J-20... The New Generation Fighter III

Re: Russian T-50 easy, medium, and hard fixes (topside)

airsuperiority said:

No offense, but Martian you probably know well by now that I collect models. While PAK-FA failed to impress me with almost everything from its looks to even its name, the flaws you've pointed out made me double-reconsider if I still want to buy a PAK-FA and build it to include into my future fleet of gen4+gen5. I still don't quite get why RuAF can produce something like this after so many years of R&D.

Click to expand...

We could be underselling the design to be honest. We'd actually have to be signals management engineers to really know how effective the design is.

The other possibility is they could have come up with something much better, but manufacturing and mass producing it would have beyond their accepted costs.

Re: Russian T-50 easy, medium, and hard fixes (topside)

The T-50s are under test and there will be some changes before they take service.

Re: Russian T-50 easy, medium, and hard fixes (topside)

airsuperiority said:

No offense, but Martian you probably know well by now that I collect models. While PAK-FA failed to impress me with almost everything from its looks to even its name, the flaws you've pointed out made me double-reconsider if I still want to buy a PAK-FA and build it to include into my future fleet of gen4+gen5. I still don't quite get why RuAF can produce something like this after so many years of R&D.

Click to expand...

I personally think some of the flaws he mentioned were exaggerated a little and can be easily remedied on the production model. We need to remember this plane is just a prototype, and the Russians are not stupid. I don't think anyone expects them to keep their round irst ball on the final configuration nor will the engine inlets expose the blades like so (remedy through s duct bu more likely an engine blocker which can work almost as well).
And despite everything the t-50 is still one great looking aircraft -- that would be reason enough to buy a model of it

Re: Russian T-50 easy, medium, and hard fixes (topside)

airsuperiority said:

No offense, but Martian you probably know well by now that I collect models. While PAK-FA failed to impress me with almost everything from its looks to even its name, the flaws you've pointed out made me double-reconsider if I still want to buy a PAK-FA and build it to include into my future fleet of gen4+gen5. I still don't quite get why RuAF can produce something like this after so many years of R&D.

Click to expand...

some of Martian's point may be true, such as the bare naked engine, but as latenlazy said, you have to be an engineer in the related field to make standards out of it

even an engineer will need instrumentations and scale model if not 3D model to make out any data or assumption, without such you can't be taken seriously

look at Kopp when he's trying too hard

i hope if someone is going to talk about T-50 don't bring J-20 into it, and vice versa, be courteous

Bltizo said:

And despite everything the t-50 is still one great looking aircraft -- that would be reason enough to buy a model of it

Click to expand...

it looks stunning in the MAKS 2011, a successful PR?
i wonder what it will look like in matte black paint scheme ala J-20 or YF-23 dark grey

paintgun said:

^^ What's the point of this comparison?

You again proved yourself just a fanboy

We are all fanboys at heart Martian, but behaving maturely is what you need to learn to do

Click to expand...

This is a stealth fighter thread. If you don't like my post, don't read it.

The purpose is educational. When I look at a photograph of the Russian T-50 (see below), I immediately see the lack of continuous-curvature in the fuselage and the non-RAM coated engine pods along the topside. I assume that many of the guests, who visit this forum, are unaware of the non-stealthy features and it is a good opportunity to discuss the benchmarks for stealth.

For the record, I have made previous posts highlighting the J-20's round engine nozzles, which do not measure up to the F-22's standard. I have also previously noted the gap between the F-22 air-intakes and the fuselage. Also, the F-22 lacks the J-20's DSI. Analyzing the T-50 to the same standards as the J-20 and F-22 is nothing new.


Russian T-50 or Pak-Fa "stealth" fighter

Martian said:

This is a stealth fighter thread. If you don't like my post, don't read it.

The purpose is educational. When I look at a photograph of the Russian T-50 (see below), I immediately see the lack of continuous-curvature in the fuselage and the non-RAM coated engine pods along the topside. I assume that many of the guests, who visit this forum, are unaware of the non-stealthy features and it is a good opportunity to discuss the benchmarks for stealth.

Russian T-50 or Pak-Fa "stealth" fighter

Click to expand...

Calm down Martian. I like your post. Time will tell. Sooner or later people will realise what is good and what is bad.

Once again ... some here are again too far beyond the tread's topic in discussing / comapring the T-50 and it's characteristics to the J-20 !

Do I need to clean that tread again ?????

Deino

Re: Russian T-50 easy, medium, and hard fixes (topside)

Bltizo said:

I personally think some of the flaws he mentioned were exaggerated a little and can be easily remedied on the production model. We need to remember this plane is just a prototype, and the Russians are not stupid. I don't think anyone expects them to keep their round irst ball on the final configuration nor will the engine inlets expose the blades like so (remedy through s duct bu more likely an engine blocker which can work almost as well).
And despite everything the t-50 is still one great looking aircraft -- that would be reason enough to buy a model of it

Click to expand...

My last OT post regarding my petty hobby with models and the PAK:

I might have a little bias, although I doubted that because as the PAK-FA came out before the J-20, I do remember at the very first sight, I was indeed disappointed at how it looked like, and the weird name. I think you'd remember me mentioning at one time how it really seemed like a F-22+Su-30 inbred. i had been waiting for a non-Western counter to the F-22, so at the time when the PAK-FA made the headlines, I had some trouble trying to identify the plane's entire shaping (the paint on the plane didn't too help)
Anyways, I will wait for the final production model before I make the purchase because for one, I don't like to collect prototypes as they aren't complete finalized works with all the newest features that would be seen on the production models, but also, 2. hope that we'll see further improvements or something to what we see currently.

I'm still hopeful because I really want to add this plane to my collection to spearhead "team Russia" of my model collection, consisting of Su-37, and 2 Su-27UB. I'm deciding if I should get a Mig-35 to represent the Mig side of the Russians.

There are no doubts on that this plane will have competitive supermaneuverabiliy, given Sukhoi's successes with the Flankers, so while I doubt the PAK will house better avionics than the J-20 due to Russian's industry, I'd think it can supercruise and maneuver. Either way, these are just random "thoughts", so I hope the PAK is much better than that, and although I still have a higher preference for the J-20 and the Raptor, I wanna see all 3 of these planes are all in one fighting league on their own. It will be a truly interesting match

Oh and on the side note, as the Raptors are still grounded (correct me if I'm wrong), does that make the F-15s currently the runner-up for US air-superiority role?

Engineer said:

lol! If that's your definition of 10x better than your scale is obviously inverse with that of reality.

The analysis is fundamentally flawed because it uses AVL model, which can't realistically represent a fighter. From

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

Fighter aircraft don't satisfy this assumption since they can and do fly at large angle of attack and side-slip. If you constraint the simulation to small angle-of-attack and side-slip, then of course the plane can only fly with small angle-of-attack and side-slip. But using this to argue that this is all the maneuverability that the plane has is obviously circular argument, and is a logical fallacy.



Here, the author of the software tells you that the model is untested and might not produce the correct results. The author of the presentation shows you two pictures of his AVL model, which does not model the fuselage. He obviously followed this suggestion:


The author just assumed the body doesn't play any role in the aerodynamic loads. As pointed out many times in that 100+ pages of debate, one can't make an assumption like that. This is especially true when all parts of an aircraft interact with one another as is the case on a fighter aircraft.

DATCOM would be better than AVL because one at least have control over the shape of the fuselage model. However, both of these software suffer from the fact that they can't model what's not programmed in form of equations (ie. cannot model vortices from chine and LERX). Again, from that same page:


Of course, I don't expect you to know any of these, since you've only talked the talk but haven't showed that you actually walked the walk.




And no reason was given. The results weren't even compared against other aircraft for anyone to see the difference/similarities. This is only a statement at best, not a conclusion. I would expect people in university to do better than this.

Click to expand...

Any one interested in running a DATCOM analysis?

Also something I've noticed:

These limits represent extremely violent aircraft motion, and are unlikely
to exceeded in any typical flight situation, except possibly during
low-airspeed aerobatic maneuvers. In any case, if any of these
parameters falls outside of these limits, the results should be
interpreted with caution.

Click to expand...

Of course the result is gonna be an interceptor if there are limitations over "violent aircraft motion".