NOLA

How many pictures did you see of T-50 (PAK-FA) before first flight? That should answer your question.

Same "R2D2" as the one on the spine. It is called KS-O, part of 101KS system. Plenty pictures online...

Yes. No. Reinforcements were needed as the result of high-g's, NOT as result of payload or anything like that.

Well, not only T-50-2 changed stabs. -1 got a completely new set too. As i said, originally neither flew with strengthening plates on them, but at some point they started to. That is when they got new stabs. Yeah, and i am not trying to diss T-50 or anything btw. I am just as interested in problems as good news. Su-27 also started being produced with extra strengthening plates, atleast on the underside of the nose. And for a while too. T-50-3, like following frames, started flying with reinforced stabs from the onset. If you mean the reinforcement that was done over the whole frame, and especially the middle region, then no. This reinforcement straight from factory started with T-50-4. T-50-1 and -2 got retrofitted, but -3 doesn't really need it as it will be a radar bird.

Neither T-50-1 or T-50-2 had the strengthening plates on stabs to start with. They got them retrofitted. (vertical tails has been also retrofitted) T-50-4 and -5 (to certain degree T-50-1 and -2 too, after their massive retrofits) are covered with plates all over the frame.

RVV-BD.

Dude, this is not rocket science.:doh: T-50-2 got T-50-1's stab. Or am i victim to very subtle trolling?

Look on the right hand picture. That is original T-50-2 stab, look at the camo pattern. Then look at the middle picture showing T-50-1, look at the pattern. Now look at the left picture, T-50-2 is clearly using T-50-1 stab.

Exactly. Which picture exactly? The one with horizontal stabs? If you don't see the correlation between them in that one, then sorry, i can not help you... Not really. It was MoD/USAF who set the supercruise requirements, not Lockheed.

Not much is known. Wingspan is almost certain (13.95m), and from that it is easy to calculate the length. It is supposed to go supersonic without AB yes, but so could Tu-128. No, that is not supercruise. Atleast not according to USAF. :)

I wouldn't be too much hanged up in such numbers, they are pure speculation at best. We do know that T-50 has been called a "flying gas can" and it is also known that there is more fuel capacity in it than in Su-27. But other factors, like empty weight, is unknown and there are no pointers either.

SpaceX launched CRC-3 yesterday, the first one with landing legs. Ever. In history. This will prove to be a historic event, shame no one seems to be covering it at all... Stage 2 got de-orbited for tests/data too. And there will be two F9R's. One at Texas range and one at New Mexico.

Maximum. Apparently one can choose the exact location where the missile should hit and at 6km max diversion is 1m.

Hehe, have you also seen some phallic symbols and a few cuss words drawn in such locations? :P:D I have a few examples, but they might be too NSFW...

Yes.

Lots of of other differences are not picked up in that "excellent" analysis. Besides: No they are not. Tooth design is different tho, just like on every single other opening or closed panel.

Here you go: IIRC "canards" can be seen in the famous live firing video.

No, they are not Kh-555's but Kh-55. Kh-555 have "canards".

Wait a second. I never said that i expected T-50 program to run smooth did i? I said we should ignore simpelton articles based on rumors and stupid "statements" and focus discussion on actual issues that are happening with T-50. I stated things that are known to be wrong, you asked for proof. I posted proof. And now you are complaining that i posted proof and consider it to be bashing of T-50? :doh: If anything, you are a waste of time. Don't ask for proof next time. And i don't know, if main supply dies on one frame and all other frames do not fly due to that; i consider that grounding. You can call it whatever you like.

Eh, what? I had three things listed, not two. Then what what? :D You are not making any sense as usual. Yes, isn't that evidence enough? Vertical tails, first one is the first picture of it: http://russianplanes.net/images/to62000/061725.jpg + http://russianplanes.net/id70004 Feel free to compare other, better pics and find out that those tails does match T-50-1's and not T-50-2's. As to horizontal: And why do you think T-50-2 was also grounded for a good while? Same story as with T-50-1: http://russianplanes.net/id114101

Well, two of those are easy enough. T-50-1 didn't fly after MAKS 2011 til 10'th September 2012: http://russianplanes.net/id085929 As to stabs issues, plenty of photographic evidence there. In regards to T-50-3, there is no photo evidence of course but i alteast three separate sources have confirmed it. All T-50's were grounded following that incident. Got it. :thumbup:

It wasnt for fun that T-50-1 was grounded over a year. :smilewink: T-50-3 had an emergency landing some months ago. T-50-1 (and -2) has been through several sets of horizontal/vertical stabs. I have absolutely zero idea what you just said there.

Have you read through it? It reeks of sensationalism and the original article that this one is based on is just as bad. There are plenty of *real* issues with T-50 to discuss, not this malarky.

X-55 (Or Kh-55 in roman alphabet) :smilewink:

Yes, that is KnAAZ. (Formerly known as KnAAPO)