Pak-Fa News Thread part 22

[vukashin]

People are still harping about "superior construction" methods? Hilarious.

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/at...g?d=1258535804

F-22's superior, rivetless amazing construction.

Actually, the plane looks quite neat and clean there. I think the pic I uploaded in the previous thread demonstrated your point better with all kinds of humps&bumps being visible better. Here it is again.

Still, looks better than T-50's finish to me. Possibly because no actual panel joints are visible because they are covered with a thick coat of RAM (which the T-50 is obviously lacking still - hence the bump underneath\behind the canopy, around EO-DAS, like I already mentioned).

[Andraxxus]

He is talking about rivets used in construction. Not the most modern technique around


how uber "stealth" nozzles look in close up.

[vukashin]

He is talking about rivets used in construction. Not the most modern technique around


how uber "stealth" nozzles look in close up.

The protruding rivets are there for ease of maintenance. No point in covering them with RAM if you're gonna be opening that hatch every other day.
I mentioned these things already in the previous thread.

[latenlazy]

No one is interested in what FC-1 offers? An affordable BVR fighter with zero US contents, pretty much an optimum replacement for Mirage III, Mirage F1, MiG-21 or even F-16A lineage?

If the FC-1 was not Chinese, it would already have started spreading across South America, Southeast Asia,Northern Africa or Eastern Europe.

I just don't find that counterfactual convincing. There are any number of potential reasons why the FC-1 isn't being sold like hot cakes that don't have to do with it being made by China. One could simply just be a function of time, given the relative recency of the FC-1. Other factors could be market saturation, shrinking numbers of buyers, inability by interested parties to afford the upgrade, etc etc. It's not we haven't heard that parties aren't interested.

That said, my inclination is that countries that are interested in small cheap fighters probably don't have the budget to turnover their fleet in significant numbers, and some of the countries that would have been interested before can now afford--and are interested in--going bigger.

I personally think that China might be quite successful on low-end markets like basic jet trainers, helicopters and transports.. But a customer opting for hi-end product portfolio like 5th gen fighter aircraft is yet to be found.

A Chinese 5th gen fighter on the market is also yet to be found. Let's judge after something gets put on the market before we judge?

[Twinblade]

Aircraft factories do not need skilled professionals. The wages won't be on par with senior Q/A supervisor. Typically aircraft production consists of repetitive tasks given to each person.

You don't need to be skilled/career educated to work at a aircraft factory.

Try setting up a jigless assembly with unskilled workers then .

[Flanker_man]

If the FC-1 was not Chinese, it would already have started spreading across South America, Southeast Asia,Northern Africa or Eastern Europe.

Perhaps if the FC-1/JF-17 was actually in service with the PLAAF it might sell better ???

I suspect there may be a sort of 'If it's not good enough for you, then we don't want it' mentality at work here.

Same as when the US tried to sell the F-20...... ????

Meanwhile, back to PAK-FA News.......

Ken

[Jō Asakura]

Reinforce me, baby…

[vukashin]

Reinforce me, baby…

Well, that's substantial init?

[Belethor]

A heavy reworking at this stage is going to drive the price up.

[haavarla]

Hmm.. you are right. The T-50 is a jet with two huge engines and in such a cool way

[Peregrinefalcon]

Hmm.. you are right. The T-50 is a jet with two huge engines and in such a cool way

Wait till you see this. . .



. . .now, is this a "great honking thing" or what?

[TR1]

A heavy reworking at this stage is going to drive the price up.

Amazing analysis.

Among the same lines as calling the Irbis inefficient and overweight.

[TR1]

Wait till you see this. . .



. . .now, is this a "great honking thing" or what?

Extra mega big honking!

[Berkut]

People are still harping about "superior construction" methods? Hilarious.

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/at...g?d=1258535804

F-22's superior, rivetless amazing construction.

What about it? They are not really rivets, they are screws. They are supposed to opened. You can't see the actual rivets.

http://www.jber.af.mil/shared/media/...-7169B-009.jpg

ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE, ALASKA – Airman 1st Class Kyle Peyton loosens 184 screws to remove a panel during Northern Edge '08. Airman Peyton is an F-22 specialist and one of the 5,000 servicemembers involved in the exercise. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Master Sgt Keith Brown)

F-35 for instance has many many thousands of rivets in just one wing.

Still, looks better than T-50's finish to me.

Eh, it is baby smooth. Seen any pictures of X-35 or YF-23 lately?

[slipperysam]

2 pages of mostly jibberish rubbish.... awesome read

[Berkut]

Indeed, same with RuAF thread.

[swerve]

Aircraft factories do not need skilled professionals. The wages won't be on par with senior Q/A supervisor. Typically aircraft production consists of repetitive tasks given to each person.

You don't need to be skilled/career educated to work at a aircraft factory.

Really? Try making an aircraft with unskilled people pulled in from off the street. Would you fly in it? I certainly wouldn't. But I wouldn't have to worry, since it'd never get certification, even if it managed to get off the ground.

You don't need PhDs, but you certainly need skilled people.

[martinez]

What about it? They are not really rivets, they are screws. They are supposed to opened. You can't see the actual rivets.
http://www.jber.af.mil/shared/media/...-7169B-009.jpg
F-35 for instance has many many thousands of rivets in just one wing.

More likely those are quick release fasteners, not screws, how much time he`d spent to remove the quickaccess panel when unscrewing 100+ screws then? Of course countersunk rivets are not seen on the aircraft surface skin, as already written they are covered by a thick layer of paint/ram paint. PAK-FA would look the same way, but I wonder when KNAAPO will finally decide to paint at least one airframe with a RAM paint, they already have four aircrafts flying, how many static airframes are there? Is it strange why not even one T-50 airframe was not dedicated for any RCS testing ??... well, maybe bcs there are still parts of the fuselage needing redesign in order the RAM paint having any significance.

[Jō Asakura]

Well, that's substantial init?

Yeah, and on the underside of the wing also:



Original:
http://www.knaapo.ru/rus/popup-100x1...4_16_hires.jpg

As far as I can tell they've not had to employ additional aerodynamic devices to inhibit boundary flow separation to address the transonic buffeting problem. If you recall '51' was repaired on-site @ Zhukovskii, and some journos did claim the cracks were so severe '51' would never fly again.

T-50-4's first flight was 13 months after '53', so I guess the problems were serious but not severe (and certainly not insurmountable). Roll on T-50-5 and FGFA01!

A heavy reworking at this stage is going to drive the price up.

I'd think weight gain and alteration of Cg would be more pressing concerns. Cost escalations, element redesign/testing and time slippages are part & parcel of a programme of this size and complexity.

Besides, I'm sure VSMPO Avisma gave them a good deal- probably @ cost .

[infografica]

true but ...rivet or not ...
Two known facts about RAM for F-22: in two incidents (a minor collision with a F-18 during maneuvers and a landing strip) in damage was small but very expensive (at least two million dollars).

It 'a practical solution for the cost of maintenance?


ciao

[mack8]

FGFA model to be shown at AERO INDIA 2013:
http://livefist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...l-at-aero.html

This should be interesting.

[mack8]

PMI (FGFA) model at Aero India, from Livefist:

[mack8]

More pics here:

http://livefist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...ukhoi-hal.html

[mack8]

Anyway , before i forget or it gets lost , for you more knowledgeable folks , here's some patents relating to PAK-FA, from paralay. In particular , the engine IR masking one is intriguing , but more on that later.

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/247/2472003.html
http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2413161
http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2362110

[FalconDude]

Anyway , before i forget or it gets lost , for you more knowledgeable folks , here's some patents relating to PAK-FA, from paralay. In particular , the engine IR masking one is intriguing , but more on that later.

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/247/2472003.html
http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2413161
http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2362110

The Indian display verifies that the plane is not intended to change at all as we have already assumed so.

The patents indicate that the intakes shield the craft from centimeter range EM only and not milimeter range.

The intakes are to stay as they are apparently according to the patern and some IR reducing measures exist.

I am not sure if that is good.

[vukashin]

The Indian display verifies that the plane is not intended to change at all as we have already assumed so.

The patents indicate that the intakes shield the craft from centimeter range EM only and not milimeter range.

The intakes are to stay as they are apparently according to the patern and some IR reducing measures exist.

I am not sure if that is good.

Well, I am on the other hand sure it is, at the very least, good enough.

[Dr.Snufflebug]

That FGFA model appears to mirror a more primitive variant (basically just a prototype in Indian colours) than the "T-50-6" PAK-FA model shown at MAKS 2011 (which at least had much of the engine gondolas covered in RAM). To my (admittedly untrained) eyes, leaving the engine area like that would seem to be detrimental to maintaining low RCS. I mean, to the point where all other shaping efforts and such would end up being largely futile. Am I wrong here? That Indian model is puzzling to say the least... Cool lo-viz roundels though. Also note the "no-step" zone right above the AA sidebays, why's that?

But in short, I don't think it's all too representative for what is about to come anyway, though models like these might contain some hints.

[Jō Asakura]

The Indian display verifies that the plane is not intended to change at all as we have already assumed so.

The patents indicate that the intakes shield the craft from centimeter range EM only and not milimeter range.

The intakes are to stay as they are apparently according to the patern and some IR reducing measures exist.

I am not sure if that is good.

None of those patents has anything to do with the T-50.

The one you refer to has lapsed (to be more accurate the patent was terminated due to failure to pay the renewal fee on 14/02/2010- code MM4A).

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/236/2362110.html

Fear not, their actual solutions are kick-ass.

[J-31 Burrito]

The Indian display verifies that the plane is not intended to change at all as we have already assumed so.

The patents indicate that the intakes shield the craft from centimeter range EM only and not milimeter range.

The intakes are to stay as they are apparently according to the patern and some IR reducing measures exist.

I am not sure if that is good.

indeed the 2 FGFA models and the T-50-6 model show that most of the major features are likely to stay. That hasn't stop people from wishfully thinking of new engine exhausts, fancy devices in the ducts, or exaggerated attention to faceted APU intakes when the rest of the rear doesn't show the same attention.

[Rii]

What about a faceted IRST?