Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TFX die Turkische Stealthen plannen! at Paris Le Baguette Airshow 2019

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ActionJackson
    replied
    Originally posted by XB-70 View Post
    ActionJackson - I made a stealth thread. Use that. No point talking about the Su-57 on the TFX thread.
    Once I can find the articles and pictures I'm after. I'll still duplicate the posts in the Su-57 thread where relevant though. Threads started by Russian/wannabe posters tend to be magically deleted when some of the more primitive features of the Su are mentioned. The Su-57 thread wasn't started by a Russian poster so is probably a safer time investment.

    Leave a comment:


  • ActionJackson
    replied
    Way to miss the topic and come across as oafish in one post. You chose banged up old trainers with missing edge tape and bubbled paint as a comparison to brand new, off the factory floor T-50s with designed in, protruding frames and large airgaps following large continuous surfaces with no travelling wave mitigation for what reason exactly?

    What's next?
    https://youtu.be/psZ7oSReJuE
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 16th July 2019, 13:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • TR1
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionJackson View Post
    But let me guess, with all the obvious airgaps, bumps and protrusions , and even with surface waves traversing rubber-like seals, the Russians have still managed to achieve perfect continuous conductivity from front to back of the canopy. Sound credible much... Nah didn't think so.

    Can't be worse than this brilliant display of surface quality:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	2-Jx-Kx-D5i-WW8.jpg
Views:	351
Size:	318.6 KB
ID:	3868010

    Bumps and protrusions, lol

    Click image for larger version

Name:	v-Y1-EQby7f-JA.jpg
Views:	346
Size:	86.3 KB
ID:	3868011

    Leave a comment:


  • XB-70
    replied
    ActionJackson - I made a stealth thread. Use that. No point talking about the Su-57 on the TFX thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • XB-70
    replied
    ...though there's no evidence Russia has the high accuracy application process seen on the US aircraft, in fact some early manufacturing photos indicate the T-50s application of the patches was random and haphazardly done)...
    Oh, do tell us about this, ActionJackson.

    The canopy itself however, is one big, continuous surface with no signs of variable, sawtooth shaped areas of varying conductivity (post Russian pixie dust claims it does exist in 3,2,1...).
    Why would they claim they have "sawtooth shaped areas of varying conductivity" and why do they need this? Sawtoothing edges is an edge technique - an impedance mismatch technique. If you could build the whole surface with no impedance mismatches then you wouldn't need any. Now, obviously you are going to have to use some because of unavoidable openings due to the landing gear, weapons bay, and such. But a lot of the reason why the Raptor looks the way it does is because of how CFRP was built back then (late 90s to early 00s).

    The Su-57 canopy frame has a clear raised protrusion that can be seen in numerous of the aircrafts high res photos. It also has an obvious 5-15mm seal gap right in the middle.

    ...with all the obvious airgaps, bumps and protrusions , and even with surface waves traversing rubber-like seals, the Russians have still managed to achieve perfect continuous conductivity from front to back of the canopy.
    Oh, do tell.

    According to a recent test done at a range, an untreated 3mm surface discontinuity on a low RCS ovoid object similar to the canopy, increased the RCS of the test target from -40dbsm to -20dbsm.
    What do you think is untreated? Look, your reasoning is sound. It is true that if the Russians didn't try to build a stealth fighter then they didn't make one. But that's all you say again and again. But I'll bite this time, and I'll start a dedicated thread for this kind of discussion in short while.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Olegnium, maybe?

    Leave a comment:


  • ActionJackson
    replied
    Originally posted by XB-70 View Post
    .

    No, ActionJackson. Because, as they have stated, they applied layers of ITO to the glass. And they can tailor the conductivity of that through the thickness and number of layers, as well as the ratio of indium oxide to tin oxide (there is no molecule ITO). Similarly, the conductivity of the carbon fiber shell and the exterior coatings can be tailored by doped conductive particle size and number.

    So do you have any actual evidence that they didn't do any of this? Because I know this is not something you can see. In fact, I would bet you had never thought about it.
    Oops forgot to respond to this one while on hols. I'm not so concerned with the canopy leading edge as the mid-canopy frame. The nose surface in front of the canopy is likely to be treated with magnetised, tapered conductivity patches as shown on the f-22 below for creeping wave attenuation (though there's no evidence Russia has the high accuracy application process seen on the US aircraft, in fact some early manufacturing photos indicate the T-50s application of the patches was random and haphazardly done)

    Click image for larger version  Name:	090426-F-9497Y-902.JPG Views:	0 Size:	719.7 KB ID:	3867891

    The canopy itself however, is one big, continuous surface with no signs of variable, sawtooth shaped areas of varying conductivity (post Russian pixie dust claims it does exist in 3,2,1...).

    The Su-57 canopy frame has a clear raised protrusion that can be seen in numerous of the aircrafts high res photos. It also has an obvious 5-15mm seal gap right in the middle.

    According to a recent test done at a range, an untreated 3mm surface discontinuity on a low RCS ovoid object similar to the canopy, increased the RCS of the test target from -40dbsm to -20dbsm. No small amount.

    But let me guess, with all the obvious airgaps, bumps and protrusions , and even with surface waves traversing rubber-like seals, the Russians have still managed to achieve perfect continuous conductivity from front to back of the canopy. Sound credible much... Nah didn't think so.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 14th July 2019, 11:37.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpudmanWP
    replied
    Not sure the F-35A would have looked any "sleeker". Its weapon bay placement (ie the cheeks) is dictated by the mandate of a single, large engine.

    Leave a comment:


  • eagle
    replied
    I think everyone can agree that F-35s dimensions weren't driven by aerodynamic requirements alone. The F-35A, or the aircraft in its place more likely, would look different if it weren't for the joint requirement. I'm pretty sure it would be way more sleek for starters.
    Even with the Navy requirement only, i.e. without the STOVL compromises. Originally, the CTOL/STOVL were planned with 40 degree wing sweep f.e., later dumped for commonality reasons. 40 degrees as it happens is exactly the same as found on another jet, designed to be the best ACM machine. Hmm...

    The F-35 is not design by aerodynamics, it's why I don't like the program. The jet itself, the F-35A at least, is probably the best outcome given the requirements though.

    Other programs are not hampered by CTOL/STOVL requirements. Them being more sleek is no coincidence, it's what happens when you design by aerodynamics.

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Originally posted by haavarla View Post

    The F-35 Navy Requirements is debated to dead. I pointed this out to J-20.
    I must have hit a nerve or something.. just deal with it.
    Well, we can start with the fact that your statement is fundamentally incorrect. The length of the F-35 was not determined by CVN constraints, it was dictated by LHD lift size and deck park (in other words, the Marines).

    second, is your statement about area rule and length. Area rule applies to the transonic region. A longer F-35 could have improved fineness ratio, and PERHAPS that would allow different distribution, but the two versions challenged in transonic acceleration are the B & C one has a rather noticeable hump due to lift fan and the other has a totally different wing.

    Given given the requirements, the F-35 is a long and as wide as it needs to be, simply making the A & C longer would have added weight, decreased commonality, added testing. For what? So internet eyeball drag analysts would be impressed? The only question that matters to the nations purchasing the aircraft is operational relevance, and since the services had a say in what they wanted (payload, fuel, footprint, max airspeed), they drive the dimensions.


    Leave a comment:


  • haavarla
    replied
    Originally posted by J-20 View Post

    I think hes trying to say, any design that looks like the su57 is the correct design. Anything that looks like the f35 is the bad one
    I'm pretty sure i mentioned F-22 and Su-57 as a comparison. And i'm also sure i did not bring up F-35. Others do..
    Nice try actionJ and J-20

    The F-35 Navy Requirements is debated to dead. I pointed this out to J-20.
    I must have hit a nerve or something.. just deal with it.
    Last edited by haavarla; 27th June 2019, 14:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • ActionJackson
    replied
    Click image for larger version

Name:	sc5c267328.png
Views:	718
Size:	689.1 KB
ID:	3866500

    Leave a comment:


  • J-20
    replied
    Originally posted by ActionJackson View Post

    In this case it's little to do with engine layout and more about the Su-57 and Su-35 being much larger than the F-35 by a huge margin.
    I think hes trying to say, any design that looks like the su57 is the correct design. Anything that looks like the f35 is the bad one

    Leave a comment:


  • ActionJackson
    replied
    Originally posted by haavarla View Post

    We are not talking about F-35.
    But a two engine design. There could be several tons fuel in difference.

    F-22 has over 8 tons, and it has closly connected engines.
    See my point?

    I am inclined to believe the Su-57 has same amount of fuel as Su-35S.
    But lets wait nd see.
    In this case it's little to do with engine layout and more about the Su-57 and Su-35 being much larger than the F-35 by a huge margin.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Btw, dimensions of NGF model are 14*18m 'easy to remember)
    sry wrong topic (apart if comparison with TFX)

    Leave a comment:


  • haavarla
    replied
    Originally posted by Levsha View Post

    Well, they got over 8 tonnes of fuel inside the airframe of the F-35 which is not bad - the F-35 is probably "wide and flat" enough I'd say.
    We are not talking about F-35.
    But a two engine design. There could be several tons fuel in difference.

    F-22 has over 8 tons, and it has closly connected engines.
    See my point?

    I am inclined to believe the Su-57 has same amount of fuel as Su-35S.
    But lets wait nd see.

    Leave a comment:


  • Levsha
    replied
    Originally posted by haavarla View Post

    Better Area rule would be several things;
    Less draggy airframe design layout.
    A wider and flatter airframe would mean slightly better lift Coifficent(body-lift), depending on Airfoil, LERX, LEVCON etc.
    A wider and flatter airframe would also make larger int fuel tanks a little less tricky. You can store lots of fuel in between the two Engines, but depending on how wide the engines are mounted.
    See Flanker/T-50 for clues.
    Well, they got over 8 tonnes of fuel inside the airframe of the F-35 which is not bad - the F-35 is probably "wide and flat" enough I'd say.

    Leave a comment:


  • haavarla
    replied
    Originally posted by Levsha View Post

    Well nobody has tried just yet - I wouldn't call either F-35 or J-31 "small fighters".



    I'm sure Lockheed Martin and US military might disagree. What do you mean by "area rule" in this case?
    Better Area rule would be several things;
    Less draggy airframe design layout.
    A wider and flatter airframe would mean slightly better lift Coifficent(body-lift), depending on Airfoil, LERX, LEVCON etc.
    A wider and flatter airframe would also make larger int fuel tanks a little less tricky. You can store lots of fuel in between the two Engines, but depending on how wide the engines are mounted.
    See Flanker/T-50 for clues.

    Leave a comment:


  • Levsha
    replied
    Originally posted by rpgtype7v View Post




    because you cant make stealth fighter and small fighter.
    Well nobody has tried just yet - I wouldn't call either F-35 or J-31 "small fighters".

    that also means it should be 2 engines for better area rule ,
    I'm sure Lockheed Martin and US military might disagree. What do you mean by "area rule" in this case?

    Leave a comment:


  • ananda
    replied
    Originally posted by haavarla View Post

    There is absolutly no reason what so ever for Turkey or Europe 5th gen fighter to go fat and short like F-35.
    We all understand why the F-35 ended up short and fat. Navy requirements on CV ramp and fotprint.

    If you only have Airforce requirements, then you are free to go longer, flat and sleeknes design.
    Isn't Dasault-Airbus design has also to be the replacement for Rafale Naval ? So it can not be only for Air Force requirements.
    Last edited by ananda; 24th June 2019, 07:18.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X