Jump to content

Vekkinho

Members
  • Posts

    5802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Vekkinho

  1. Avenger or ASRAD has no trouble locking Iraqi cars idling at the red traffic light...No friction there but engine's hot.
  2. Interesting Wedge: Faster it goes less direct airflow on compressor blades thus hiding a great deal of RCS...
  3. Heat as a result of friction during subsonic travel is venial...On the other hand You'll have trouble engaging a SR-71 travelling M3.0 with a 'winder...
  4. Exactly! No footage of F-16 in MIL power range which answers the other raised question of heat being similar with burners on. It's a pure proof of how really powerful F119 are, F-16 needing an AB for most of it's turns and F-22 using it for vertical acceleration only. Bear in mind that there are 2*F199 on average Raptor and the general thrust (and heat) is beyond that of a single F100.
  5. Single pixel or no pixel is a 100% difference.
  6. There's even better example: compare F-16 and F-22 heat signature...
  7. Yeah, but with curves and deadzones I can program my joystick to G9,0 snaps and soon as I touch it.
  8. The thing is with introduction of F-15C AFM options of setting curves of our controllers should be disabled in DCS menu and in controller apps (TARGET, Foxy, SaitekST etc) in order to faithfully reproduce real F-15C FM. This way all users and DCS pilots enjoy same response from a given FM.
  9. Hajduk, there are differences in lifetime of certain products. As you can see MiG-21 outlived his grandson MiG-29... VW Golf Mk1 (produced in 1974) easily outlives nowadays Golf Mk7 that's produced in larger numbers but in 40 years there'll be less mk7 on the roads than there are Mk1 today. So the question is is a B-1B a platform worth maintaining...
  10. Try touching them on a working engine and you'll understand. Read my post again and note that I said it's not just the nozzle that radiates heat than look at this vid: Jet engine has a cold end: - inlet and compression sections and a hot end: - Combustion, turbine and nozzle (exhaust). Combustion and turbine part are exposed on a T-50 and hidden under livery of a F-22. As you can see in the video above, not only thrust but all exposed hot parts of the engine are visible on thermal camera but hot parts of the engine which are "hidden" under the nacelle do not glow in the cam.
  11. Keeping a plane in a hangar is like keeping a car in a garage...Expensive.
  12. It's not just the nozzle and heat that comes out of it... Look at the difference in exposed parts of the engine. F-22 has only few sq feet of nozzles protruding out of the fuselage, compression and combustion parts of the engine are hidden within it and coated in heat insulating materials. Now look the T-50...
  13. Yes, why do you think it wouldn't be important? Hiding a IR signature from IRST devices is just as important as painting a camo pattern to hide it from a Mk1 eyeball. T-50 has a nice camo pattern...but this is tragic: She's idling in that picture. It's supposed to be stealth or lo observable in all three aspects: visual, thermical and radar.
  14. ^^^^ However frontal aspect (business end of the 5th gen fighter) is probably the most important one. I hardly believe you'll live long enough to see Raptor overshooting you or hauling ass back out of the fight...
  15. In the end that's really irrelevant cause comparing these two aircraft is impossible... P&W - F119 engine or PW5000 as it was called back in the day already powered YF-22 when YF-22 tests started in late 80s. This engine was "finetuned" and adopted for use with F-22 and her main roles during tests and was finally installed on first (and current) Raptors produced for use with USAF. So entire F-22 envelope (radar, weapons, flight performance) and ways of her practice was based on an existing platform unlike T-50 which will be in active service with RuAF for 3 or 4 years before they upgrade their main component - which is an engine. You'll have to reorganize entire "flight manual" and weapon delivery tactics that can not be definite as long as there's temporary solution. That's like buying a gun that you can only use as a club as long as there are no suitable bullets...
  16. This guy shouldn't be proud of such landings...this feels like falling not landing.
  17. Anyway, the biggest disappointment in seeing T-50 testbeds during last few years is with her engine wells. I mean we can talk radar absorbing materials used inside intakes but it sure doesn't look good so far from both sides...Stealth is not only being hidden from a radar, what's with IR signature? These nozzles provide no gain in IR reduction. I've seen them fly at MAKS 2013, they smoke no less than average Flanker...
  18. Only way of reaching M1.7 is with use of AB. Edit: I see now you already wrote that!
  19. Even older if you consider TES Block 1 airframes from 1991. First Blk10 airframe produced for use with USAF dates from 1999 but delivered in Oct 2002. So it's a 12/15 YO airframe, depends on what you take into account.
  20. As I said, many 4th Gen fighter engines are capable of supercruise without AB, however these are table test figures and are only slightly > M1.0. Supercruise of a F-22 is in the neighbourhood of M1.4 at 35.000ft. Since there's no similar engine in rest of the world one has to develop it and that's the main 2020 reason.
  21. It's a common practice in russian or ex Soviet design bueraus. During design of the 3rd and 4th gen fighters majority of focus was given to streamlining the frontal surfaces in order of achieving best possible aerodynamics with least drag. Trailing parts of the fuselage and empennage was least concern with jets like MiG-21, MiG-25, MiG-23, -29 and Sukhoi Flanker derivatives. I have the same "fear" that it seems to be the case here as well. T-50-1 kinda appeared out of nowhere, now the fuselage and general shape of PAK FA is here but looks to me that engine development lags a lot... I have no doubts on performance of current engines, rememeber supercruise was possible with most of the engines we see on 4th gen fighters but wasn't granted cause of the serious reduction in TBO figures. However, installing a newer engine (we're talking 2020) which is probably more powerful that current one on to by then a decade old airframes/techology is a funny call. I guess there are more reasons behind it-the most likely one is funding the research.
×
×
  • Create New...