Jump to content

A Russian stealth page


Flyby

Recommended Posts

The planes dont look "right". Remeber if it looks right it flies right.

 

Furthermore they look more complicated than they need to be. Why a squashed cockpit, or the cockroach apearance of the plane? = Expensive to build.

 

Those are only art sketches and of course the real blue prints are probably very different. These art pictures seem to be more about desinformation (or lack of base) than anything else. :)


Edited by Pilotasso

[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

The planes dont look "right". Remeber if it looks right it flies right.

 

In most cases I agree but what about Berkut? It doesn't look normal (compared to typical planes, I mean example wings shape and their direction), but supposedly it flies very well (dunno it is true or not)


Edited by Boberro

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



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The planes dont look "right". Remeber if it looks right it flies right.

 

Furthermore they look more complicated than they need to be. Why a squashed cockpit, or the cockroach apearance of the plane? = Expensive to build.

 

Those are only art sketches and of course the real blue prints are probably very different. These art pictures seem to be more about desinformation (or lack of base) than anything else. :)

Don't forget the "Wobbly Goblin", alias F117 NightHwak. Who would have though that thing could fly? Never discount computer-aided flight controls. Also thanks to the advancement in construction materials, the forward-swept fighter planes like the Berkut are possible, as was the case with the experimental X29 in the '80s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEKmRxrkKt4&feature=related

and here's the gorgeous Berkut:

So perhaps if you can dream it, and build it, it will fly (remember the B49 Flying wing?).

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

say what?

 

Forward swept wing fighter planes are reasonably useless on the other hand.

can you tell me (us) why you think so? I don't know a lot about the design pros and cons, except that I've read somewhere that forward-swept wings supposedly offer less drag, iirc.

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their main advantage is remaining un-stalled for very high degrees of AoA.

On the other hand, they're probably not so great for supersonic flight.

Since you can replicate good controllability at high AoA with TVC, may as well keep a standard, high-speed efficient wing and use TVC to get all the advantages.

 

can you tell me (us) why you think so? I don't know a lot about the design pros and cons, except that I've read somewhere that forward-swept wings supposedly offer less drag, iirc.

Flyby out

[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

Their main advantage is remaining un-stalled for very high degrees of AoA.

On the other hand, they're probably not so great for supersonic flight.

Since you can replicate good controllability at high AoA with TVC, may as well keep a standard, high-speed efficient wing and use TVC to get all the advantages.

well...glad I asked. But why do you think this design is not so great for supersonic flight?

over

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mmm can see it from the rear like the JSF, only partial stealth :P and that's to pretty to be a Sukhoi :p x 2

 

Different people different tastes - i personaly think sukhois are the best looking fighters :music_whistling: So to me it doesn`t seem too pretty to be Sukhoi

 

Their main advantage is remaining un-stalled for very high degrees of AoA.

On the other hand, they're probably not so great for supersonic flight.

Since you can replicate good controllability at high AoA with TVC, may as well keep a standard, high-speed efficient wing and use TVC to get all the advantages.

 

But don`t those wings give him even bigger maneuverability when combined with TVC?


Edited by topol-m

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my rather primitive understanding that the wings must fit into the supersonic shock cone of the aircraft - but I may have that wrong. If that is the case, then the length of the wing is limited by the cone, otherwise you create extra drag. I think.

 

However! There's a more reliable list of advantages and disadvantages:

 

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedaero/potential3d/fsw.html

 

well...glad I asked. But why do you think this design is not so great for supersonic flight?

over

[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

I think it doesn't give enough advantages to really justify having both. I could be wrong.

 

But don`t those wings give him even bigger maneuverability when combined with TVC?

[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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...