PAK FA

[MiG31]

I haven't read or heard what the ASCC reporting name will be, but I hope it won't be "Firefox". Only one aircraft, real or fictitious, deserves that name.

PAK FA is definitely a looker, though. I'm hesitant to say it's better looking than the YF-23, or even the F-22, but I tend to have an "apples and oranges" view of things anyway.

[Zactoman]

The discussion on the Key Publishing forum has been largely civil so far, and has produced some interesting imagery. Here's a post comparing F-22 to PAK FA, whilst this post does the same with the YF-23 in place of the Raptor. Then there's this drawing, which looks like a decent preliminary interpretive sketch.

Just for yucks I added the YF-23:

What do you mean by "outer mold line"? My knowledge of aeronautical engineering is lacking, and the best reference I could find that defines OML is this page. How does that apply to the F-22/PAK FA issue?

I thought the picture accompanying his explanation explained very clearly what he meant.

Let's keep it civil.

No need to try picking fights...

[MiG31]

I thought the picture accompanying his explanation explained very clearly what he meant.

Let's keep it civil.

No fight intended. I'm just trying to understand the term used. I've seen it often enough that it's piqued my interest. I can see the two aircraft are very similar in planform and details, but there are differences in my eyes that make me wonder what he meant, specifically.

[Wayne S]

Definitely is different, were the control surfaces and thrust line compared to CG, would like to get a nice side shot of it, something usable in cad.

[Wayne S]

Anyone messing around the the dimensions?

So far Wiki does not seam correct, using the Aircraft in the pictures. Either the wingspan is longer or the plane is shorter.

# Length: 22 m (72 ft)

# Wingspan: 14.2 m (46.5 ft)

# Height: 6.05 m (19.8 ft)

scaling pictures.

Wingspan: (46.5 ft) =s length of 63.37 ft, to tip of probe.

Length: (72 ft) "tip of probe" =s wingspan around 53ft.

[hemspilot]

It has to be larger than the F-22 to accommodate that size of weapon bays between the engines, unless it has some kind of rotary launcher in each one (of the bays).

As a comparison we may well need to look at the Su-47 (S-37) Berkut or the Mig I-44.

[foxmulder_ms]

I want to quote my post from another forum;

Some say PAK-FA looks like F-22, some say F-23, some say dressed up Flanker. This adds up one conclusion: It is really a distinct aircraft.

[Waco]

Some say PAK-FA looks like F-22, some say F-23, some say dressed up Flanker. This adds up one conclusion: It is really a distinct aircraft.

Again, nobody is saying it is NOT a distinct aircraft. However, I feel that there are some OBVIOUS design features of other aircraft that are present in the PAK-FA.

[BAM'n'IVM]

Forget it, Waco. Some folks are dead set to disagree with you no matter what, and others just won't see the resemblance between this aircraft and an F-22. Nor will they understand the difference between pointing out a resemblance and claiming it's a stolen design.

[Raymond]

If I look for similarities I find them, I look for differences I find them - I cant win either way

im just glad hi res photos are coming out now: the first vid clips squashed up the front something awful!

*nice art:

Edited February 1, 2010 by Raymond

[Wayne S]

just saw that in paralay's forum

Thats close, still not it tho, CG would have a different effect, since them views have a longer butt end.

The Black outline is what I got from pictures with out adding the Nose probe.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Wayne S

[hemspilot]

Too short, not enough space for the two weapon bays.

The blue outline is much better.

[GreyGhost]

There is nothing wrong with finding differences and similarities between the designs ...

Finding similarities should NOT be regarded as criticisms ...

BTW, Wayne has the wing shape much more better than the 3 view shows ...

Gregg

[BAM'n'IVM]

He's got the wing shape better, but I'm not sure either drawing really captures that long Sukhoi neck.

[Wayne S]

yep Wayne S you are correct but we must wait some more time for good 3d schematics i think that after the 2nd flight wich will take place today if i'm not wrong we will have more pic's to look at now is the time to look on to the T-50

and look for the difference not with the commonality between F-22 YF-23 Su-27 and PAK-FA :huh:

Hopefully someone will get a good side view then

Too short, not enough space for the two weapon bays.

The blue outline is much better.

There is no telling what the actual size is, to say it is too short.

All that above picture does is, Keep the wingspan the same and the wingroot.

Its a percentage "scale" of a known aircraft without knowing the true 1:1 size. Wingspan could bee 100ft or 30ft.

[Wayne S]

He's got the wing shape better, but I'm not sure either drawing really captures that long Sukhoi neck.

The look of the long nose is deceiving, it's really not that long. The black out line was done in a Cad going off a picture of the real bird.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Wayne S

[hemspilot]

May I suggest that, if we know the length of the missiles that are supposed to go into those weapon bays, we take that into account, then generate the fuselage lenght based on the existing photos.

Edited February 1, 2010 by hemspilot

[GreyGhost]

The length of the missiles doesn't necessarily equate to the length of the bays, the bays can be longer by a significant amount ...

Gregg

[ross blackford]

,

Because I've had computer problems for a few days I've not been able to reply to this thread since the first flight (some people would say 'Thank the Lord for that'), although I have been following the thread on my new mobile phone which is internet enabled. What I do think is interesting is how much interest the aircraft has generated in the various aviation related forums around the world. From 4 or 5 pages last Friday to 19 pages on Monday afternoon. Is that an ARC record?

On the aircraft itself, I find the so far known similarites to and differences from the F-22 to be very interesting and I'll undoubetedly find the so far unknown ones to be even more interesting. I've long said that 2 aircraft designed for the same or similar functions will have the same of similar form, give or take a few diferences, as function has a bad habit of defining form as far as things like aircraft, cars, trucks even personal and laptop computers go.

,

Ross.

[Wayne S]

May I suggest that, if we know the length of the missiles that are supposed to go into those weapon bays, we take that into account, then generate the fuselage lenght based on the existing photos.

That don't matter for what I am looking for, my self.

Anyways, why would I need to know the missile length, when the bomb bay is getting scaled the same as the rest of the plane?

Scale is just a percentage.

For instance, if I want a 33inch wing span remote control plane, I size the wingspan to 33 inches.

In my case that 33 inch wingspan was .78 percent of my original drawing. Type in .78 percent in the X,Y,Z and the plan stays as it should be. In the case of a 33 inch wingspan the length becomes 41.96 inches.

Now if one wants to know what the measurements are of 1/12th, 1/32nd, 1/48th and 1/72nd the size of the 1:1 aircraft. That is a different story.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Wayne S

[MiG31]

The look of the long nose is deceiving, it's really not that long. The black out line was done in a Cad going off a picture of the real bird.

Was it this view? You may want to be careful of foreshortening, lengthwise, as that appears to be occurring in the photo. It's not a lot, but enough to require a noticeable +/- error in your estimates.

[Wayne S]

Was it this view? You may want to be careful of foreshortening, lengthwise, as that appears to be occurring in the photo. It's not a lot, but enough to require a noticeable +/- error in your estimates.

Length was not that bad with that one. More so the drop of the port side.

Picture is not the problem with wikis dimensions anyway, not 9 or 10ft put it that way.

More or less I find my self being off maybe 3 to 6 inches depending on the scale. More pictures come out, more better it gets.

Not like I am drawing to make a scale static model.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Wayne S

[MarkW]

I've long said that 2 aircraft designed for the same or similar functions will have the same of similar form, give or take a few diferences, as function has a bad habit of defining form as far as things like aircraft, cars, trucks even personal and laptop computers go.

,

Ross.

Not sure if you saw this post. I've been working off cell phones too! I think a better way to phrase it is they may be similar or may not. Plenty of exceptions to any rule.

I think the similarity only matters in terms of combat visual ID, and then only to the F-22 or T-50 pilot. Anyone else should already be dead by then.

[Berkut]

Some comments about RCS who worked with F-22 and F-35:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost....p;postcount=859

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost....p;postcount=864

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost....p;postcount=863

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost....p;postcount=107

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost....p;postcount=952

Didn't know before now that side RCS was bigger than rear sector. And you can see they definitely focused on side RCS...

[Waco]

Berkut - no offense, but using the Key Publishing Forums for accurate discussions on aviation is like trusting Baghdad Bob for updates on Operation Iraqi Freedom.