Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'm southpaw as well, and would prefer the right-sided stick, although I might get used to a center-stick if given the opportunity.

Do you use a left-handed mouse, mingwin?

no i don't use left-handed mouse... but anytime i hold a joystick i tried with my left hand first(kinda reflex...)

anyway, i'm not knowing the real adventages of having a side-stick... (and i'm not willing to turn this thread in something else than what it should...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 952
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

anyway, i'm not knowing the real adventages of having a side-stick... (and i'm not willing to turn this thread in something else than what it should...)

I didn't mean to sound adversarial, just noting that not all southpaws are identical. :jaw-dropping: I'm not certain why the F-16 and few other aircraft have a right-hand control stick, and as far as I know it's only used on FBW-equipped aircraft.

As a side-note (no pun intended), I noted the lack of an IRST pod on that test article. I suppose it wasn't needed? In any event, I hope the production aircraft has a retractable unit, as it looks better without the thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't mean to sound adversarial, just noting that not all southpaws are identical. :jaw-dropping: I'm not certain why the F-16 and few other aircraft have a right-hand control stick, and as far as I know it's only used on FBW-equipped aircraft.

That is because most people are right handed, 90 % iirc.

As a side-note (no pun intended), I noted the lack of an IRST pod on that test article. I suppose it wasn't needed? In any event, I hope the production aircraft has a retractable unit, as it looks better without the thing.

It lacks IRST because T-50-0 simply doesn't need one. And regarding the irst, someone (i think it was main designer) said: "If we need to change it, we will." In other words, it isn't big issue, and there is far more important things to worry about. :cheers:

Link to post
Share on other sites
<...>

anyway, i'm not knowing the real adventages of having a side-stick... (and i'm not willing to turn this thread in something else than what it should...)

It's probably more comfortable for the body, as it's a more relaxed position. Especially under high g-loads, when the breathing might influence the arm and therefore the stick position.

I didn't mean to sound adversarial, just noting that not all southpaws are identical. :cheers: I'm not certain why the F-16 and few other aircraft have a right-hand control stick, and as far as I know it's only used on FBW-equipped aircraft. <...>

In a modern fighter aircraft, I guess in the end it doesn't matter whether you're left- or right-handed, as both hands will have ample to do. Would be interesting to hear from a left-handed pilot, though. :jaw-dropping:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's probably more comfortable for the body, as it's a more relaxed position. Especially under high g-loads, when the breathing might influence the arm and therefore the stick position. "

"In a modern fighter aircraft, I guess in the end it doesn't matter whether you're left- or right-handed, as both hands will have ample to do. Would be interesting to hear from a left-handed pilot, though. " (my only concern is more about wich part of the brain control wich task...)

thank you ChernayaAkula!

that was the kind of answer i was wishing! (and i sound logical and right) ...though i wouldn't extend on that subject as we are in the pak-fa thread...

and for the 90% of right-handed people... i've got one thing for you: your only 85%! :D (and, in some place in the world, your even only 80%!...don't know about russia...)

so... if anybody want's to continue on any subject not directly related to PAK-FA, please start an other thread! i'll be there...(if required!)

thanks!

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Sebastijan
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by janman
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by janman
Link to post
Share on other sites
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) :doh:

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by madmike
copyright image hotlinks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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...