Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and Development Thread part 11

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Tu 160
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2013
    • 157

    What speed is the Su35 capable of supercruising without afterburner?
    TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

    Comment

    • TR1
      TR1
      http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
      • Oct 2010
      • 9821

      http://s017.radikal.ru/i401/1301/cc/b0bfb3184361.jpg

      Man, those engines look huge.
      PAK-FA is going to have butt loads of excess power.

      I am seriously in love with this bird. Flanker is boring compared to T-50
      Last edited by TR1; 18th January 2013, 00:55.
      sigpic

      Comment

      • Dr.Snufflebug
        Boggleboople snufflebug
        • Aug 2012
        • 527

        Originally posted by TR1 View Post
        http://s017.radikal.ru/i401/1301/cc/b0bfb3184361.jpg

        Man, those engines look huge.
        PAK-FA is going to have butt loads of excess power.

        I am seriously in love with this bird. Flanker is boring compared to T-50
        Hmmm. Funny how that photo just seems to grow in resolution.

        Is this the first time we get to see a glimpse of the actual cockpit of the actual plane?
        sigpic

        Comment

        • MSphere
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2010
          • 8983

          Yes. but it looks identical to the images of the T-50 sim which have been floating on the web for a quite a time, so it's not a huge surprise - basically identical to the Su-35 cockpit, albeit with a new ShKS-5 HUD made by LOMO.

          Comment

          • Tu 160
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2013
            • 157

            Yes tons and tons of energy,imagine the acceleration the T50 with its sleek aerodinamics and almost 70,000lb of thrust, Mach 0.8-Mach 1.2 in maybe 18 seconds at 15,000ft
            T50 top speed should also be higher than the Su27, maybe about Mach 2.5+ 1,800 mph+ but that could damage the RCS paint and other components from overheating at those speeds.
            Tier 2 engines currently under development will increase the thrust and performance even further.

            Aren't the T50 AL 41F1 engines slightly larger in diameter than the Su35 AL 31 pattern 117S engines? As the AL 41F1 engines produce more thrust?
            Originally posted by TR1 View Post
            http://s017.radikal.ru/i401/1301/cc/b0bfb3184361.jpg

            Man, those engines look huge.
            PAK-FA is going to have butt loads of excess power.

            I am seriously in love with this bird. Flanker is boring compared to T-50
            Last edited by Tu 160; 18th January 2013, 01:54.
            TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

            Comment

            • Rii
              Rii
              Senior Member
              • Oct 2010
              • 3449

              Originally posted by TR1 View Post
              http://s017.radikal.ru/i401/1301/cc/b0bfb3184361.jpg

              Man, those engines look huge.
              PAK-FA is going to have butt loads of excess power.
              Link no work.

              EDIT: nvm, think I found it in the other thread.
              Last edited by Rii; 18th January 2013, 01:54.

              Comment

              • Tu 160
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2013
                • 157

                When is the Russian Navy supposed to receive its first Mig29K from its contract of 24 units,I heard 2013 but when in 2013 specifically?
                TU 160 STATISTICALLY IS THE LARGEST,HEAVIEST AND MOST POWERFUL COMBAT AIRCRAFT AND BOMBER EVER BUILT

                Comment

                • Sens
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2000
                  • 12298

                  Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
                  Yes tons and tons of energy,imagine the acceleration the T50 with its sleek aerodinamics and almost 70,000lb of thrust, Mach 0.8-Mach 1.2 in maybe 18 seconds at 15,000ft
                  T50 top speed should also be higher than the Su27, maybe about Mach 2.5+ 1,800 mph+ but that could damage the RCS paint and other components from overheating at those speeds.
                  Tier 2 engines currently under development will increase the thrust and performance even further.

                  Aren't the T50 AL 41F1 engines slightly larger in diameter than the Su35 AL 31 pattern 117S engines? As the AL 41F1 engines produce more thrust?
                  Above Mach 1,8 the heat will took its toll above 35 kft and much earlier below that.

                  Comment

                  • rimos
                    Rank 4 Registered User
                    • Jan 2013
                    • 33

                    Originally posted by TR1 View Post
                    http://s017.radikal.ru/i401/1301/cc/b0bfb3184361.jpg

                    Man, those engines look huge.
                    PAK-FA is going to have butt loads of excess power.

                    I am seriously in love with this bird. Flanker is boring compared to T-50
                    now even looks more like engines with the wings then an aircraft . Excellent.

                    Comment

                    • Berkut
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2011
                      • 2216

                      T-50 doesn't have higher top speed than Su-27. It has been known for years.

                      Comment

                      • haavarla
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Dec 2008
                        • 6703

                        Originally posted by TR1 View Post
                        To be technical the news is the RuAF accepted the missile, after trials were passed.

                        AFAIK the Kh-38 always had folding fins, so I don't think it is anything PAK-FA specific, unlike say Kh-58UShK.

                        Also, Izvestia.
                        Is X-38 and Kh-38 the same thing?

                        http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/1/18/1463/
                        Thanks

                        Comment

                        • Berkut
                          Senior Member
                          • Nov 2011
                          • 2216

                          Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                          Is X-38 and Kh-38 the same thing?

                          Comment

                          • mack8
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Nov 2009
                            • 2114

                            Originally posted by haavarla View Post
                            Is X-38 and Kh-38 the same thing?

                            http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2013/1/18/1463/
                            Correct russian romanicized name is H-38. Russian H looks like roman X. Kh-38 is a western phonetic spelling (why they don't just use H is beyond me).
                            --------------
                            NO to NATO
                            NO to WAR!

                            Comment

                            • ink
                              ink
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2000
                              • 3575

                              Correct russian romanicized name is H-38. Russian H looks like roman X. Kh-38 is a western phonetic spelling (why they don't just use H is beyond me).
                              They used to use "h":
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transli...teration_table

                              I think the idea behind "kh" is to emphasise that the Russian "h" sound is more strongly voiced than in English.

                              What really perplexes me is the Russian practice of substituting "g" ("г") for "h" in lots of words adopted from other European languages.
                              Regards, Ivan

                              Comment

                              • martinez
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Mar 2005
                                • 1209

                                Originally posted by ink View Post
                                They used to use "h":
                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transli...teration_table

                                I think the idea behind "kh" is to emphasise that the Russian "h" sound is more strongly voiced than in English.

                                What really perplexes me is the Russian practice of substituting "g" ("г") for "h" in lots of words adopted from other European languages.
                                they do not have "h", therefore they write "говно - govno" instead of "hovno"...., they have "x" what is the "kh" or "ch".....
                                <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

                                Comment

                                • haavarla
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2008
                                  • 6703

                                  Originally posted by Berkut View Post
                                  Seems the answer to my question was not as straight forward after all, grumphy Berkut.
                                  Thanks

                                  Comment

                                  • Berkut
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Nov 2011
                                    • 2216

                                    Actually it is incredibly simple, lazy haavarla:

                                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kha

                                    But i know, doing simple research before asking question, cant have that.

                                    Comment

                                    • ink
                                      ink
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 3575

                                      they do not have "h", therefore they write "говно - govno" instead of "hovno"...., they have "x" what is the "kh" or "ch".....
                                      Martinez, sorry, but that is not an argument that makes sense to me.

                                      How do Russians transliterate Hillary Clinton? And how do they transliterate Hamlet?

                                      The difference between these two perplexes me.

                                      NB, re: "говно" - Serbian most definitely has a "h" (or "х") but Serbian for govno is still "govno/говно". I think probably what we're dealing with a h --> g (or vice-versa) shift in Slavic languages that has taken root completely in some and only partially in others. Hence, you think "hovno" and "hrad" are normal where as in Serbian "govno" and "grad" are (even though we do have "h").

                                      Anyway, apologies to all for going off topic so completely. I'm personally much more interested in a standardisation of Russian designations so there is less confusion between things like MiG-29C and MiG-29S and the aforementioned X-38 vs Kh-38 mix-up.

                                      EDIT: incidentally, the article Haavarla posted above says that a Kh-38 (or X-38 or whatever) can hit moving armoured vehicles at a distance of blah blah blah... and it suddenly occurred to me to think: "the Russians don't really use Kh-38s on armoured vehicles do they???" Would bring new meaning to the term overkill if they did.
                                      Last edited by ink; 18th January 2013, 19:32. Reason: adding a new point
                                      Regards, Ivan

                                      Comment

                                      • MSphere
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Feb 2010
                                        • 8983

                                        Originally posted by ink View Post
                                        Martinez, sorry, but that is not an argument that makes sense to me.

                                        How do Russians transliterate Hillary Clinton? And how do they transliterate Hamlet?
                                        It's хамлет, also Khamlet. Russian style of writing English names is completely different, for instance William Shakespeare is written as Уилям Шекспир (Uilyam Shekspir)

                                        Comment

                                        • ink
                                          ink
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jan 2000
                                          • 3575

                                          Nope, its >>Гамлет<<.

                                          http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%...BB%D0%B5%D1%82

                                          That's what's so weird. It would make just too much sense if it was >>Хамлет<<.

                                          EDIT: But Hillary (as in Clinton) is transliterated as >>Хиллари<<. Go figure.

                                          EDIT 2: Anyway, stop goading me into discussing linguistics and lets talk about why the Ka-60 project is dead but Kamov are making a militarised version of the Ka-62, itself a civilian version of the original, military, Ka-60. That's even more confusing. What are they going to call the new military helicopter (I'm still holding out for the way too rational and logical Ka-60M)?
                                          Last edited by ink; 18th January 2013, 21:48. Reason: adding a new point
                                          Regards, Ivan

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X