Endoplasmic Reticulum Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) Did you guys notice there's no dorsal airbrake... It brakes with the ailerons, like the F-22 does. I think the missing dorsal airbrake reduces weight and gives the plane more stability in flight while braking. I also think that it remains stealthier than when retracting the huge dorsal brake, which can reflect the radar-beam back to the enemy. Edited February 4, 2010 by Endoplasmic Reticulum I used to love her, but I had to kill her I had to put her, six feet under And I can still hear her complain A tribute to BBetty and NNadja :bye_3: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 So, any idea on when's next flight? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus_G Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Isn't a jammer (down and dirty) just a specially tuned transmitter? A modern jammer cannot exist without the receiving part of it, which is probably more advanced than transmitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 an antenna picks up frequencies emitted by the enemy aircraft and both its radio and radar operating frequencies so the transmitter knows what frequencies need to be jammed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.S Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) ALL CREDITS OF THIS POST GO TO radicaldude1234 Im just posting it here, becuase it was interesting sourece: http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17216 Hey guys, I'm taking a class on aerodynamics at the college that I'm at and I thought I'd take a shot at analyzing this thing. Now, there will be no doubt that there are some who are arguing that I should be deving or something, but since this helps me study anyways, I'll give this a go. Now, I'm no aerospace engineer (mechanical), so the more engineers who jump in and correct anything that I say the better. Basically I'm going to gather the general characteristics of the thing like lift coefficients, drag, cruise speed, manueverability, etc... I'm going to base my numbers off of this 3 view from the Russian site Paralay, which looks pretty accurate Based on the image and info, here are the preliminary dimensions Length: 21m (68.8ft) Span: 15.14m (49.66ft) Height: 5.023m (16.48ft) Empty Weight (wiki): 18,500kg (40785lb) Loaded Weight: 26,000kg (57,320lb) Max TO weight: 37,000kg (81,570lb) Thrust: 2x 175KN Engines (38,500 lbf each) Total Thrust: 350KN (77,000 lbf) Wing Root Chord: 6.81m Tip Chord: 1.64m Leading Edge Sweep: 46.94 deg Trailing Edge Weep: -10.21 deg Aerodynamic Sweep (the sweep that matters): 24.24 deg Wing Area (Wings Only): 35.37m^2 (380.6ft^2) Wing Area (Wings and fuselage area between wings: 35.37m^2 + 46.34m^2 = 81.71m^2 (879.07ft^2) Aerodynamic Observations from Planform: Max Shock Cone (Supersonic Shockwave) angle: 26.93 degrees from centerline Since the shockwave cannot touch any part of the structure, we can find maximum mach by: Max Mach = 1/sin(max shockwave angle) = 1/sin(26.93) = 2.208 mach All these were extrapolated from this drawing (note: divide distances by .42 to get meters) Next post, I'll try and do some hand calculations of Lift and Drag, then put the planform through a CFD analysis and see how it goes! . . . There are certain ways to measure reflection, scatter and the like, but it is currently out of my league at this point. That, and even if I did find out, some things are best left unsaid on the internet, if you know what I mean. Some other observations as I am trying to get the wing characteristics simulated in the meantime: The center of gravity, which can be extrapolated from the landing gear location, is surprisingly forward. The redline represents the probable CG location. The green line represents the calculated mean aerodynamic chord, or MAC. Center of gravity is usually located along a percentage of this line; around 25-30% for stable civil aircraft and 40-50% for FBW aircraft. Now, we know the CG can't go any backwards because the airplane will tip back and stay there on landing if that were so. So the Red line represents the furthest rear the CG can be. Since the location is in fact FORWARD of the MAC leading edge, this leads me to conclude that the clearly defined "wing" does not provide the large majority of the total lift. In this way, the aerodynamics of the T-50 differ from the F-22. Based the F-22's landing gear, the Raptor's CG is more typical of a conventional design and the CG is at ~35-40% of the MAC. With the T-50, since the CG is so forward on the conventional wing, my hypothesis is that the areas that look like strakes and the area between the engines generate significant lift and should be treated more as part of the wing. Also, the layout seems to have more lifting body characteristics than the norm for both Western and Eastern fighters. Given the layout of the Su-27 family, with its widely spaced engines and generously large strakes, it does make sense that Sukhoi would continue in this direction, though. Edited February 5, 2010 by A.S [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikoyan Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 ALL CREDITS OF THIS POST GO TO radicaldude1234 Im just posting it here, becuase it was interesting sourece: http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17216 Hey guys, I'm taking a class on aerodynamics at the college that I'm at and I thought I'd take a shot at analyzing this thing. Now, there will be no doubt that there are some who are arguing that I should be deving or something, but since this helps me study anyways, I'll give this a go. Now, I'm no aerospace engineer (mechanical), so the more engineers who jump in and correct anything that I say the better. Basically I'm going to gather the general characteristics of the thing like lift coefficients, drag, cruise speed, manueverability, etc... I'm going to base my numbers off of this 3 view from the Russian site Paralay, which looks pretty accurate Based on the image and info, here are the preliminary dimensions Length: 21m (68.8ft) Span: 15.14m (49.66ft) Height: 5.023m (16.48ft) Empty Weight (wiki): 18,500kg (40785lb) Loaded Weight: 26,000kg (57,320lb) Max TO weight: 37,000kg (81,570lb) Thrust: 2x 175KN Engines (38,500 lbf each) Total Thrust: 350KN (77,000 lbf) Wing Root Chord: 6.81m Tip Chord: 1.64m Leading Edge Sweep: 46.94 deg Trailing Edge Weep: -10.21 deg Aerodynamic Sweep (the sweep that matters): 24.24 deg Wing Area (Wings Only): 35.37m^2 (380.6ft^2) Wing Area (Wings and fuselage area between wings: 35.37m^2 + 46.34m^2 = 81.71m^2 (879.07ft^2) Aerodynamic Observations from Planform: Max Shock Cone (Supersonic Shockwave) angle: 26.93 degrees from centerline Since the shockwave cannot touch any part of the structure, we can find maximum mach by: Max Mach = 1/sin(max shockwave angle) = 1/sin(26.93) = 2.208 mach All these were extrapolated from this drawing (note: divide distances by .42 to get meters) Next post, I'll try and do some hand calculations of Lift and Drag, then put the planform through a CFD analysis and see how it goes! . . . There are certain ways to measure reflection, scatter and the like, but it is currently out of my league at this point. That, and even if I did find out, some things are best left unsaid on the internet, if you know what I mean. Some other observations as I am trying to get the wing characteristics simulated in the meantime: The center of gravity, which can be extrapolated from the landing gear location, is surprisingly forward. The redline represents the probable CG location. The green line represents the calculated mean aerodynamic chord, or MAC. Center of gravity is usually located along a percentage of this line; around 25-30% for stable civil aircraft and 40-50% for FBW aircraft. Now, we know the CG can't go any backwards because the airplane will tip back and stay there on landing if that were so. So the Red line represents the furthest rear the CG can be. Since the location is in fact FORWARD of the MAC leading edge, this leads me to conclude that the clearly defined "wing" does not provide the large majority of the total lift. In this way, the aerodynamics of the T-50 differ from the F-22. Based the F-22's landing gear, the Raptor's CG is more typical of a conventional design and the CG is at ~35-40% of the MAC. With the T-50, since the CG is so forward on the conventional wing, my hypothesis is that the areas that look like strakes and the area between the engines generate significant lift and should be treated more as part of the wing. Also, the layout seems to have more lifting body characteristics than the norm for both Western and Eastern fighters. Given the layout of the Su-27 family, with its widely spaced engines and generously large strakes, it does make sense that Sukhoi would continue in this direction, though. Keep the math going, thanks for posting your studies, looks like the that the pack-fa has more wing area than both raptor and yf-23, that means less wing loading right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Only if it weighs the same ... bigger=heavier. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikoyan Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 it is not bigger than the flanker and I don't see a lot of metal on the skin so I don't think it is heavier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boberro Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Maybe it is marketing trick or really is lighter. I slightly vote for that it is really lighter. Reminder: Fighter pilots make movies. Bomber pilots make... HISTORY! :D | Also to be remembered: FRENCH TANKS HAVE ONE GEAR FORWARD AND FIVE BACKWARD :D ಠ_ಠ ツ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekkinho Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 A.S. all that you wrote suggests that maneuverability and handling characteristics of PAK-FA are best compared to other 5th gen aircraft we know of with performance better than presented by Sukhoi itself... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Force_Feedback Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 OTOH, the design characteristics for it were also strict, it's basically an STOL given the 400m runway requirement. That surprises me more than the stupid talk about the 'lateral bays' and how the compressor would be visible (on paralay it was proven that it is visible for 1/6th, shold it lack any ramps). It may be 20 years behind the YF-22, but I don't think stealth was their main criterea, I'm guessing a de-centralised air warfare structure may be the future for Russia (akin to the highway runways in Sweden). But that is only speculation based on take-off and landing requirements. Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 ALL CREDITS OF THIS POST GO TO radicaldude1234 Im just posting it here, becuase it was interesting sourece: http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17216 Hey guys, I'm taking a class on aerodynamics at the college that I'm at and I thought I'd take a shot at analyzing this thing. Now, there will be no doubt that there are some who are arguing that I should be deving or something, but since this helps me study anyways, I'll give this a go. Now, I'm no aerospace engineer (mechanical), so the more engineers who jump in and correct anything that I say the better. Basically I'm going to gather the general characteristics of the thing like lift coefficients, drag, cruise speed, manueverability, etc... I'm going to base my numbers off of this 3 view from the Russian site Paralay, which looks pretty accurate Based on the image and info, here are the preliminary dimensions Length: 21m (68.8ft) Span: 15.14m (49.66ft) Height: 5.023m (16.48ft) Empty Weight (wiki): 18,500kg (40785lb) Loaded Weight: 26,000kg (57,320lb) Max TO weight: 37,000kg (81,570lb) Thrust: 2x 175KN Engines (38,500 lbf each) Total Thrust: 350KN (77,000 lbf) Wing Root Chord: 6.81m Tip Chord: 1.64m Leading Edge Sweep: 46.94 deg Trailing Edge Weep: -10.21 deg Aerodynamic Sweep (the sweep that matters): 24.24 deg Wing Area (Wings Only): 35.37m^2 (380.6ft^2) Wing Area (Wings and fuselage area between wings: 35.37m^2 + 46.34m^2 = 81.71m^2 (879.07ft^2) Aerodynamic Observations from Planform: Max Shock Cone (Supersonic Shockwave) angle: 26.93 degrees from centerline Since the shockwave cannot touch any part of the structure, we can find maximum mach by: Max Mach = 1/sin(max shockwave angle) = 1/sin(26.93) = 2.208 mach All these were extrapolated from this drawing (note: divide distances by .42 to get meters) Next post, I'll try and do some hand calculations of Lift and Drag, then put the planform through a CFD analysis and see how it goes! . . . There are certain ways to measure reflection, scatter and the like, but it is currently out of my league at this point. That, and even if I did find out, some things are best left unsaid on the internet, if you know what I mean. Some other observations as I am trying to get the wing characteristics simulated in the meantime: The center of gravity, which can be extrapolated from the landing gear location, is surprisingly forward. The redline represents the probable CG location. The green line represents the calculated mean aerodynamic chord, or MAC. Center of gravity is usually located along a percentage of this line; around 25-30% for stable civil aircraft and 40-50% for FBW aircraft. Now, we know the CG can't go any backwards because the airplane will tip back and stay there on landing if that were so. So the Red line represents the furthest rear the CG can be. Since the location is in fact FORWARD of the MAC leading edge, this leads me to conclude that the clearly defined "wing" does not provide the large majority of the total lift. In this way, the aerodynamics of the T-50 differ from the F-22. Based the F-22's landing gear, the Raptor's CG is more typical of a conventional design and the CG is at ~35-40% of the MAC. With the T-50, since the CG is so forward on the conventional wing, my hypothesis is that the areas that look like strakes and the area between the engines generate significant lift and should be treated more as part of the wing. Also, the layout seems to have more lifting body characteristics than the norm for both Western and Eastern fighters. Given the layout of the Su-27 family, with its widely spaced engines and generously large strakes, it does make sense that Sukhoi would continue in this direction, though. Interesting analysis but bear in mind that max speed is as much determined by engine duct configuration as the external shape of the airframe. Does Pak Fa have shockwave ramps in the intake ducts? If not the plane is not expected to exceed mach 2, even though theoreticaly the engine could do better. NOTE: this is a technicality since average speed in a closed course is much more important than top speed that can only be maintained very briefly on previous gen aircraft. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warbird_242 Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 (cough) A-20 Razorback :D Looks like Sukhoi's design team have been playing an awful lot of Endwar and HAWX recently hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team Groove Posted February 6, 2010 ED Team Share Posted February 6, 2010 Are they going for the LPI Radar concept with the PAK-FA ? Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflash Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 In fact, while it unmistakenly is inspired by some US stealth designs, the aircraft also seems a logical evolution of the Flanker. A kind of "Silent Flanker" with canted fins and a more elaborate wing/body/lerx blend. I could also imagine a more conservative evolution of the current Flanker design where they try to put some conformal housing at the wing root or between the engines to store some payload, and canted fins, like the F-15 Silent Eagle proposal. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Are they going for the LPI Radar concept with the PAK-FA ? Unknwown. The radar is still in development. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antartis Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Are they going for the LPI Radar concept with the PAK-FA ? What is LPI radar? Asus Prime Z-370-A Intel core I7-8700K 3.70Ghz Ram g.skill f4-3200c16d 32gb Evga rtx 2070 Ssd samgung 960 evo m.2 500gb Syria, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Normandy 1944 Combined Arms A-10C, Mirage-2000C, F-16C, FC3 Spitfire LF Mk. IX UH-1H, Gazelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Low Probability of Intercept. I means your TEWS wont pick it up. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antartis Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Low Probability of Intercept. I means your TEWS wont pick it up. Thank for info..:thumbup: Asus Prime Z-370-A Intel core I7-8700K 3.70Ghz Ram g.skill f4-3200c16d 32gb Evga rtx 2070 Ssd samgung 960 evo m.2 500gb Syria, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Normandy 1944 Combined Arms A-10C, Mirage-2000C, F-16C, FC3 Spitfire LF Mk. IX UH-1H, Gazelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.S Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Me wonders how T-50 and F-22 perform under EMP impulses ...(nuke save) The russians are known to built "ray-save" jets .....maybe it be nuke-based or other weapons..... ...so here comes the question: ..which one is easier to "grill" :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 With the amount of electronics and t/x elements on both aircraft, they'll both be well done in about 5 sec at HI power :D Me wonders how T-50 and F-22 perform under EMP impulses ...(nuke save) The russians are known to built "ray-save" jets .....maybe it be nuke-based or other weapons..... ...so here comes the question: ..which one is easier to "grill" :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.S Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 (edited) yeah..i guess so....but i really wonder about the elec-independence (backup-ability) ...i know the 22ski can make good barbeque itself...but does it have barbeque gloves ? :D HA...found a good read on that one: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1996/apjemp.htm Edited February 8, 2010 by A.S [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zakobi Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 yeah..i guess so....but i really wonder about the elec-independence (backup-ability) ...i know the 22ski can make good barbeque itself...but does it have barbeque gloves ? :D HA...found a good read on that one: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1996/apjemp.htm I don't think we'll see EMP weapons aimed directly at aircrafts etc. in the near future. AFAIK the "warhead" is still quite big. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mugatu Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 @AS, if you use one of those you won't have to worry about who's got the best fighter or debate over global warming ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.S Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 "...i dont know what weapons they will use in ww3, but i do know that they will use stones and sticks in ww4 .." quote: Einstein [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts