Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<...> Doors spring open, trapeze extends to let the Sidewinder's seeker get a look at the world, finds a nice hot exhaust, growls, pilot confirms and releases, missile comes off the rail to go do its thing, the trapeze snaps back down as the external doors close back up. <...>

Ah, I see. Thanks for the heads-up. :bandhead2: So the pilot decides that there's a good target for a heater, cycles the door open and waits for the missile to get a lock? Interesting.

I think there's a small blast deflector on the rail right behind the AIM-9's motor that redirects the plume out away from the airframe.

Good pic showing the blast deflector on flickr.

454793962_23f6eae48a_b.jpg

SOURCE

Edited by ChernayaAkula
Link to post
Share on other sites
However, if you cover that frying pan in a plasma cloud, chances of reflecting is much less.

And the chances of it actually being useful for receiving any RADAR returns is also about nil....pretty much nullifying any theoretical advantage you'd get from blanketing said frying pan in a plasma cloud in the first place.

This is going nowhere. We might as well start discussing how a wing works, or why earth is round...

Wow....can't have levity, can't discuss what possible applications some of the design features might or might not have, can't speculate on functions of the design, can't speculate on the stealthiness or not based on the pictures...

What CAN you do in this thread?

Oh wait, I forgot. Enter reverently, quietly genuflect, and marvel silently at the pictures of a beautiful prototype. Got it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D, g'day Waco,

I did say perhaps we should curb our speculation. Certainly we sometimes need to let the imagination run wild, that's how new things come into existence and I'm sure that the Russians are jsut as good at that activity as we westerners are. Unfortunately in the past, speculation on the topic of stealth has led us down a rocky road to the ultimate locking of threads. For some reason it's a subject that we all seem to be pretty passionate about. As long as we keep to some light hearted speculation I can't see a problem. BTW I think your lighthearted little comment at the bottom of your post is a good one.

MarkW,

You and I agreeing on something? Anything? Indeed, what is this world coming to? :coolio:

:thumbsup:'

Ross

Link to post
Share on other sites

A wing works by holding onto the fuselage. If it wasn't firmly attached, it would flap around. Kind of like a helo rotor.

The Earth is round, cuz if it had corners it would wobble in it's orbit.

Hope this helps.

Oh, and by the by kids...

Clam doon laddies!

Alvis 3.1, Moderation by proclamation, disasterification!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Underwing vortex generators and plasma stealth...

Ok, where are the flight test pr*n pictures?

I am sure Google will solve that, as all the news that is posted in this thread. :thumbsup:

Wow....can't have levity, can't discuss what possible applications some of the design features might or might not have, can't speculate on functions of the design, can't speculate on the stealthiness or not based on the pictures...

What CAN you do in this thread?

Oh wait, I forgot. Enter reverently, quietly genuflect, and marvel silently at the pictures of a beautiful prototype. Got it.

Don't read into it to much Waco. Discussion and speculating is alright with me, as long as we don't speculate on things that is settled down long time ago. (And the underwing stores is settled down discussion). Hence my examples...

Now, personally, what i would like to see is some speculation about the radar and the sensor behind the canopy. :rolleyes:

I am not police, and i don't try to act like one. It is just a bit pointless discussion, like this. :D

Edited by Berkut
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I still allowed a little righteous indignation over supposed professionals advocating underwing vortex generators? Especially ones shaped like a sausage?

As for all the sensors, much like a Pugachev's cobra, I'm trying to make sense of them too. The plane does not have unlimited electrical power, cooling and weight budget, yet the fanboys are cramming every nook and cranny with radar arrays. This does not a cheap fighter make...

Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that underwing pods of that shape would serve as overwing vortex generators shows such a mind boggling lack of basic aerodynamics understanding I'm simply stunned. Defence Pro? Oy vey...

Thank you, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one thinking this or if I maybe missed a few days of one of my aero classes. Vortex generators tend to not be very aerodynamic since making them that way would, you know, prevent them from generating vortices. Also, under the wing?? Ooookay....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that a vortex generator would go on the top of a wing to keep high AoA flow attached to the top of the wing, and that a vortex generator would be more of a flat plate or airfoil (it needs to create a small amount of lift to create the pressure differential that results in air rolling off the tip and making the vortex) than a semicircular tube, the Defence Pro guys are spot on. :whistle: And lest we forget, votex generators on primary lifting surfaces are a cheap fix for screwing up--hopefully Sukhoi didn't design them in!

Seriously, I know many modelers may not have the background for this stuff, and I certainly don't blame them for repeating what looks reputable. But when the so called fancy-schmancy expert web sites with the glossy graphics are that wrong, it really just is inexcusable. That "plasma stealth" (I can hide a Mig 23!!) on a moving vehicle is still being discussed isn't much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for all the sensors, much like a Pugachev's cobra, I'm trying to make sense of them too. The plane does not have unlimited electrical power, cooling and weight budget, yet the fanboys are cramming every nook and cranny with radar arrays. This does not a cheap fighter make...

It is not entirely unrealistic.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/SpZV...-14-37_0017.jpg

Also, from 4.15-4.19

Expensive and power draining, can't argue that. Either way, the first flying prototype is just a shell filled with sandbags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't they be simply structural fairings? Or something as prosaic as actuators for flaps or somesuch thing?

I have no way to tell if one explanation is more likely than the other, but the plane lovers version of Ockhams Razor suggests that the more exotic explanations are far less likely than the simpler ones.

In order of less likely to more:

Plasma stealth

Sensors

Missiles

Aerodynamic feature

Structural fairing

If it is an aerodynamic feature, its function is obviously not a vortex generator, as is argued above. Couldnt they do something akin to what wing fences used to do on 50s era soviet fighters?

p.s. thanks for the pic of the blast deflector. Such an elegant solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The leading edge L band sensors may well be part of the design. From that position they could look forward as well as sideways. I was referring to the idea of the underwing pods being antenna bays as well, which would give you a purely side looking array. I fail to see what purpose that would serve on a tactical fighter.

If it is an aerodynamic feature, its function is obviously not a vortex generator, as is argued above. Couldnt they do something akin to what wing fences used to do on 50s era soviet fighters?

Wing fences, like vortex generators, are designed to control airflow over the top of a wing--they are not shaped (too round) or placed right (on the bottom) for that function. Really, under wing flow is something you don't really have to burn a lot of brain cells on--nature kind of takes care of that just fine.

Edited by MarkW
Link to post
Share on other sites
The leading edge L band sensors may well be part of the design. From that position they could look forward as well as sideways. I was referring to the idea of the underwing pods being antenna bays as well, which would give you a purely side looking array. I fail to see what purpose that would serve on a tactical fighter.

Ah, i see, and totally agree. I have posted this before, but seems noone actually read it...I will post it again then, and translate:

"May i ask, is there sidebays on PAK-FA in wings or not? Is it them?"

http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/3812/paku.jpg

Nemetc, confirmed insider:

"Right there".

Link: http://kyrazh.ru/index.php?action=vthread&...076&page=24

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, i see, and totally agree. I have posted this before, but seems noone actually read it...I will post it again then, and translate:

"May i ask, is there sidebays on PAK-FA in wings or not? Is it them?"

http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/3812/paku.jpg

Nemetc, confirmed insider:

"Right there".

Link: http://kyrazh.ru/index.php?action=vthread&...076&page=24

In that case i cant wait to see how they manage to put a heatseeker in there. It must be a stroke of engineering genius :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

:wub:,

If the power requirements for plasma stealth that I have read elsewhere are anything near what is actually required then this bird would need several 40kVa generators on each engine to supply sufficient power. Then there's the issue of getting the phase rotation at exactly the same timing as the genrators come on line, no mean feat on 50 or 60 Hz, I should think extremely difficult on 400 Hz. 400 Hz was chosen for aircraft AC generators many years ago because it gives the greatest power output for a given weight of generator. I know that there is a tendency these days to rectify to DC the whole output of an AC generator which today tend to run frequency wild and use static inverters to produce what AC you need. All of this adds weight and has pretty hefty cooling requirements which add more weight. I can see it becoming an upward spiral which will ultimately decrease the performance and abilities of the aircraft.

When I think back to my days working on Mirages, they only had ram air cooling of the alternator and generator and on prolonged ground runs on hot days both would drop off line when they got too hot, effectively ending the engine run. Blast air cooling ducts from the intakes also add weight so I'd be guessing that one large generator per enigne would be the norm and have it blast air cooled. But seeing as plasma stealth appears to be impractical for aircraft for a number of reasons perhaps that isn't going to appear in aircraft for many more years, if ever.

:thumbsup:,

Ross.

Edited by ross blackford
Link to post
Share on other sites

:banana:, Hi MarkW,

Numerous people have said that the optronic ball in front of the windscreen is unstealthy and that may well be, but would it be possible to make the optronics sensors more stealthy by putting them in those panniers, with glass forward panels ala the forward mounted balls on earlier Sukhois wrapping around the front from one side to the other? I honestly have no idea and that's why I'm asking. Would the pods be more stealthy if the forward edges were rounded and made from that special toughened scratch proof glass that the earlier Sus have their optronic ball outer covers made from, not sharp metal as on the prototype. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Just asking because I'm curious.

Someone earlier came up with a Russian nickname for this aeroplane, Flattened Frog. Although that doesn't qualify under ASIC rules maybe this one might. I came up with this one earlier today during a conversation about the 1930 England v. Australia cricket test series. How about Flatfrog. I thought of that one on the spur of the moment and in the spirit of the 'Bodyline' television series. Any Aussie cricket fan will know what I'm on about. Some would say that Flatfrog is two words. However during that controversial test series a Sydney sporting writer was sending a telegram to his editor from Adelaide about the new English 'leg theory' bowling technique.

According to the theory which was thought up by the England captain Douglas Jardine and executed by their star bowler Harold Larwood especially to rattle Australia's star batsman, Donald Bradman. The bowler pitches the ball long so it bounces right in front of the batsman on his leg side and pitches up into his face at about 85-90 mph and there's little he can do about it but duck or lose his head. Remember, back in those days cricketers didn't have the personal protective gear they wear today. All Bradman had was his 'Baggy Green' on his head and of course his leg pads and gloves. Although this technique at first threw Bradman off his game, once he got the measure of it he started slogging the ball all around the field and got many sixes and fours off this style of bowling until eventually Jardine realized he was all out of moves against Bradman. It's also ironic that in Bradman's last test match he got out for a 'duck' (no score) to a short pitched slow ball. This dropped his batting average from a potential 100 runs per game to 99.99. How the name Bodyline came about in the tv show was that the journalist didn't have enough money on him to send the telegram he wanted and so eventually culled that part of the sentence down to 'bodyline'. Even then the girl behind the counter said "That's 2 words" and his reply was "No it isn't, 'Bodyline', it's only one word." From that the name stuck and the test series was known here as the 'Bodyline series'. The wording had originally started off "on the line of the body". So, fellow Flanker fans and others, would Flatfrog qualify. It does have some Russian and some Western inspiration in it.

:),

Ross.

Edited by ross blackford
Link to post
Share on other sites
:), Hi MarkW,

Numerous people have said that the optronic ball in front of the windscreen is unstealthy and that may well be, but would it be possible to make the optronics sensors more stealthy by putting them in those panniers, with glass forward panels ala the forward mounted balls on earlier Sukhois wrapping around the front from one side to the other? I honestly have no idea and that's why I'm asking. Would the pods be more stealthy if the forward edges were rounded and made from that special toughened scratch proof glass that the earlier Sus have their optronic ball outer covers made from, not sharp metal as on the prototype. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Just asking because I'm curious.

:),

Ross.

See how the F-35 EOTS (which should also perform the IRST function with multiple sensor, not an optronic ball), is going to loog like:

f35_technology_eots.jpg

More on the EOTS functions in this video:

Cheers

Davide

Edited by davetur
Link to post
Share on other sites
Any pics of the painted T-50 yet?

I've read the reports on 2nd flight and that it has been painted in white/grey splinter camo...

Second one was on 12'th, and third one happened on 13'th. Yes, it is painted prior to second flight. White nose. Light grey/darker grey camo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First and foremost, it goes about high, nearly human intelligence. - Makarov said

As people on other forums said, he said that after having a deep conversation with the plane. <_< :D

Great. One more thing they stole from us...

kitt-display.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...