Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can we please get back to discussing PAK FA - rather than YF-23 :thumbsup:

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

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

Top Posters In This Topic

;), 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.

:thumbsup:,

Ross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

;), 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.

:thumbsup:,

Ross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

New cockpit shot, zoomed up from this:

http://i074.radikal.ru/1003/ae/c144d4ce3bb5.png

pakfacockpit.jpg

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 by Berkut
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think we can use an inaccurate model to judge stealthiness. Look at those incorrectly placed and canyon like panel lines
:coolio: 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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :rolleyes: . 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!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
...the greatest plane EVAR :rolleyes:

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? :tumble:

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 (:doh:)

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited by Berkut
Link to post
Share on other sites
<....>

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. :tumble: Design philosophy and progress is the same in USA as in Russia, atleast mostly.

<....>

Sure, all the heavy lifting has been done already ... :rolleyes:

Gregg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should there be a RCS thread somewhere on ARCforums? where all of those who wants to debate about speculative info about RCS could ! ...without bothering too much those who avidely waits for new pics or significant informations on their favorite thread!

considering what sukhoi's engeneers have done with the flanker family planes, all thoses variants and upgrades, through all thoses years...

with so little funds... i'm pretty sure the PAK-FA will evolve again before serial production.

wouldn't it be nice if somebody who wants to speculate... speculate about what would look the two seater version of PAK-FA!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Should there be a RCS thread somewhere on ARCforums? where all of those who wants to debate about speculative info about RCS could ! ...without bothering too much those who avidely waits for new pics or significant informations on their favorite thread!

considering what sukhoi's engeneers have done with the flanker family planes, all thoses variants and upgrades, through all thoses years...

with so little funds... i'm pretty sure the PAK-FA will evolve again before serial production.

wouldn't it be nice if somebody who wants to speculate... speculate about what would look the two seater version of PAK-FA!

Dont worry, when new pics come, we will post them. Meanwhile, I would love to hear authoritative, professional analysis of PAK FA fundamental stealth flaws from someone who is fluent in the subject matter and not just asshattery.

Edited by Zmey Smirnoff
Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just seen (and saved) those - it looks like it may be smaller than first thought :thumbsup:

Ken

Looks like that to me too. I thought it was bigger...

I didn't think it was a monster in size. Figured it is around the size of the F-22, F-18E etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't think it was a monster in size. Figured it is around the size of the F-22, F-18E etc.

I'm revising my opinion about size - or at least wingspan.

If the latest assessments are correct - and they look pretty good - then the PAK FA wingspan at 14.7m is EXACTLY the same as a Su-27 :boohoo:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthrea...043&page=15 (see post #439) and others

It is probably its 'compactness' that makes it look smaller.

Anyway my model has a scale span of 14.9m - so I am quite happy with that......

Pak%20fa%20028.jpg

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Waco,

First of all, I was agreeing with Zmey and still do, that none of us here in the west have seen this jet close up so we wouldn't have a clue whether the panel lines are in planform alignment or not so none of us are really qualified to comment on that subject matter and like Berkut I also have some reservations about its IR signature, but to quote what seems to be one of Mark's favourite sayings, "you don't know what you don't know." There was speculation in this forum that the engines had no cooling means, before it was even revealed what engines would be fitted to the PAK-FA let alone production jets. Come on, let's get real shall we? It's as Sebastijan just said, there are still a lot of prejudices let over from the Cold War days when both sides kept having to go one up in their propaganda. I know because during that era I was firmly to the right of the propanganda war and I believed everything that was put before me by that side of politics without question, both the truth and the lies. Now I look analytically at what's being put before me in all areas of life, not just politics or the technical side of life.

Until any of us here in this forum have a chance to examine the jet up close for ourselves (and I can't see that happening before MAKS 2011, if then,) I have to agree with Zmey that the criticism is far fetched. As I've said in earlier discussion of this aircraft it is yet a prototype and very few aircraft have ever gone into production looking exactly like the prototype did at the time of its first flight. Perhaps the Russian engineers will find a way of masking the IR signature between here and production. Perhaps they already have and need it include physical masking cowls as on the F-22?

Secondly if a post of mine, as I have had to say said in this forum numerous times, has emoticons, which most do, I am using them to help express what I think because the printed media and the internet in particular is not exactly the best means of communication. I thought we all had that one down pat, obviously I'm wrong on that one. If I'm being absolutely dead serious in a post it has no emoticons, not even a post icon. :cheers:

Thirdly, every western forum has its F-22 fanboy club, this forum in particular has a very strong F-22 fanboy club that seems very able to find any point to bash the Sukhoi jet on, whether there is evidence for the bashing or not. From my smattering of self taught Russian and a little help from some Russian friends here I've been able to work out that there are those on Russian forums that are strong supporters of the F-22 who are able to support the F-22 without bashing the PAK-FA.

Fourthly, have I ever criticized the F-22 here on this forum? Not that I remember I haven't, at least not seriously, I may have jokingly poked a bit of fun at it but that all it was; a bit of fun, if I have ever done even that. Don't get me wrong I believe the F-22 is an awsome bird and I've never had a reason to criticize it. In fact, I wish we could buy 100 or 200 of them, but I'm also practical enough to know that cost and politics will pretty well forever prohibit such a purchase, just like we did with another twin engined twin tailed Lockheed type over 65 years ago, albeit they were the recon models and we only used 3 of them.

Ross.

ps. There's a lot more I'd like to say, but I'd be getting much deeper into the realm of the P-word so I won't go there in the forum.

Edited for typos.

Edited by ross blackford
Link to post
Share on other sites
HERE is a nice pic

b59d3686.jpg

NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i saw someplace a line drawing of one with wing tips folded in as an F18/A8/etc. naval yets.

are there any plans on making this beauty carrier borne?

would hate to see my beloved Su33 go, but would be interesting to see this one on a carrier. but i guess the upkeeping of the stealth surfaces on a ship, in a naval environment would be quite hard.

Shark, MiG29A Fan boy

Link to post
Share on other sites
NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i saw someplace a line drawing of one with wing tips folded in as an F18/A8/etc. naval yets.

are there any plans on making this beauty carrier borne?

would hate to see my beloved Su33 go, but would be interesting to see this one on a carrier. but i guess the upkeeping of the stealth surfaces on a ship, in a naval environment would be quite hard.

Shark, MiG29A Fan boy

Well, it hasn't been officially announced, but i guess some time in the future we will see it on carriers. The lg is really strong as you might have noticed. And russians will soon (next year is the deadline iirc) realize the final look of their future carrier. So, it is all possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm revising my opinion about size - or at least wingspan.

If the latest assessments are correct - and they look pretty good - then the PAK FA wingspan at 14.7m is EXACTLY the same as a Su-27 :whistle:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthrea...043&page=15 (see post #439) and others

It is probably its 'compactness' that makes it look smaller.

Ken

Will be interesting to see what actual dimensions are. Your model is looking good bud :wasntme:

I like "Tomkeus post #431" grids idea in on that forum. There are a few things he could of tried to get angles right tho. Like trying to go off a few things that kind of are known. For instance the buildings siding at the water-table line and window sills/sides etc.

Find as many things that one can find that have a sort of know level and squareness to them one could get a pretty good estimation of angle/perspective.

The one from above, he could of worked out the angle by using the center-line of both aircraft. You can see the pitots on both A/C and the center of the tail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And still neither you or Mark have actually pointed out the non stealthy areas, other mentioning the size of the intakes. Funny enough, i wouldn't be surprised that if you tilt them 90 degrees, so they "stand up", the result will be around F-22 intakes size. Slightly larger probably, but not by much.

Frankly I do not see how size of a Intake or panel line has any relevance on stealth. Now a gap around a door yes, but not a panel line. You can tape a panel line, dope a panel line etc. I do not see the relevance.

Edited by Wayne S
Link to post
Share on other sites

that would be very interresting to see some drawings of what could-should be done-corrected, to conform pak-fa to 5th gen. stealth-as-we-know... maybe that could help to turn the discussion in an other way? at least this could help me to appreciate more the stealth debate... (i'm kind of VISUAL guy...)

ah... and.. by the way, KEN, your work is awsome! (at least this bring some new Pak-fa pics! :rolleyes: )

Edited by mingwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
that would be very interresting to see some drawings of what could-should be done-corrected, to conform pak-fa to 5th gen. stealth-as-we-know... maybe that could help to turn the discussion in an other way? at least this could help me to appreciate more the stealth debate... (i'm kind of VISUAL guy...)

Not really, it'd just be guesswork. Look at the differences between the YF-22 and F-22A and the X-35 and F-35. There's no way anyone here can predict what the production Su-X will look like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbsup: Hi again Waco,

Let's have a look at the shape of the intakes and their trunks to the compressor faces. May I ask you a few questions please, if the answers aren't classified. Are the F-22's intakes a straight duct or do they curve around a bit then lead to the compressor faces?. And if they do, how much RCS reduction is achieved by the curves masking the compressor faces? I notice in pics of the PAK-FA that the mainwheel wells impinge on the intake trunks which would mean that the trunks have to curve at least around those wells. I also think the mainwheel wells and missile bays of the F-22 would impinge on the intake trunks causing a curvature. Would that be correct?

Is it not possible that there are other curves in the PAK-FA'a intake trunks ahead of the compressors? There is a drawing around (albeit speculative) that shows further curves in the trunks between the mainwheel wells and the compressors, possibly to fit the trunks around the missile bays in the production aircraft and to me that drawing makes some sense because the engines appear to be further inboard than the intake lips themselves than pics I've seen of the F-22 and also appear to be at a higher level within the airframe than the intake lips as does the F-22. Is it possible that these bends in the intakes, if they make it onto the production jet would, with the help of RAM or some other RCS reducing material prevent signals from bouncing back out of the intake lips?

Is it possible to make the intake lips and trunks for the production jets from some form of RAM or RCS reducing composite material that we don't know of yet or that is still being developed in Russia? Or maybe we are familiar with it and the Russians have just worked out new ways of using it. After all, the original theory and algorythms for stealth aeroplanes were thought up in the USSR well before the concept had been thought of much in the west and only for the fact that the Soviet military "saw no technical merit" (how many times have I seen and heard those words written and spoken, an example being the flight recorder which was an early 1950s Australian invention in which neither the Department of Civil Aiviation nor the RAAF "saw any technical merit" leaving the inventor to sell the rights overseas and make a pittance from the royalties) in this theory and dumped it leaving the scientist who came up with them free to publish them on the open market so to speak, the Russians would have had stealth aircraft years before the west and could have been onto 5th generation aircraft long ago. It was really only a lucky break that gave America that knowledge and technology when you guys did get it. I'm sure that if they have worked out some new material they won't be silly enough to give it away for nothing this time.

:rolleyes:,

Ross.

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...