Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by haavarla View Post
    Why is Berkut dreaming?

    The next thing you have to explain to us, how would you accommodate 20000L of INTERNAL fuel on this PakFa Interceptor?

    Don't you guys understand anything in how this work! You would basicly need to design a all new platform. You could make it PakFa'ish with different set of airfoils, but it would have to be 40-60% larger in size.

    That people.. means nothing else than a new Interceptor Program! And you would need to heavily tweak the D30-F6 engines or get new engines. Cause no one here can say the Idz-30 engine has the right requirements to operate like the D-30-F6 engines does. Namely on prolonged AB settings.

    After some time doing research on the D30-F6 engine. I can only conclude Aviadvigatel designed it with many different AB settings, and that on minimal Burner, it consume less fuel compared to other jet engines with same settings.
    Also, we are talking about a low-bypass TurboFan engine. The PakFa engine is a Turbojet engine. There is a big difference here.
    20k fuel is what it would take to get the same performance and perform the same mission scope as the Mig 31 ?

    I think the mission scope and strategy could be augmented to suit the Pak Fa interceptor rather than just try and make the Pak fa do what the Mig 31 does.

    Comment


      Originally posted by TR1 View Post
      Not a fan of the green interior.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Berkut View Post
        You are right regarding supercruise but wrong re F-22. It is not overhyped and yes MiG-31 has longer range while being supersonic by bruteforcing it. But with F-22 USAF had a choice between more fuel or better maneuverability. F-22 ended up with more maneuverability.
        The PAK-FA is faster plane than F-22 with much more fuel and much sleaker and more aerodynamic shape. It can do interceptor role much better than F-22 can ever dream. Most economic solution is to use PAK-FA variant for interceptor because it can do most of MiG-31 job.

        Comment


          Originally posted by JSR View Post
          I don't pay attention to economic forecast as they don't take into account military power.
          No one, and macroeconomics especially, doesn't care - what you pay attention to. We're stagnating and have no drivers, anymore, for economic growth - that's a fact.

          Comment


            Originally posted by KGB View Post
            20k fuel is what it would take to get the same performance and perform the same mission scope as the Mig 31 ?

            I think the mission scope and strategy could be augmented to suit the Pak Fa interceptor rather than just try and make the Pak fa do what the Mig 31 does.
            20k liters yes. That is why it have such long legs in both Supersonic and subsonic range.
            You will never ever get PakFa up to such specs, not without major redesigning.

            The termo limits of PakFa skin will also make it sub par with Mig-31. You would burn/melt off the RAM skin if you go much over Mach 2, never mind any higher.
            Thanks

            Comment


              Originally posted by Isengard View Post
              The PAK-FA is faster plane than F-22 with much more fuel and much sleaker and more aerodynamic shape. It can do interceptor role much better than F-22 can ever dream. Most economic solution is to use PAK-FA variant for interceptor because it can do most of MiG-31 job.
              T-50 is faster than F-22 only in the same world where T-50 can act as an interceptor better than PAK-DP.

              That world doesnt exist.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Berkut View Post
                T-50 is faster than F-22 only in the same world where T-50 can act as an interceptor better than PAK-DP.

                That world doesnt exist.
                I got to ask, why do you think the T-50 will end up being slower than the F-22?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Scar View Post
                  No one, and macroeconomics especially, doesn't care - what you pay attention to. We're stagnating and have no drivers, anymore, for economic growth - that's a fact.
                  I don't see any stagnation. Stagnation means when debt creation and resource depletion are faster than GDP. Japan /Korea/India are the example.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by FalconDude View Post
                    I got to ask, why do you think the T-50 will end up being slower than the F-22?
                    Because it was stated by the former VVS chief it will be doing Mach 2.0 tops, because composites on it are not able to handle F-22 like speeds/temperatures ("It will do 1600mph") and because Flateric has said so many times. Even if T-50 is magically able to match Su-27 speed, that still puts it below F-22. And T-50 with izd.117's is certainly slower at supercruise than F-22 with its Mach 1.7-1.78 SC. With izd.30, we shall see.

                    Lastly T-50 just doesnt need to have higher speed than F-22, SC or top speed. It does need to have larger range though, both at sc and subsonic. And we know for a fact it does have larger range than F-22.
                    Last edited by Berkut; 22nd March 2017, 00:04.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by JSR View Post
                      I don't see any stagnation. Stagnation means when debt creation and resource depletion are faster than GDP. Japan /Korea/India are the example.
                      It's already obvious that you don't see anything. Neither recession in the previous two years, nor stagnation now. I remember such people as you, right before USSR died - they too didn't see what's coming...poor idiots.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Berkut View Post
                        Because it was stated by the former VVS chief it will be doing Mach 2.0 tops, because composites on it are not able to handle F-22 like speeds/temperatures ("It will do 1600mph") and because Flateric has said so many times. Even if T-50 is magically able to match Su-27 speed, that still puts it below F-22. And T-50 with izd.117's is certainly slower at supercruise than F-22 with its Mach 1.7-1.78 SC. With izd.30, we shall see.

                        Lastly T-50 just doesnt need to have higher speed than F-22, SC or top speed. It does need to have larger range though, both at sc and subsonic. And we know for a fact it does have larger range than F-22.
                        In what year mach 2 statement was made?. what is the top speed of 20% larger MIG35 compare to MIG29. It means you don't know for the fact.

                        Comment


                          The MiG-35 is 20% larger than the MiG-29? where do you get that from?

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Scar View Post
                            It's already obvious that you don't see anything. Neither recession in the previous two years, nor stagnation now. I remember such people as you, right before USSR died - they too didn't see what's coming...poor idiots.
                            Putin's voters will not see any stagnation.. Those voting the opposition will only see stagnation. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle...

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                              The MiG-35 is 20% larger than the MiG-29? where do you get that from?
                              MIG35 MTOW is about 50% greater than MIG29. It produces 50% more range on internal fuel. I am sure you have seen it's huge cockpit.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by FalconDude View Post
                                I got to ask, why do you think the T-50 will end up being slower than the F-22?
                                Because it makes little sense.. PAK-FA needs longer supersonic range, not higher supercruise speed than the Raptor..
                                Even if a dedicated supercruiser, the supersonic range of the F-22 is not greater than supersonic range of a dedicated non-supercruiser, the F-35. That's a big disappointment, IMHO..

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                  MIG35 MTOW is about 50% greater than MIG29. It produces 50% more range on internal fuel.
                                  The length, height and empty weight of both aircraft is the same.. the wingspan is 5% longer.. So, again, where is the "MiG-35 is 20% larger than the MiG-29"?

                                  Originally posted by JSR View Post
                                  I am sure you have seen it's huge cockpit.
                                  No, I have not seen any huge cockpit.. just a normal cockpit, not larger than one of the MiG-29UB.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                    Putin's voters will not see any stagnation.. Those voting the opposition will only see stagnation. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle...
                                    The truth is in our GDP charts and other macroeconomical statistics. It is so obvious that even Ministries of Finance and Economic Development cannot ignore the reality - we lost all drivers of the economic growth.
                                    Last edited by Scar; 22nd March 2017, 01:58.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by MSphere View Post
                                      The length, height and empty weight of both aircraft is the same.. the wingspan is 5% longer.. So, again, where is the "MiG-35 is 20% larger than the MiG-29"?

                                      No, I have not seen any huge cockpit.. just a normal cockpit, not larger than one of the MiG-29UB.
                                      It's the volume of the plane. Just AESA alone add one to the weight. You can see the weight increase in JSF compared to F16E. MIG35 has big back and is longer

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Scar View Post
                                        It's already obvious that you don't see anything. Neither recession in the previous two years, nor stagnation now. I remember such people as you, right before USSR died - they too didn't see what's coming...poor idiots.
                                        USSR has 50% dysfunctional population . It's obvious you don't understand modern concept of GDP and difference between input and output. when input is more than output. It's negative GDP. There are new drivers you simply not in that field.
                                        http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1038876.shtml

                                        Comment


                                          It's obvious you're the proud successor of those delusional idiots i seen 4-5 years prior prior USSR death. You should write the letter to Ministry of Finance and to the Vedomosti newpaper - they both need such a great economist like you as an expert.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X