angle of attack maneuvering.
During Phase 2 flights, NASA, Air Force, and Grumman project pilots reported the X-29 aircraft had excellent control response to 45 degrees angle of attack and still had limited controllability at 67 degrees angle of attack. This controllability at high angles of attack can be attributed to the aircraft's unique forward-swept wing- canard design. The NASA/Air Force-designed high-gain flight control laws also contributed to the good flying qualities.
Flight control law concepts used in the program were developed from radio-controlled flight tests of a 22-percent X-29 drop model at NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. The detail design was performed by engineers at Dryden and the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. The X-29 achieved its high alpha controllability without leading edge flaps on the wings for additional lift, and without moveable vanes on the engine's exhaust nozzle to change or "vector" the direction of thrust, such as those used on the X-31 and the F-18 High Angle-of-Attack Research Vehicle. Researchers documented the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft at high angles of attack during this phase using a combination of pressure measurements and flow visualization. Flight test data from the high-angle-of-attack/military-utility phase of the X-29 program satisfied the primary objective of the X-29 program — to evaluate the ability of X-29 technologies to improve future fighter aircraft mission performance.
Vortex Flow ControlIn 1992 the U.S. Air Force initiated a program to study the use of vortex flow control as a means of providing increased aircraft control at high angles of attack when the normal flight control systems are ineffective.
The No. 2 X-29 was modified with the installation of two high-pressure nitrogen tanks and control valves with two small nozzle jets located on the forward upper portion of the nose. The purpose of the modifications was to inject air into the vortices that flow off the nose of the aircraft at high angles of attack.
Wind tunnel tests at the Air Force's Wright Laboratory and at the Grumman Corporation showed that injection of air into the vortices would change the direction of vortex flow and create corresponding forces on the nose of the aircraft to change or control the nose heading.
From May to August 1992, 60 flights successfully demonstrated vortex flow control (VFC). VFC was more effective than expected in generating yaw (left-to-right) forces, especially at higher angles of attack where the rudder loses effectiveness. VFC was less successful in providing control when sideslip (relative wind pushing on the side of the aircraft) was present, and it did little to decrease rocking oscillation of the aircraft.
SummaryOverall, VFC, like the forward-swept wings, showed promise for the future of aircraft design. The X-29 did not demonstrate the overall reduction in aerodynamic drag that earlier studies had suggested, but this discovery should not be interpreted to mean that a more optimized
design with forward-swept wings could not yield a reduction in drag. Overall, the X-29 program demonstrated several new technologies as well as new uses of proven technologies. These included: aeroelastic tailoring to control structural divergence; use of a relatively large, close-coupled canard for longitudinal control; control of an aircraft with extreme instability while still providing good handling qualities; use of three-surface longitudinal control; use of a double-hinged trailing-edge flaperon at supersonic speeds; control effectiveness at high angle of attack; vortex control; and military utility of the overall design.
The AircraftThe X-29 is a single-engine aircraft 48.1 feet long. Its forward-swept wing has a span of 27.2 feet. Each X-29 was powered by a General Electric F404-GE-400 engine producing 16,000 pounds of thrust. Empty weight was 13,600 pounds, while takeoff weight was 17,600 pounds.
The aircraft had a maximum operating altitude of 50,000 feet, a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, and a flight endurance time of approximately one hour. The only significant difference between the two aircraft was an emergency spin chute deployment system mounted at the base of the rudder on aircraft No. 2. External wing structure is primarily composite materials incorporated into precise patterns to develop strength and avoid structural divergence. The wing substructure and the basic airframe itself is aluminum and titanium. Wing trailing edge actuators controlling camber are mounted externally in streamlined fairings because of the thinness of the supercritical airfoil.
The X-29 almost looked like it was flying backward. Its forward swept wings were mounted well back on the fuselage, while its canards — horizontal stabilizers to control pitch — were in front of the wings instead of on the tail. The complex geometries of the wings and canards combined to provide exceptional maneuverability, supersonic performance, and a light structure. Air moving over the forward-swept wings tended to flow inward toward the root of the wing instead of outward toward the wing tip as occurs on an aft swept wing. This reverse air flow did not allow the wing tips and their ailerons to stall (lose lift) at high angles of attack (direction of the fuselage relative to the air flow).The concepts and technologies the fighter-size X-29 explored were the use of advanced composites in aircraft construction; variable camber wing surfaces; the unique forward-swept wing and its thin supercritical airfoil; strake flaps; close-coupled canards; and a computerized fly-by-wire flight control system to maintain control of the otherwise unstable aircraft.
Research results showed that the configuration of forward swept wings, coupled with movable canards, gave pilots excellent control response at up to 45 degrees angle of attack. During its flight history, the X-29s were flown on 422 research missions — 242 by aircraft No. 1 in the Phase 1 portion of the program; 120 flights by aircraft No. 2 in Phase 2; and 60 flights in a follow-on "vortex control" phase. An additional 12 non-research flights with X-29 No. 1 and 2 non-research flights with X-29 No. 2 raised the total number of flights with the two aircraft to 436.Program HistoryBefore World War II, there were some gliders with forward-swept wings, and the NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Hampton, Va., did some wind-tunnel work on the concept in 1931. Germany developed a motor-driven aircraft with forward-swept wings during the war known as the Ju-287. The concept, however, was not successful because the technology and materials did not exist then to construct the wing rigid enough to overcome bending and twisting forces without making the aircraft too heavy.
The introduction of composite materials in the 1970s opened a new field of aircraft construction, making it possible to design rugged airframes and structures stronger than those made of conventional materials, yet lightweight and able to withstand tremendous aerodynamic forces.
Construction of the X-29's thin supercritical wing was made possible because of its composite construction. State-of-the-art composites permit aeroelastic tailoring, which allows the wing some bending but limits twisting and eliminates structural divergence within the flight envelope (i.e., deformation of the wing or breaking off in flight).In 1977, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory (now the Wright Laboratory), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, issued proposals for a research aircraft designed to explore the forward swept wing concept. The aircraft was also intended to validate studies that said it should provide better control and lift qualities in extreme maneuvers, and possibly reduce aerodynamic drag as well as fly more efficiently at cruise speeds.
From several proposals, Grumman Aircraft Corporation was chosen in December 1981 to receive an $87 million contract to build two X-29 aircraft. They were to become the first new X-series aircraft in more than a decade. First flight of the No. 1 X-29 was Dec. 14, 1984, while the No. 2 aircraft first flew on May 23, 1989. Both first flights were from the NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, later renamed the Dryden Flight Research Center.
Flight-Control System
The flight control surfaces on the X-29 were the forward-mounted canards, which shared the lifting load with the wings and provided primary pitch control; the wing flaperons (combination flaps and ailerons), used to change wing camber and function as ailerons for roll control when used asymmetrically; and the strake flaps on each side of the rudder that augmented the canards with pitch control. The control surfaces were linked electronically to a triple-redundant digital fly-by-wire flight control system (with analog back up) that provided an artificial stability.The particular forward swept wing, close-coupled canard design used on the X-29 was unstable. The X-29's flight control system compensated for this instability by sensing flight conditions such as attitude and speed, and through computer processing, continually adjusted the control surfaces with up to 40 commands each second. This arrangement was made to reduce drag. Conventionally configured aircraft achieved stability by balancing lift loads on the wing with opposing downward loads on the tail at the cost of drag. The X-29 avoided this drag penalty through its relaxed static stability.
Each of the three digital flight control computers had an analog backup. If one of the digital computers failed, the remaining two took over. If two of the digital computers failed, the flight control system switched to the analog mode. If one of the analog computers failed, the two remaining analog computers took over. The risk of total systems failure was equivalent in the X-29 to the risk of mechanical failure in a conventional system.
Phase 1 FlightsThe No. 1 aircraft demonstrated in 242 research flights that, because the air moving over the forward-swept wing flowed inward, rather than outward as it does on a rearward-swept wing, the wing tips remained unstalled at the moderate angles of attack flown by X-29 No. 1. Phase 1 flights also demonstrated that the aeroelastic tailored wing did, in fact, prevent structural divergence of the wing within the flight envelope, and that the control laws and control surface effectiveness were adequate to provide artificial stability for this otherwise extremely unstable aircraft and provided good handling qualities for the pilots.
The aircraft's supercritical airfoil also enhanced maneuvering and cruise capabilities in the transonic regime. Developed by NASA and originally tested on an F-8 at Dryden in the 1970s, supercritical airfoils — flatter on the upper wing surface than conventional airfoils — delayed and softened the onset of shock waves on the upper wing surface, reducing drag. The phase 1 flights also demonstrated that the aircraft could fly safely and reliably, even in tight turns.
Phase 2 FlightsThe No. 2 X-29 investigated the aircraft's high angle of attack characteristics and the military utility of its forward-swept wing/canard configuration during 120 research flights. In Phase 2, flying at up to 67 degrees angle of attack (also called high alpha), the aircraft demonstrated much better control and maneuvering qualities than computational methods and simulation models had predicted. The No. 1 X-29 was limited to 21 degrees angle of attack maneuvering.
During Phase 2 flights, NASA, Air Force, and Grumman project pilots reported the X-29 aircraft had excellent control response to 45 degrees angle of attack and still had limited controllability at 67 degrees angle of attack. This controllability at high angles of attack can be attributed to the aircraft's unique forward-swept wing- canard design. The NASA/Air Force-designed high-gain flight control laws also contributed to the good flying qualities.
Flight control law concepts used in the program were developed from radio-controlled flight tests of a 22-percent X-29 drop model at NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va. The detail design was performed by engineers at Dryden and the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base. The X-29 achieved its high alpha controllability without leading edge flaps on the wings for additional lift, and without moveable vanes on the engine's exhaust nozzle to change or "vector" the direction of thrust, such as those used on the X-31 and the F-18 High Angle-of-Attack Research Vehicle. Researchers documented the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft at high angles of attack during this phase using a combination of pressure measurements and flow visualization. Flight test data from the high-angle-of-attack/military-utility phase of the X-29 program satisfied the primary objective of the X-29 program — to evaluate the ability of X-29 technologies to improve future fighter aircraft mission performance.
Vortex Flow ControlIn 1992 the U.S. Air Force initiated a program to study the use of vortex flow control as a means of providing increased aircraft control at high angles of attack when the normal flight control systems are ineffective.The No. 2 X-29 was modified with the installation of two high-pressure nitrogen tanks and control valves with two small nozzle jets located on the forward upper portion of the nose. The purpose of the modifications was to inject air into the vortices that flow off the nose of the aircraft at high angles of attack.
Wind tunnel tests at the Air Force's Wright Laboratory and at the Grumman Corporation showed that injection of air into the vortices would change the direction of vortex flow and create corresponding forces on the nose of the aircraft to change or control the nose heading.
From May to August 1992, 60 flights successfully demonstrated vortex flow control (VFC). VFC was more effective than expected in generating yaw (left-to-right) forces, especially at higher angles of attack where the rudder loses effectiveness. VFC was less successful in providing control when sideslip (relative wind pushing on the side of the aircraft) was present, and it did little to decrease rocking oscillation of the aircraft.
SummaryOverall, VFC, like the forward-swept wings, showed promise for the future of aircraft design. The X-29 did not demonstrate the overall reduction in aerodynamic drag that earlier studies had suggested, but this discovery should not be interpreted to mean that a more optimized
design with forward-swept wings could not yield a reduction in drag. Overall, the X-29 program demonstrated several new technologies as well as new uses of proven technologies. These included: aeroelastic tailoring to control structural divergence; use of a relatively large, close-coupled canard for longitudinal control; control of an aircraft with extreme instability while still providing good handling qualities; use of three-surface longitudinal control; use of a double-hinged trailing-edge flaperon at supersonic speeds; control effectiveness at high angle of attack; vortex control; and military utility of the overall design.The AircraftThe X-29 is a single-engine aircraft 48.1 feet long. Its forward-swept wing has a span of 27.2 feet. Each X-29 was powered by a General Electric F404-GE-400 engine producing 16,000 pounds of thrust. Empty weight was 13,600 pounds, while takeoff weight was 17,600 pounds.
The aircraft had a maximum operating altitude of 50,000 feet, a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, and a flight endurance time of approximately one hour. The only significant difference between the two aircraft was an emergency spin chute deployment system mounted at the base of the rudder on aircraft No. 2. External wing structure is primarily composite materials incorporated into precise patterns to develop strength and avoid structural divergence. The wing substructure and the basic airframe itself is aluminum and titanium. Wing trailing edge actuators controlling camber are mounted externally in streamlined fairings because of the thinness of the supercritical airfoil.
当时在子陵倾注了相当多的心血，结果突然不知道为什么垮了.....时隔数月之后，从一当时在子陵结识的网友那里知道他在上超大。
于是我也就到这来了，呵呵。现在对超大又倾注了很多的心血，希望不要垮掉！
现在还在后悔：当时在子陵上，有个二百五上来就把J10的教科书一页一页的给扫描上来了，结果当时没有存:Q ..............现在想起来肠子都悔青了:')
于是我也就到这来了，呵呵。现在对超大又倾注了很多的心血，希望不要垮掉！
现在还在后悔：当时在子陵上，有个二百五上来就把J10的教科书一页一页的给扫描上来了，结果当时没有存:Q ..............现在想起来肠子都悔青了:')
暗箭先生，请你不要把匪贼鸥，南军等人也算到BKC行列里面来。
他们是您的同类，不属于BKC
他们是您的同类，不属于BKC
子陵把匪贼鸥，南军，信竹这帮人都请来做贵宾了，能不被封吗？
当然也只有暗箭同学才为这老几位叫屈了
当然也只有暗箭同学才为这老几位叫屈了
子陵么，还可以。还是不谈时政吧，免得被封。
我看以后看到暗剑就应该封。
这人太偏激了。
BKC中的所谓的最没品位的那种。
这人太偏激了。
BKC中的所谓的最没品位的那种。
和谐。。。和谐。。。
原帖由 明月清风 于 2007-9-29 22:21 发表
怀念子陵！自从发现了子陵就告别了舰船，自从没了子陵，就上了超大
俺比你快，呵呵。俺直接从舰船到超大！:D :D
原帖由 明月清风 于 2007-9-29 22:21 发表
怀念子陵！自从发现了子陵就告别了舰船，自从没了子陵，就上了超大
一样啊，不过我是没了子陵，只上超大。
我当年在子陵没有少挨骂，我当年说的话，我到现在都不想收回，我还是不看好前掠翼。
前掠翼的优点很多，但某项设计往往成百上千条优点抵挡不住一条致命的缺点。这一点我和那种吹完猛禽回过头来捧金雕的不同。我认准的东西，要么就承认自己看错了，要么就坚决捍卫，绝不走中间路线。我当时就坚信，多少人现在被金雕忽悠的，要不了2年就要后悔了。
对我的仇视来源于当时关于超音速巡航的定义争论，我坚决把米格31打下去，我也说了如果F-22到时候公布出来的性能不能符合定义，我一视同仁，自己坚决不当fq，也坚决不会成为白裤衩。我只认定事物的客观发展趋势。
留这样一个备份做纪念吧
前掠翼的优点很多，但某项设计往往成百上千条优点抵挡不住一条致命的缺点。这一点我和那种吹完猛禽回过头来捧金雕的不同。我认准的东西，要么就承认自己看错了，要么就坚决捍卫，绝不走中间路线。我当时就坚信，多少人现在被金雕忽悠的，要不了2年就要后悔了。
对我的仇视来源于当时关于超音速巡航的定义争论，我坚决把米格31打下去，我也说了如果F-22到时候公布出来的性能不能符合定义，我一视同仁，自己坚决不当fq，也坚决不会成为白裤衩。我只认定事物的客观发展趋势。
留这样一个备份做纪念吧
四年前，很喜欢子陵
子陵的QQ我还有，不过也不见上线了～～
子陵已经彻底堕落了
当年最早接触的军坛就是虚幻超大和子陵了
怀念啊:')
当年最早接触的军坛就是虚幻超大和子陵了
怀念啊:')
映像中子陵好像也就是那段时间被改版的～～
记得当时我从超大转去一张可以证明１１５没有机库的后视图还被加了精:D
可没几天就被改版了:L
记得当时我从超大转去一张可以证明１１５没有机库的后视图还被加了精:D
可没几天就被改版了:L
当年在子陵数场有关超巡的争论我也有份。:D
我坚决认为那种靠大油量然后开加力的所谓超巡如果算数，从MIG-19开始所有战机都有超巡的潜力———加大内油就是了。
我坚决认为那种靠大油量然后开加力的所谓超巡如果算数，从MIG-19开始所有战机都有超巡的潜力———加大内油就是了。