Like i said, MODIFY them.
Just FYI,
- Oxford's dictionary of the English language
That's like asking to modify a ford escort into a formula one car.
Like i said, MODIFY them.
Just FYI,
- Oxford's dictionary of the English language
That's like asking to modify a ford escort into a formula one car.
And they weren't modified either I bet. lmao One says modifying an aircraft is a bad idea, you say trainers were modified to make fighters from. You guys are hilarious.That Canadair sold a version of the tutor to the Malaysian airforce that it used as a fighter. They used it for over 20 years, uptill '89 I believe, before replacing it.
Are the snowbird planes outfitted for combat? Of course not dummy, and neither are the tutors sitting in Moosejaw. The facts are though that they can be and have been in the past.
For Bombardier to modify the airframe of one of their executive class jets would be far from cost effective, and neither would building a new jet from scratch. The most cost effective way to replace the present squadron would be to use existing aircraft, like the Czech fighter.
Yeah right. Like I'd believe you. lmao I don't want to buy a bridge from you either, Durka.That's like asking to modify a ford escort into a formula one car.
Those are way more entertaining than smoke billowing jets. Prettier, too.
Yeah right. Like I'd believe you. lmao I don't want to buy a bridge from you either, Durka.![]()
Which seems to me to be the whole idea behind them, I would think.Aerobatic Biplanes or 40yr old Tudor Jets? Both are Militarily obsolete,
and the Biplanes may be much more entertaining.
And those Czech planes are top-of-the-line?Nothing wrong with those Pitts specials at an air show very entertaining but do you really want our internationl acrobatic team being represented by a team of biplanes? when every one else is using top of the line jets..
Why spend billions keeping the firearms registry going just to turn farmers and ranchers into criminals? Those Czech planes are top-of-the-line and don't need modifications?and hey are looking at replacing those 40 year old tutors with up to date fighters. The fighters proposed were just delivered in 2002/2003, if we can get them for fire sale prices, then why spend billions on a make work project for aircraft for one squadron.
I bet Xzibit could do it.Or at least make it look like one. :lol:
WOW! Now THAT's entertainment. Complete with noise. lol
Why spend billions keeping the firearms registry going just to turn farmers and ranchers into criminals? Those Czech planes are top-of-the-line and don't need modifications?
http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/htm...8&NavL3ID=0&NavL4ID=0&NavL5ID=0&NavL6ID=0&L=2The PC-9 M has established itself as a leader among turboprop trainers, offering superior training value for air forces around the world. The PC-9 M is docile enough for a beginner, but with sufficient power available for the more demanding basic and advanced phases of training. Using a modern cockpit environment, the PC-9 M has become highly regarded by flying instructors as an aircraft with high performance, excess energy, and agile handling, making it an ideal training platform for a wide range of training syllabi in use today.
I was looking at Canada's other trainers and was wondering why we can't use Hawks or Harvard 2s. Anyone know?