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).
Last edited by vukashin; 23rd January 2013 at 21:28.
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.
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?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.
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.......
Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
Flankers (& others) website at :-
Reinforce me, baby…
A heavy reworking at this stage is going to drive the price up.
Hmm.. you are right. The T-50 is a jet with two huge engines and in such a cool way
F-35 for instance has many many thousands of rivets in just one wing.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)
Eh, it is baby smooth. Seen any pictures of X-35 or YF-23 lately?Still, looks better than T-50's finish to me.
Last edited by Berkut; 24th January 2013 at 22:15.
2 pages of mostly jibberish rubbish.... awesome read
We are 100% SNAFU
Indeed, same with RuAF thread.
You don't need PhDs, but you certainly need skilled people.
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
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>
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!
Besides, I'm sure VSMPO Avisma gave them a good deal- probably @ cost .
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?
PMI (FGFA) model at Aero India, from Livefist:
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.
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.
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.
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).
Fear not, their actual solutions are kick-ass.
What about a faceted IRST?
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)