Berkut Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I know that the stills with F-117 tested on RCS is from TzNII. (Russia's RCS institute. Not literally all the time, but they step alot in that area). I am not 100 % sure, but i also think models are from TzNII. Also, ITAE. :lol: http://www.itae.ru/index_e.htm Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Why bother painting it at this point? Just because we think it looks good doesn't mean they should have to go to the time and expense of having it painted for the cameras. Agreed. They should paint it just for us modelers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J.C. Bahr Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Unless somebody else already stated it here and I didn't see it... my buddy came up with the perfect Nato code name for it (keeping in the tradition of the name starting with "F").... FACSIMILE!!!! B) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 FACSIMILE!!! No, sorry, but I heard they've already picked a NATO reporting name. Based on its heritage, the Su-50 will be called "Flaptor." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John B Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) Uh no. It is still as complex as ever. I agree on both points. It's the list of reasons why modelers want to buy the 1/48 Hasegawa Raptor instead of the Academy kit. #9 is "No cool idolmaster decals". Edited February 3, 2010 by John B Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 FACSIMILE!!!! What is it a facsimile of? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
J.C. Bahr Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 What is it a facsimile of? Gee I wonder! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Gee I wonder! Gee, someone just had to come and start ruining this otherwise civil thread. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Gee I wonder! I'm serious. Looking at its shape, it's not like any one aircraft I've seen. It's no F-22, if that's what you're implying. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Unless somebody else already stated it here and I didn't see it... my buddy came up with the perfect Nato code name for it (keeping in the tradition of the name starting with "F")....FACSIMILE!!!! I know (I hope) you are only joking...but... That word does not follow the rules for ASIG (not NATO) reporting names...... It should start with the letter F It should have only TWO syllables. It should not be confused with any other reporting name. It fails on rule 2. Ken (who's in a pedantic mood right now) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) It's the list of reasons why modelers want to buy the 1/48 Hasegawa Raptor instead of the Academy kit. #9 is "No cool idolmaster decals". That was a good one! A good deal of the other posts in this thread do have a tang of "Real Aviation", if not as much as the PAK-FA thread that (thankfully) got buried in "Jet Modelling". Edited February 3, 2010 by ChernayaAkula Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Isn't she beautiful? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attac...mp;d=1265203601 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attac...mp;d=1265203581 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attac...mp;d=1265203558 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Cool pics, Berkut! Love the second one! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Isn't she beautiful? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attac...mp;d=1265203601 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attac...mp;d=1265203581 http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attac...mp;d=1265203558 The 1st and 2nd images look distorted--the 1st looks too flat, and the 2nd too narrow. The proportions look off. Or is it that I haven't finished my coffee yet? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) I don't see anything wrong with them. It appears as in videos and other pics. (unsure if this is a trap or not... ) EDIT: Typo Edited February 3, 2010 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 unsure if this is a trap or not. Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Remember, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Seriously Waco, this is getting pointless and annoying. I guess i have to quote myself: " :P " Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) Well, for my part, no, sorry, not trying to trap anyone--not even sure what that implies. The 1st and 2nd photos just looked squished to me. But hey, I spent all night up with the 3 month old, so I may be seeing things. I can't speak for Waco, but the little quote he gave you is very common in the US, probably elsewhere as well. I've never seen it intended as anything offensive beyond minor good natured ribbing. Edited February 3, 2010 by MarkW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) thanks berkut for the pics to me they look good 1st isn't too flat, looking at the gears of the plane, and seems all right (tires are good width (compared to flankers)) 2nd too, maybe just a matter of perspective... Edited February 3, 2010 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 i really like to see the shape of the "flankers canards" incorporate to the lerxs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 and i hope they'll have success in the export market... can't wait to see a model kit for that plane. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 The 1st and 2nd photos just looked squished to me. But hey, I spent all night up with the 3 month old, so I may be seeing things. Then it's very understandable. I see a lot of odd things after spending part of the night up with my 11 month old... But to tell the truth, I think the photos look normal. I guess the thing just is so flat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) Roger that! I still think, on another point, it is wrong to refer to the LERX things as "canards". A canard is a distinct lifting surface with its own center of pressure and moment properties around the CG. The LERX thing does not appear to have a flow through feature, so it won't be an independent control surface like a canard, but more a modifying control surface like a slat. Using the slat analogy, it should slide the body lift curve a bit to the right, meaning the airflow over the body would stay attached at higher AoA. Can't help but think this is tied to the tiny tail bit too--I'm trying to recall how much of tail sizing is dictated by supersonic stability versus subsonic control. Of course it could be some goofy cool active boundary layer cloaking device too, who knows? Edited February 3, 2010 by MarkW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Well, for my part, no, sorry, not trying to trap anyone--not even sure what that implies. Hey hey Mark, no need to be sorry. :P :D (it was a light joke from me, considering the last few pages. :)) Then it's very understandable. I see a lot of odd things after spending part of the night up with my 11 month old... Oh, already 11 months. :) Can't help but think this is tied to the tiny tail bit too--I'm trying to recall how much of tail sizing is dictated by supersonic stability versus subsonic control. Of course it could be some goofy cool active boundary layer cloaking device too, who knows? I think this part is used more for the intake function tbh. Well, we will see as project evolves. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Yup, it is :P Actually more graceful than the american counterpart....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.