Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 22 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 651

Thread: Pak-Fa News Thread part 22

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    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).
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by vukashin; 23rd January 2013 at 21:28.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    379
    He is talking about rivets used in construction. Not the most modern technique around
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	f-22a_04-066_21_of_85.jpg 
Views:	729 
Size:	201.9 KB 
ID:	211680

    how uber "stealth" nozzles look in close up.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	f-22a_04-066_29_of_85.jpg 
Views:	796 
Size:	258.2 KB 
ID:	211681

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Andraxxus View Post
    He is talking about rivets used in construction. Not the most modern technique around
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	f-22a_04-066_21_of_85.jpg 
Views:	729 
Size:	201.9 KB 
ID:	211680

    how uber "stealth" nozzles look in close up.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	f-22a_04-066_29_of_85.jpg 
Views:	796 
Size:	258.2 KB 
ID:	211681
    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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    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?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,528
    Quote Originally Posted by spoky View Post
    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 .

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    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
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    980
    Reinforce me, baby…



  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Jō Asakura View Post
    Reinforce me, baby…
    Well, that's substantial init?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    175
    A heavy reworking at this stage is going to drive the price up.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,789
    Hmm.. you are right. The T-50 is a jet with two huge engines and in such a cool way
    Thanks

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    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?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Belethor View Post
    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.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,589
    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinefalcon View Post
    Wait till you see this. . .



    . . .now, is this a "great honking thing" or what?
    Extra mega big honking!
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Berkut; 24th January 2013 at 22:15.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sunshine State,Australia
    Posts
    751
    2 pages of mostly jibberish rubbish.... awesome read
    We are 100% SNAFU

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,086
    Indeed, same with RuAF thread.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    11,802
    Quote Originally Posted by spoky View Post
    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.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Absurdistan
    Posts
    1,092
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkut View Post
    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.
    Last edited by martinez; 25th January 2013 at 11:15.
    <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by vukashin View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by Belethor View Post
    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 .

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    49
    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

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,049
    FGFA model to be shown at AERO INDIA 2013:
    http://livefist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/...l-at-aero.html

    This should be interesting.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,049
    PMI (FGFA) model at Aero India, from Livefist:


  23. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,049

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,049
    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

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    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.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by FalconDude View Post
    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.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    174
    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.
    Last edited by Dr.Snufflebug; 5th February 2013 at 14:48.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by FalconDude View Post
    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.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by FalconDude View Post
    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.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,333
    What about a faceted IRST?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES