janman Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Very nice pics! Thanks, Zmey. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
geedubelyer Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 Outstanding! Nice size comparison with the Flanker. thanks for posting these up Zmey. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 I've just seen (and saved) those - it looks like it may be smaller than first thought Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rapier01 Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 I've just seen (and saved) those - it looks like it may be smaller than first thoughtLooks like that to me too. I thought it was bigger... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 I wonder about the inlet sizing now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sebastijan Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) Great shots, Z! I was sure it is smaller than Su-27, just by comparing the sizes with the chase plane - this shot confirms that. It's also interesting to see how engine bulges on the upper side transform into spine. Obviously TVC engines are also fitted Edited March 7, 2010 by Sebastijan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) It certainly looks smaller than I first thought - but only in the second photo. On the last one the size difference doesn't seem to be that dramatic. So I guess it is the relatively flat appearence and the highly swept wings of the PAK FA that make it look so small from certain angles. For a pure layman like me, the second photo would indicate that it really is a pure stealth aircraft. The profile is so different when compared to Flanker. Now if we only saw good photos of the intakes - from inside. One can always hope. Edited March 7, 2010 by janman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
janman Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) It's also interesting to see how engine bulges on the upper side transform into spine. That's an interesting notion! Hadn't noticed it before. Edited March 7, 2010 by janman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) Great shots, Z!I was sure it is smaller than Su-27, just by comparing the sizes with the chase plane - this shot confirms that. It's also interesting to see how engine bulges on the upper side transform into spine. Obviously TVC engines are also fitted aren't those engines nozzles only bleeds down slightly? (after hydrolics cut-off) ...i not sure if they haven't only took engines from su-35ub... since it aint got it's engines! (picture taken from control tower shows a nozzles-less su35ub) Edited March 7, 2010 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 (edited) Wow, what a great surprise to come to after 4 days with work! Here are some high res pics: http://picasaweb.google.ru/106125363254545602859/T50# (just click that pluss button, then save) I also noticed how engine bulges are shaped, very clever. PS: Regarding the Su-35UB, here are some pics taken earlier at KNAAPO this summer. Taken by a user on Aviaforum.ru. The rudders are turning to the same side, and slats are dropped, so i guess the bird is rather dead. PS number 2: Someone noted there is photoshop going on in the intakes. Edited March 7, 2010 by madmike copyright image hotlinks removed Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 For a pure layman like me, the second photo would indicate that it really is a pure stealth aircraft. The profile is so different when compared to Flanker. Now if we only saw good photos of the intakes - from inside. One can always hope. It isn't a pure stealth aircraft, but they tried fairly hard. This really makes the lack of planform alignment even more puzzling. It's not like it will be easy to fix panels after the structure is already in place. They have a lot of work to do to get up to F-22/F-35 standards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 7, 2010 Share Posted March 7, 2010 It isn't a pure stealth aircraft, but they tried fairly hard. This really makes the lack of planform alignment even more puzzling. It's not like it will be easy to fix panels after the structure is already in place. They have a lot of work to do to get up to F-22/F-35 standards. Ah, those panels again...IMHO, that is splitting hairs...As i said earlier, take a look at YF-23. Count the amount of tooth shaped areas panels. Do the same with PAK-FA. And remember YF-23 was more stealthy (so they say) than F-22. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zmey Smirnoff Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 It isn't a pure stealth aircraft, but they tried fairly hard. This really makes the lack of planform alignment even more puzzling. It's not like it will be easy to fix panels after the structure is already in place. They have a lot of work to do to get up to F-22/F-35 standards. Gosh, if only Sukhoi would hire its engineers from a plastic modeling forum.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 :D, Good one Zmey, I've been wondering about that one myself. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sebastijan Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 LOL Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fox-bat Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) Edited March 8, 2010 by fox-bat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 To bring this back to relevancy: 1. You have completely missed my point, maybe a language barrier. Instead of looking for sawtooths on the YF-23 (the vast, VAST majority of panel lines), look for the non-aligned panels--those perpendicular to the airflow. That is the point I was trying to make. PAK-FA has many more perpendicular to flow panel lines. 2. Comparison to the Y and X planes is completey irrelevant in this case. If the Russians will field this jet in 5 years, they don't have time for another "from the ground up" effort. That is why this approach is puzzling to me. 3. Look at the F/A-18E/F as a better example than a late 80s design. When the Superbug was redesigned, it was essentially an all new airframe--"from the ground up". That design incorporated sawtooths and aligning on practically every panel, and it has had a significant effect on RCS. So, again, why the Russians would opt for a design with some problematic areas, when they could have been as easily designed out, I can't fathom. 4. I'm also confused why you would use a scale model to make the point when you do have so many actual aircraft pics? Granted, many of the pics are repeats. Perhaps becuase like the one I posted it doesn't make your point? 5. Zactoman isn't the only person on this board to have been around the YF-23, BTW. The difference is when I did it, the aircraft were just off of flight test and hadn't been stripped down. I do apologize for being blunt about your build, though I was hardly bashing. I will say that as a more balanced critique I find your representation of the panel lines to not be representative in width or depth of the real aircraft. Fair enough? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Can we please get back to discussing PAK FA - rather than YF-23 I know you are trying to make comparisons...... Does anyone yet have a good 'guesstimate' about the wingspan yet ??? Anything better than 'approx 14.2 to 15m' yet ??? I know that Sukhoi haven't released the data yet - but where are the analysts with the figures ??? Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 ;), The PAK-FA/T-50 is after all a first prototype and as we should all know there are normally many changes made before any aircraft goes into production. Let's not forget that very few aircraft have gone into production without changes or with very few changes so why would it be impossible to make those changes to the PAK-FA/T-50 to turn it into the Su-50 if that turns out to be its final designation? Let's face it, this is still an undeveloped prototype so perhaps we shouldn't be getting our knickers in a knot about whether it can or cannot become fully stealthy. Only time will tell. I believe the Russian engineers are more than capable of achieving this. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 ;), Whew! Berkut, you must have posted your reply while I was having my breakfast. I do agree with you. PAK-FA is just a prototype, a prospective future frontal fighter, the operative words here being prospective future. , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) New cockpit shot, zoomed up from this: http://i074.radikal.ru/1003/ae/c144d4ce3bb5.png Calculation of the wingspan: http://paralay.iboards.ru/download/file.ph...4&mode=view As i said in Ken's PAK-FA build thread, an insider said the wingspan is 14.7. Although this is not 100 % accurate i guess, it must be damn close. Edited March 8, 2010 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zactoman Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I don't think we can use an inaccurate model to judge stealthiness. Look at those incorrectly placed and canyon like panel lines Nice...FYI, Berkut totally revamped that kit and made it much more accurate than what came in the box! And,,, He did a fine job of it! 5. Zactoman isn't the only person on this board to have been around the YF-23, BTW. The difference is when I did it, the aircraft were just off of flight test and hadn't been stripped down.Yes, some of the panels were removed and replaced after flight testing and became more visible but the vast majority of the panel lines depicted on Berkut's model (and mine) were visible when the plane was first rolled out of the hanger as well as in many of the published flight test photos.Actually more lines were visible during testing on PAV-1 than are visible now that it has been restored and put on display at the AF Museum in Dayton... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Peace on the YF-23. My point was not, to quote the Bard, that the panel lines were "as wide as a barn door nor deep as a well", but the alignment. First rule of stelath, right? Shaping? And so often misused... But apparently the other cardinal sin I committed was to even remotely question, nay JUDGE, the greatest plane EVAR . My bad for assuming a discussion board would be for rationale, oh what's the word...discussion of a topic. So, rather than point out at best the PAK-FA will be as stealthy as a clean F/A-18E/F when it finally hits the ramp in 5 years without some effort, I will simply confine myself to rapturous praise of all things and the mighty men of Sukhoi. My puny brain simply isn't able to understand their genius any more than a dog watching a clock. ALL PRAISE SUKHOI!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) ...the greatest plane EVAR Wrong, it is "EVAH!". My bad for assuming a discussion board would be for rationale, oh what's the word...discussion of a topic. Who isn't discussing? So, rather than point out at best the PAK-FA will be as stealthy as a clean F/A-18E/F when it finally hits the ramp in 5 years without some effort, I will simply confine myself to rapturous praise of all things and the mighty men of Sukhoi. You still don't get the point, do you? Neither you, me or Zmey, or anybody can say just how stealthy PAK-FA is. Let me give an example, that a respected user (Flateric) on both english and russian forum gave: Three RCS scientists from USA have been given a mission to find out the RCS of F-117. They were not releated to the project before, and they haven't seen F-117 before that. So, they made 3D and physical models of F-117 (tested at Ratscat area) to measure the RCS section. The data was run through existing at the time computeres, that were specialized in measuring RCS. Guess what, the data they got of RCS section was much higher than the *real* RCS of the *real* plane. And please remember: 1- Those were three experts of RCS. 2- They had all the tools they needed, models, testarea and computers. So basically, you can guess all you want, but the fact is that you are just simply guessing, nothing more. I am really not sure why *you* think you are able to judge PAK-FA's RCS just by looking at some pictures. I guess you must have some kind of magic ball or something. I don't judge PAK-FA's or Raptor's RCS, simply because i can't. And sorry to say, neither can you. ALL PRAISE SUKHOI!! Dead on! :D () EDIT: Spelling. Edited March 9, 2010 by Berkut Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 <....>I disagree. I think it is entirely relevant. I don't consider F-35 a "from ground up" effort compared to X-35. It is update, and a big one. PAK-FA is supposed to be that too, just done a biiiiit faster than F-22. Design philosophy and progress is the same in USA as in Russia, atleast mostly. <....> Sure, all the heavy lifting has been done already ... Gregg 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.