PAK-FA Saga Episode 13

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 6 months

Posts: 1,856

It goes on!

Compressor blades, radar blockers, drunk lying Russkies, out-of-place panels & bolts, etc. . .

How has Putin not become a part of this discussion yet? :rolleyes:

http://s48.radikal.ru/i122/0912/38/7ba23d14c6c8.jpg
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=183112&d=1269342978

Original post

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 4

Behind the radar blocker in the Super Bug's inlet you can see fan's blades with IGVs - same apply to T-50 except it doesn't have radar blocker ;)

Examine closely these two pictures :
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/781/su27intake.jpg
http://s61.radikal.ru/i174/1003/ae/4672063e7977.jpg

Notice the black blades in the Flanker's inlet - those are Inlet Guide Vanes, if you now look at the T-50's inlet this "radar blocker" has exactly the same shape as AL-31F's IGVs. Weird ;) Notice also, the dashed circle in AL-31F and in PAK's inlet - again it must be coincidence :rolleyes: If you look carefully then the fan blades in AL-31 become clearly visible but I think they are even more visible in T-50 picture ( between ladder and third guide vane from right). There is also something like a wire which is going through every blade of 1 stage fan in AL-31F and this is visible Flanker picture and (I think) in T-50 picture.

This is an engine you're looking at and no, it doesn't have 9 meters.
T-50 on that picture doesn't have ram coatings, no radar, just basic airframe with basic systems but it must have an engine radar blocker :rolleyes:

Member for

14 years 1 month

Posts: 105

Alexander Fomin has stated that if Brazil has any interest in participate on PAK development he will be welcome

http://www.defesanet.com.br/01_lz/fidae2010/03_videos.htm

In resume He ( Alexander ) told to the jornalists that if an FX-3 is in mind Brazil can have FULL access to PAK development

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 784

Behind the radar blocker in the Super Bug's inlet you can see fan's blades with IGVs - same apply to T-50 except it doesn't have radar blocker ;)

Examine closely these two pictures :
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/781/su27intake.jpg
http://s61.radikal.ru/i174/1003/ae/4672063e7977.jpg

Notice the black blades in the Flanker's inlet - those are Inlet Guide Vanes, if you now look at the T-50's inlet this "radar blocker" has exactly the same shape as AL-31F's IGVs. Weird ;) Notice also, the dashed circle in AL-31F and in PAK's inlet - again it must be coincidence :rolleyes: If you look carefully then the fan blades in AL-31 become clearly visible but I think they are even more visible in T-50 picture ( between ladder and third guide vane from right). There is also something like a wire which is going through every blade of 1 stage fan in AL-31F and this is visible Flanker picture and (I think) in T-50 picture.

This is an engine you're looking at and no, it doesn't have 9 meters.
T-50 on that picture doesn't have ram coatings, no radar, just basic airframe with basic systems but it must have an engine radar blocker :rolleyes:

That picture of the T-50 intake still doesnt gell with me.
We know that Kapendi's picture was photoshopped.

Look at the "depth" of the intake of the T-50 compared to the Su-27 intake.
You can see its a nice looong tunnel. Yet the T-50 picture shows no such depth and appears to be just one meter from the leading edge of the intake in terms of scale.

Yet we all know how long the intake is!

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 25

I think stealth may not be a major priority for the T-50. There is no way India will join the project knowing it can't fight with the F-35. I think T-50 will define new ways in air combat, such as dogfight in the supersonic region. If the aircraft can stay in supersonic region, it is hard for any missile to get a hit on it, let alone the reaction time to get a lock on it. And if the T-50 can achieve the RCS say similar to the Gripen, that will be an achievement already. The T-50 doesn't have to be ultra expensive to maintain like the F-22. The question lies on how much RCS reduction to make the T-50 an effective platform. Personally, I think stealth is really overrated, like some cloaking device in science friction. With the advancement of active and passive radar technologies, I think stealth will not be the primary factor for gaining the upper hand in air combat. Soon, you may find aircraft may only use their passive sensors as opposed to the active rader, just like what submarine warfare is all about.

Member for

19 years 2 months

Posts: 553

so if I understand you correctly, when you see the "unfinished paint" pic of the F-22 with lines and rivets apparent, it's doesn't ring the bell that the irregularities on the T-50 bare metal skin will be greatly reduced or even nonexistent once the coating (RAM + paint) is applied? I don't say the T-50 will be "invisible", but I do say, maybe we shoudl all wait to see the final result before making such "final judgement" about plane's RCS levels, no?

Nop. Not the same. As I said on the F-22 you only see the panel seams in the frequent access panels...not in every panel. The frequent access panels are themselves edge aligned and the space is intentional because there is RAM sealants in there. But to get the same level of finish as the F-22 or F-35...you just can't do that with the same level of technology as is being used in assembling the T-50. Riveted panels CAN be covered with RAM paint or other coatings...but you don't get the same result as with the F-22 F-35. What you get is something similar to Rafale.

The result is several orders of magnitude less effective.

Thank you for defacto acknowledging that the picture you posted in the first place and to which you based your arguments was actually... a fake, eventhough understandably you lack the b..... to admit it. Did you know that beforehand or were you fooled too, I wonder, not that it really matters.

So, "which one is worse"? Kapedani being wrong and/or ignorant, or Kapedani being a liar? The second is something new for that matter. Moreover, if Kapedani has no problem to base his arguments on lies and/or false evidence once, what assurance there is that he won't do it twice?

This is were the ignore list comes in handy.

:rolleyes: If you look at the original...you see the SAME thing. Go on...

That discussion is getting hotter and hotter. I can’t understand why Kapedani, who scored a goal a la Maradona proving that T-50 doesn’t use S-ducts used to fake a picture to support his further arguments. That sinks the credibility he rightfully won a few pages before.

It's not my picture obviously :rolleyes: As I said I found it around the net...nothing more.

But it is totally irrelevant...as was pointed out before. If you look at the original picture, you see the same thing. There's no doubt we are looking at the engine face there.

And I already explained why that is the case...what we are seeing is behind the intake deformation to accommodate the landing gear. The landing gear is situated right before the engine starts...ie...thats the engine.

--------------

Kapedani, your repeated immaturity and arrogance would by itself dissuade most people from paying you any mind, regardless of the merits of your posts. If you respect yourself, or aim towards that goal, I'd advise participating in a more humble fashion so the valid merits of your perspective can be heard. The point of this forum is communication and sharing of information, not 'winning' or 'proving your superiority'. It seems like you have the capacity to constructively contribute here, but your attitude seems a barrier to realizing that. What is the point of all your argumentative posts? Had you left it at "Well, this is how I see it, we'll find out when there's more info", your original point about the space requirements of F-22-style S-Ducts would have been just as validated, only difference being the tone of discussion in the mean time.

Oh no don't get me wrong...I agree 100% with you!!

The problem comes that in this forum you have to deals with characters like Otaku and lots of other fanboys who RESPOND is rather ridiculous, insulting and childish manner to any sort of reasonable observations here.

And that...unfortunately...leads to more silly responses. I take full responsibility for falling in their trap. You know how the saying goes...don't fall to their levels.

I do appolagise to you and any others who are interested in a reasonable discussion. Unfortunately that is hard to do when people respond to observations with "why are you getting so frustrated? Russians know best!" :(

-----------------------------

Looks awfully similar to what we see in the PAK-FA duct. . . '

Is it a fan? Is it a compressor? No, it's a blocker!

Its certainly not a blocker.

But here's more. Even if it IS...something similar to the one you posted (is that the Super Hornet's blocker)?...it doesn't change anything. We're still looking at the position where the engine starts.

And what people continuously fail to realize is that...the difference between the s-duct and the RAM structures inside the F-22's intake etc...compared to radar blockers of any sort...is several orders of magnitude in difference in RCS efficiency. Yes its much better than not having it...but it doesn't get you close to the VLO characteristics of the F-22.

So when people say "well they'll put a radar blocker on there and solve the problem!" Well yes. They'll make it a lot better...but its in the ballpark of the eurofighters...not the F-22.

I think earlier somebody asked why/how a radar blocker/ air-stream management device would 'rotate':
As I see it the rotation is related to 'cranking' the tightness of a virtual cone the radial elements are focused around, i.e. reducing cross-sectional area for air flow at high speeds and 'opening up' at low speeds... Like one end the device is a flower opening/closing. In other words, specificlly related more to the air-stream management aspect than blocking radar 'line of sight', though it does both jobs simultaneously. I expect it may be within the realm of possiblity for this very directional air-stream management to reduce the amount of space needed in front of the compressor face.

Anyhow, this school-yard bickering is a drag, bring on more juicy leaks!

Yes. Except that there's a problem here with all this. Given different flight envelopes and different airflow requirements in the engine...you'll need different settings on that screw blocker. And each time you change it you get a different RCS efficiency.

Not to mention the added weight.

Not to mention that RAM coverings and blockers will not get you the same result as the s-duct and RAM structures of the F-22.

So this is a good solution...given the nature of this aircraft...but far from the best available solution.

------------------------------------------

Your first photo comparison between the F-35, YF-22 and T-50 was an apples to oranges one because you were comparing a huge picture showing a grazing angle of the entire nose section in relatively glossy paint (T-50) with small detail images shot normal to very matt surfaces. In fact, all indications are that the surface finish of the T-50, even in its present condition, is far superior to any previous Russian fighter and not discernable from Western competitors with the imagery we have at our disposal so far.

Absolutely not. What you see in that close up picture has nothing to do with flash or glossy paint or anything of the sort.

It has to do with riveting, skin deformation, and the same level of assembly as found on the Su-27 and before that.

What you see on the F-22 F-35 is an entirely different assembly technology...regardless of what angle or flash or paint you are looking at it from.

Now you're comparing apples to turnips by contrasting a RAM-treated F-35 to the T-50, which at this point has no signature reduction applied at all, beyond the surface finish and its outer shape. Or do you seriously expect Sukhoi to put it into production in its current state, with careful edge alignment, internal bays, faceted fuselage and intakes but no RAM, inlet blocker or canopy coating? I'd say T-50-1 is simply intended for basic test flying rather than RCS measurements, at least for the time being.

No. If you read what I said...I said that clearly this is just a prototype and we can't expect as much.

That being said...the Russians have yet to demonstrate the ability...anywhere...to manufacture to the same level as what we see on the F-22/35.

What I said is...if this is what they can do and KEEP doing...the result will not be comparable.

Now its a bit of a cop-out to say "well you don't know the Russians won't!" No I don't...I do know what we have seen so far...and what we have seen so far doesn't indicate they can.

If indeed that is the case that they will TRY to do something similar...this means that the design changes needed (under the skin and on the skin), are changes that will take many many years to perfect to the same level as F-22/35...assuming of course that they can afford it and can actually do it. Changing from riveting skin panels to the same technology as seen on the 22/35 isn't a simple skin-deep change.

And I don't see any edge alignment on any panels here...or any attempt to make them flush...or any attempt to prevent skin deformation etc etc.

Its simply conventional construction.

-------------------------

Also, I still believe ~90% of the comp.face is hidden anyways, the ducts may not bend as aggressively as the YF-23's- but the principle is the same. They're using multiple solutions.

No its not the same principle.

how effectively RAM could be applied to it's elements etc. Certainly an engineering challenge, but clearly the T-50 was designed with such a system in mind- it wasn't an afterthought, especially given the considerable efforts gone into frontal aspect shaping.

I'd say there's pretty unimpressive frontal shaping here. The devil is in the details..and the more details we get the less impressive it gets.

And simply putting a RAM coating on a radar blocker...regardless of whether it covers the engine face entirely or not...will not result in the same efficiency as the F-22's intake. It will be several orders of magnitude less. The F-22 bounces the radar waves in there several times across RAM structures...which aren't simple RAM covering.

Here...we still have a straight line of sight view...ie you get one bounce. And RAM covering ain't gonna cut it if you want to get to the F-22 levels.

---------------------------

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=183112&d=1269342978

Again...not right at all. Simply looking at the position of the landing gear in relation to the 'structure" we are seeing here...will tell you its behind the landing gear.

But the real way to tell...is that you see it is AFTER that "bulge" in the intake wall where the landing gear needs room to retract. So its clear...behind it. But you need to know that the landing gear is situated very very close to the engine start....to go the extra step ;)

------------------------------------

Notice the black blades in the Flanker's inlet - those are Inlet Guide Vanes, if you now look at the T-50's inlet this "radar blocker" has exactly the same shape as AL-31F's IGVs. Weird Notice also, the dashed circle in AL-31F and in PAK's inlet - again it must be coincidence If you look carefully then the fan blades in AL-31 become clearly visible but I think they are even more visible in T-50 picture ( between ladder and third guide vane from right). There is also something like a wire which is going through every blade of 1 stage fan in AL-31F and this is visible Flanker picture and (I think) in T-50 picture.

This is an engine you're looking at

Its so plainly obvious too...

-------------------------------

That picture of the T-50 intake still doesnt gell with me.
We know that Kapendi's picture was photoshopped.

It wasn't my picture...but irrelevant.

Look at the "depth" of the intake of the T-50 compared to the Su-27 intake.
You can see its a nice looong tunnel. Yet the T-50 picture shows no such depth and appears to be just one meter from the leading edge of the intake in terms of scale.

Yet we all know how long the intake is!

You are looking at different angles there. Secondly...this is after the intake bulge to accommodate the landing gear. Try and fit that "1 m" into the intake ;)

I think T-50 will define new ways in air combat, such as dogfight in the supersonic region. If the aircraft can stay in supersonic region, it is hard for any missile to get a hit on it.

Really!

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 2,257

Look at the "depth" of the intake of the T-50 compared to the Su-27 intake.
You can see its a nice looong tunnel. Yet the T-50 picture shows no such depth and appears to be just one meter from the leading edge of the intake in terms of scale.

Yet we all know how long the intake is!

Beware of camera focal length. It may be an optical illusion.

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 489

I think stealth may not be a major priority for the T-50. There is no way India will join the project knowing it can't fight with the F-35. I think T-50 will define new ways in air combat, such as dogfight in the supersonic region. If the aircraft can stay in supersonic region, it is hard for any missile to get a hit on it, let alone the reaction time to get a lock on it. And if the T-50 can achieve the RCS say similar to the Gripen, that will be an achievement already. The T-50 doesn't have to be ultra expensive to maintain like the F-22. The question lies on how much RCS reduction to make the T-50 an effective platform. Personally, I think stealth is really overrated, like some cloaking device in science friction. With the advancement of active and passive radar technologies, I think stealth will not be the primary factor for gaining the upper hand in air combat. Soon, you may find aircraft may only use their passive sensors as opposed to the active rader, just like what submarine warfare is all about.

It does not make sense the Russians then would had just built the MiG 1.44 or Su-47 just to keep with the eurocanards, the T-50 must be as stealthy as the F-35 and they russian probaly have not shown what technology will be applied to make it as stealthy as the F-22 in the first prototype

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 372

I am just hedging my bet on Kapedani post #7 photo.

1. the "fan blades" appear black or non-metallic in nature. It may be made of composite material impregnated with RAM.

2. as slipperysam remarked, the "fan blades" appear too close to the intake inlet to be part of the engine. The position of the engine as given by the purple line drawings, and the position of the "fan blades" as given by the green line drawings appeared disjointed. That "fan blades" is probably a combination radar blocker/air-flow management device.

3. the "original" photo is a photoshop image in itself. There are photoshopped images that appear grainy or blurry on purpose.

4. one cannot use eyeballs to determine electromagnetic wave behavior. Go to any microwave oven, and look through the viewing window while cooking something inside. Note that there are no microwave going through the viewing window and burning your eyeball. The microwave is blocked entirely by the steel mesh lining the viewing window. The steel mesh allow some light to go through, but it block microwave entirely.

Member for

19 years 6 months

Posts: 1,856

Guys, let's just face it. Kapedani is far more knowledgeable than the thousands of UAC staff that worked on this jet. Their brainpower couldn't come close to what Kapedani can infer from the images displayed here. Billions of dollars and engineering training simply cannot defeat Kapedani's genuine expertise at the topic.

The PAK-FA is nothing more than a fancy looking Super Hornet. With Commodore-64 level computing power on board.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 25

It does not make sense the Russians then would had just built the MiG 1.44 or Su-47 just to keep with the eurocanards, the T-50 must be as stealthy as the F-35 and they russian probaly have not shown what technology will be applied to make it as stealthy as the F-22 in the first prototype

Yes, for the Mig 1.44 and Su-47, the Russians used curved inlets to hide the fan blades. Yet for the T-50, more than half of the fan blades are exposed. There must be some good reason why the Russians do it this way. I am sure it's about stealth trade-off for much better performance. The movable lex and fin are some clues. The seperation of engines will also help the flight envelope of the T-50.

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

That forward Fan is a fake on those pics, i have problems with the actual lenght here..
Take a look at this site end examine how the forward fans are an integrated part of the engine itself!
Try and measure the lenght from the back engine twards the place right behind the MLG..;)
IF those fans are real, it has to be position further up, slightly to the senter and far deeper in the ducts.
The lenght of the air duct is approx the same lenght as the Engine itself.

AL-31F (42 series) M1 Maximum length, m 4.945

http://www.salut.ru/Section.php?SectionId=18

Attachments

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 15

I compared pictures from PAK-FA- intake(first pic.) and original picture of 117C (second pic.) – no any different .

http://alfa.kachi-snimka.info/images/viu1269541415d.jpg
http://alfa.kachi-snimka.info/images/bfi1269541476a.jpg

Member for

18 years 5 months

Posts: 35

I compared pictures from PAK-FA- intake(first pic.) and original picture of 117C (second pic.) – no any different .

http://alfa.kachi-snimka.info/images/viu1269541415d.jpg

This photoshop

Member for

14 years 4 months

Posts: 242

Even the stains on the inlet vanes correspond(red, green and blue) between the two images. It's a copy, rotate a bit and paste. Yes stambe mig, you are right.
http://i43.tinypic.com/50phde.jpg

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 4


Look at the "depth" of the intake of the T-50 compared to the Su-27 intake.
You can see its a nice looong tunnel. Yet the T-50 picture shows no such depth and appears to be just one meter from the leading edge of the intake in terms of scale.

Yet we all know how long the intake is!

Could you tell - just by looking at this photo - that the distance between LERX and the bottom right edge of intake is over 2 meters ? I bet you couldn't .
Could you tell that the distance between bottom edge of intake and the landing gear is about 4 meters ? Nope.
That's the problem with this picture it doesn't give you sufficient depth feel, yet most of you are sure that this "device" is too close to be engine face.

Yes, that picture posted here by Kapedani was photoshoped and the original author wasn't hiding this fact, and this "collage" was made with purpose and you guys totally missed the point of it.

Member for

16 years 9 months

Posts: 1,403

The problem comes that in this forum you have to deals with characters like Otaku and lots of other fanboys who RESPOND is rather ridiculous, insulting and childish manner to any sort of reasonable observations here.

Here's a reasonable observation: that beloved bulge your clutching to, is where the wheel retracts into (ironically where you started this flame war 2 months ago), that large circular hole on the outside, remember? -it does exist- I didn't photoshop the image- meaning that 'device' is much further forward than you're trying to brainwash people here into believing

...and it gets worse (for a Russophobe like you that is) the curve of that bulge goes all the way round and develops into an oval-type shape which would shield ~90% of the real comp. face further back (it's simple geometry & perspective). The 117 is not banana shaped.

There is nothing "ridiculous, insulting and childish" in accusing you of being an intellectually compromised and fraudulent troll- until proven otherwise. You've said yourself you're "not an expert", so why why don't you leave it to the many hundreds of eminent scientists & engineers that are working on this project to come up with a solution.

They edge aligned the FR probe doors.....but left the c.-face exposed :rolleyes: Get a grip of yourself.....or kindly refrain from flaming.

Your antics would make Curveball wince.

Member for

18 years 5 months

Posts: 35

original
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9438/pakfa.jpg
photoshop
http://alfa.kachi-snimka.info/images/viu1269541415d.jpg

Member for

15 years 3 months

Posts: 6,441

To bad Kapedani.
Your ultra biased brain took those photos as the real deal without even thinking.
Better luck next time.
The forward fan is position deeper and higher up in that airduct, doesn't take a engineer to figure out that..
You seems to have some knowledge of aircraft design and systems.
But i had it with your two-ways monologue, your complete lack of ability to admit when you're wrong and last your childish trolling debate style.

Congratulation, you hit my ignore list,.
If i see any improvement from your posting in the future.. perhaps..

The T-50 clearly have LO design feature as the F-22, seen from above here.

Attachments

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 620

http://s48.radikal.ru/i122/0912/38/7ba23d14c6c8.jpg
What is this?

Member for

15 years 1 month

Posts: 15

F-18E "radar blocker" - front view :

http://alfa.kachi-snimka.info/images/viu1269600504z.jpg