The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[Namenlos Ein]

 

 

 

[countto10]

Posted twice on one page... that's gotta be a record for this thread!

Twice in 5 posts!

[Antartis]

[RIPTIDE]

I see 054 has lost the nose instruments... and the bubble after of the cockpit.

[Flаnker]

[tflash]

Nice vid from aviationweek:

 

[PFunk1606688187]

Nice vid from aviationweek:

 

 

That'd be funny wouldn't it. The future of fighter aircraft combat is a return to WW2 with close in knife fights. Those crazy Russians.

 

For the sake of my own entertainment, I hope they're right.

[Teknetinium]

That'd be funny wouldn't it. The future of fighter aircraft combat is a return to WW2 with close in knife fights. Those crazy Russians.

 

For the sake of my own entertainment, I hope they're right.

 

 

As missiles get better so do countermeasures. You never know what jamming capabilities your opponent will have in future. F-22 have same design approach where speed is compromised for maneuverability. Which indicates that we can not be 100% sure that the missile will do the job. Its harder to make countermeasures against unguided bullets i assume ;)

 

Worth mention that Jammers in FC1 felt more unbrodictible compared to now. I would say it felt more realistic when you could encounter different management on jammers when we could turn them on and off as fast as we liked. You could actually recognize pilots by the way they used jammers. Great time whit a lot whining on that it was unrealistic that some used macros. Now everyone get used to the jammer so it doesn't play its role as it should compare to how it was in FC1. Both Active and semi-active were affected. ER-27 was for obvious reasons suffering more by FC1 jammers, never the less it would be better keeping that old jammer which gave bigger variation on jammes usage.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Brisse]

If this thing can force it's opponents into WVR-combat then it will outclass all the competition.

[*Rage*]

I would prefer a return to gunzo:)

[Namenlos Ein]

[Pilotasso]

As missiles get better so do countermeasures. You never know what jamming capabilities your opponent will have in future. F-22 have same design approach where speed is compromised for maneuverability. Which indicates that we can not be 100% sure that the missile will do the job. Its harder to make countermeasures against unguided bullets i assume ;)

 

 

Saying something like this you will lead people to error. The Raptors top speed is classified, but its cruising speed is jus 200mph shy of others fighters top speed on afterburner. That effectively makes it the fastest fighter probably only contested by Mig-31 because it can sustain high cruise speed longer than other planes can at their top speed.

[Teknetinium]

Saying something like this you will lead people to error. The Raptors top speed is classified, but its cruising speed is jus 200mph shy of others fighters top speed on afterburner. That effectively makes it the fastest fighter probably only contested by Mig-31 because it can sustain high cruise speed longer than other planes can at their top speed.

 

You can see clearly that F-22 just can't reach Mig-31 speed because of engines blades can not spin that fast without self destruct.

 

What Im saying is that maneuverability is a big factor, if you could only rely on missiles, we would have aircrafts that had same design approach as Blackbirds and Mig-31.

 

 

We don't know F-35 top speed nithere, It doesn't make it the fastest aicraft in the world because it can supercruise.

 

Pilotasso you and GG have since FC1 been saying that missiles should be even more effective and hit target even more than they did in FC1. If we are believing that ED are doing something right with the missiles simulation which points to opposite opinion then yours since FC1.

 

And trust me there is a lot you and me don't know about how effective jammers are today. They might blink them, or use macros :)

Edited August 26, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Pilotasso]

Now your an engines specialist? :D

 

Guess what, I work on jet engines, what you just said doesn't make any sense.

 

About the rest of FC1, you obviously derailing what I said and this thread for that matter, you might want to start a new thread please.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Teknetinium]

Now your an engines specialist? :D

 

Guess what, I work on jet engines, what you just said doesn't make any sense.

 

About the rest of FC1, you obviously derailing what I said and this thread for that matter, you might want to start a new thread please.

 

LOL, Then you should know that spinning of the engine blades is one of the biggest problems to overcome when aiming for hight speeds whit jet-engines.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Pilotasso]

You only know about engines what you read on the internet, how can I beat that? :D seriously tek heres a friendly hint: you should know when to pick your fights. Good luck.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Pilotasso

[countto10]

LOL, Then you should know that spinning of the engine blades is one of the biggest problems to overcome when aiming for hight speeds whit jet-engines.

It's actually the HP TET that's the biggest problem. That's why the only way to get significantly above Mach 3 continuously is to use intake cooling systems. The reason the F-22 can't reach the speeds of the MiG-31 is probably to do with wave drag, intake design (optimised for stealth) and skin material.

[Teknetinium]

You only know about engines what you read on the internet, how can I beat that? :D seriously tek heres a friendly hint: you should know when to pick your fights. Good luck.

 

Im not fighting Im just saying that F-22 and T-50 has same design approach. And that this aircrafts are too small to make speeds of MIG-31 or Blackbird. Smaller wheel spins faster than the big one, as faster it spins as bigger load on construction, I don't need internet to understand that.

 

I don't agree with you that missile will solve all the problems. It seems I was right, because missile don't track as good as they were FC1.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Teknetinium

[Teknetinium]

It's actually the HP TET that's the biggest problem. That's why the only way to get significantly above Mach 3 continuously is to use intake cooling systems. The reason the F-22 can't reach the speeds of the MiG-31 is probably to do with wave drag, intake design (optimised for stealth) and skin material.

 

That is another problem you face when you reach that high speeds which is connected to fast spinning . To go around it you can make bigger engine so it doesn't spin that fast witch reduce the cooling problem ;)

[Pilotasso]

Countto is right. and it has not anything with compressor RPM (bet you don't know engines have turbines and compressor rotating independently at different speeds either), any given TIT can be achieved through other design features such as ratio of compression by adding more stages of compressor, you can even increase thrust just by decreasing the number of turbines wheels, none of these imply RPM increase as you can see. :)

Edited August 26, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Teknetinium]

Countto is right.

Im wrong then :)

[Pilotasso]

yes :)

[Teknetinium]

yes :)

LOL, Why does it get so hot that you need to cool it? And what do you do if you can not cool it enough? I guess i already told you.

Its funny how you try to prove me wrong, cooling is needed because blades are spinning too fast.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Teknetinium

[aaron886]

We don't know F-35 top speed nithere, It doesn't make it the fastest aicraft in the world because it can supercruise.

 

May I suggest that you're missing the point? MMO/Maximum Mach is a relatively useless figure for quantifying speed, because it's rarely achievable and often more aerodynamic than thrust-related. What's more interesting is how well a fighter can sustain a useful mach number in the subsonic range (or even better... supersonic range) without having to burn excess fuel. MMO is something only achieved for short periods and simply isn't enough information to be universally relevant. In my opinion, most important factors include acceleration, dry thrust to weight ratio, and drag associated with combat load.

[Teknetinium]

May I suggest that you're missing the point? MMO/Maximum Mach is a relatively useless figure for quantifying speed, because it's rarely achievable and often more aerodynamic than thrust-related. What's more interesting is how well a fighter can sustain a useful mach number in the subsonic range (or even better... supersonic range) without having to burn excess fuel. MMO is something only achieved for short periods and simply isn't enough information to be universally relevant. In my opinion, most important factors include acceleration, dry thrust to weight ratio, and drag associated with combat load.

 

Agree, sustained speed is what counts.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Teknetinium