Russian's new Fighter

[Arne]

Hello,

This is my T-50.1 from Zwezda. Its built straight from the box, only the decals are from Begemot.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Arne

[Crazy Snap Captain]

That's bloody nice! Love the paint job and the work on the exhausts is spot on. Well done! How was the kit going together?

P.S. Nice website as well!

Edited November 23, 2013 by Crazy Snap Captain

[Arne]

The Kit is very similar - only 64 Parts - and this Parts are a good fit.

I forgot to say that i have the Lerx, the Tails and the Stabilizer cut of an show in "Action"

(sorry for my bad English)

[Bolschoj Phantome]

Great model! It's beautiful.

[Ace Combat Zero]

Heard about the HPH 1/48 one. They said it was a difficult one.

[Jinxter13]

Very, very nice build, the craftsmanship in all phases is outstanding. Is there a WIP thread?.

Edited November 24, 2013 by #1 Greywolf

[david sMiGielski]

That. Is. Gorgeous.

[sharkey]

Really nice.

[Rotor_head_Dan]

That is one silky smooth looking plane. Very nice job.

[Berkut]

There are a couple of minor mistakes, T-50-1 doesn't have that triangle on the stinger for example. That appeared from T-50-2 and on. You are also lacking a big pitot on one of the sides (also T-50-1 specific). Some masking borders are not correct, i guess that is mistake rooted in Begemot's paint and markings guide.

None the less, very nice model and about as nice as Zvezda kit can ever look.

[Arne]

What for an "Ttriangle" ?? - the Antenna on the Radom ? - this is originally on the 50.1.

You are also lacking a big pitot on one of the sides (also T-50-1 specific)

Naturally ! - this is an Model of the T-50.1 !

Sorry - i can't understand your Critic ...

Some masking borders are not correct

Can You show it ??

And who exactly wants to know it:

It is model of Zvezda and Out of the Box - and also geometrically partly wrong...

[Berkut]

As said, the triangle is on the stinger. The area between the engines. As to the large pitot, the one right above the gun:

There are some smaller things lacking too, but that would be nitpick.

[Check Six]

Very clean build you have there !

Interesting how the horizontal stabilizer seems to be part of the aerodynamic airflow of the fuselage rather than just a control surface.

[Check Six]

There are a couple of minor mistakes, T-50-1 doesn't have that triangle on the stinger for example. That appeared from T-50-2 and on. You are also lacking a big pitot on one of the sides (also T-50-1 specific). Some masking borders are not correct, i guess that is mistake rooted in Begemot's paint and markings guide.

None the less, very nice model and about as nice as Zvezda kit can ever look.

There must not be very many T-50-1's flying because my Google search only showed the pointed (Triangle) stinger tail.

All the pics that Google brought up show this tail/stinger:

[Berkut]

Interesting how the horizontal stabilizer seems to be part of the aerodynamic airflow of the fuselage rather than just a control surface.

F-22 has it like that too. It does have positive aerodynamic properties (and negative) but it was done as result of stealth requirements more than anything.

There must not be very many T-50-1's flying because my Google search only showed the pointed (Triangle) stinger tail.

There isn't many T-50-1's around, because there is only one... T-50-1 is the first flying prototype. -2 is second etc. And i said the triangle is ON the stinger. And since the triangle is seemingly avoiding everyone, here is how T-50-1 tail looked like prior to the spin chute mod:

And on the model:

If i could have made arrows blinking, i would. :) It is called 101KS-U.

[Check Six]

F-22 has it like that too. It does have positive aerodynamic properties (and negative) but it was done as result of stealth requirements more than anything.

There isn't many T-50-1's around, because there is only one... T-50-1 is the first flying prototype. -2 is second etc. And i said the triangle is ON the stinger. And since the triangle is seemingly avoiding everyone, here is how T-50-1 tail looked like prior to the spin chute mod:

And on the model:

If i could have made arrows blinking, i would. It is called 101KS-U.

Ah; Very good! I see what you mean now.

Regarding the horizontal stabilizer:

On the Russian a/c; From where the HS rotates and rearward, the fuselage section is part of the HS. On your pic with red arrows; The dark grey part of the HS has a section that near vertical and blends with the fuselage.

On the F-22; The HS is just a 'blade' if you know what I mean. The F-15 and F-18 and F-14 all have the same 'blade' type HS. It's flat.

[Arne]

Thank You ! - now I understand what is it mean.

..i build an 50.1 v2 :bandhead2:/> (ironie!)

Edited December 6, 2013 by Arne

[fool on the hill]

Beautiful work. All the discussion about the aft end brought on a thought - for all the engineering to remain stealthy, aren't those engines a thermal beacon ???

Edited December 6, 2013 by fool on the hill

[Check Six]

Beautiful work. All the discussion about the aft end brought on a thought - for all the engineering to remain stealthy, aren't those engines a thermal beacon ???

Great point/observation.

Not to mention all of the 90* angles on the a/c.

[Berkut]

Beautiful work. All the discussion about the aft end brought on a thought - for all the engineering to remain stealthy, aren't those engines a thermal beacon ???

As on any plane, minus B-2.

Not to mention all of the 90* angles on the a/c.

Where?

[GreyGhost]

Excellent build of a great looking jet !

<...>

Where?

The trough between the engine nacelles ...

-Gregg

Edited December 6, 2013 by GreyGhost

[Check Six]

Where?

Your own pic shows several:

[Berkut]

Eh, i hope you are not talking about panellines and pitots. Because Captain Obvious need to come to rescue to point out why that is so.

[Check Six]

Eh, i hope you are not talking about panellines and pitots. Because Captain Obvious need to come to rescue to point out why that is so.

Well; Put on your Captain Obvious cape then and enlighten me. And yes, I was referring to said panel lines.

This may be difficult to believe but I, in fact, don't know everything. Really.

It seems that U.S. stealth a/c (F-22, B-2, F-35, F-117), in order to increase it's stealthiness, are devoid of anything with 90* angles on their exterior surfaces including the vertical edges of flying surfaces.

BTW; Judging from your sarcastic post I take it you thought my post(s) were snarky or that you assumed I'm of the same knowledge depth of a/c as you are. If so, may I suggest dialing back your emo/sensitivity gauge or your assumption gauge? Reading many of your posts, it is indisputable the depth and breadth of your aviation knowledge. However, since I'm not old enough or maybe bright enough to know everything I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as obvious when one doesn't know everything.

[Berkut]

I am sorry if you took it as a sharky reply, that wasn't the intention.

I was however slightly frustrated how many get what you pointed out wrong, all the time. And it can all be solved with simple logic really. I will explain. My picture is of a T-50 prototype (first prototype even!), like all current frames of T-50, they are *all* prototypes.

All the aircrafts you mentioned are serial frames, all of them are/were in service. Now, take a look at F-22's prototype, YF-22. Count the panellines the "saw tooth"/non 90 degrees panellines. It will be literally handful, also notice where they are all concentrated. All of them are on moving parts and on "main" areas. For example you will find tooth on weaponbaydoors, wheelbaydoors, exhaust area and the nose and some main panels that are often used for servicing etc. That is it. Then compare to F-22, difference is huge. Same story with YF-23, very very few tooth panellines.

Prototypes always evolve, and panellines are always way down on the list for engineers. First the main shapes has to confirmed in regards to RCS, then the panellines and RAM will follow. T-50 is no different in terms of panellines in regards to YF-22/-23/X-35. All the tooth shapes panellines are on moving parts or panels that are often opened. So, T-50 should be compared to all the prototypes i listed above, and none of the serial aircrafts you listed. When a serial T-50 is out, then it is fair to compare to serial planes like F-22.

Another good illustration would be F-35. Look at the difference between a serial frame and the prototype, not only in shape but panels:

More here: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=28

I hope that clears it up; there is a huge difference between a prototype and a serial frame. And American prototypes are most certainly not devoid of straight panellines.