dark light

paralay

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,325 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • paralay
    Participant

    why the bell x-1 with weak thrust and very trapezium wing can even reach mach 2.44 while aircraft like f-35 , f-16 have much slower speed
    how did the bell x-2 even reach mach 3.12 with it very low thrust engine and not very low drag profile compared to sr-71

    Compare the relative weight of the engine (engine power / the weight of the engine = specific gravity).

    XLR11: 27kN / 95 kg = 2770 kg / 95 kg = 29 kg / kg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Motors_XLR11
    F135-PW-100: 19507 kg / 1701 kg = 11.5 kg / kg

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/XLR-11.jpghttp://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/PICTURE/F-35_F135.jpg

    in reply to: Yak-38 Forger Info #2265545
    paralay
    Participant

    All clear

    Варианты боевой нагрузки самолета Як 38 при вертикальном взлете и варианте с коротким разбегом
    Options payload Yak 38 with a vertical take-off and short-takeoff version

    ВЕРТИКАЛЬНЫЙ ВЗЛЕТ
    vertical takeoff

    ВЗЛЕТ С КОРОТКИМ РАЗБЕГОМ
    Take off with the short run

    РАКЕТА Р-60М
    The R-60M

    БЛОК
    BLOCK

    РЕАКТИВНЫЙ СНАРЯД С-24Б
    Rockets

    АВИАБОМБА
    aerobomb

    ЗАЖИГАТЕЛЬНЫЙ БАК
    Incendiary suspension tank

    УПРАВЛЯЕМОЕ РАКЕТНОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
    Guided missile WEAPONS

    УПРАВЛЯЕМОЕ РЕАКТИВНОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
    Control reactive WEAPONS

    БОМБАРДИРОВОЧНОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
    bomber ARMS

    АРТИЛЛЕРИЙСКОЕ ВООРУЖЕНИЕ
    Artillery weapons

    РАКЕТА Р-60
    The R-60

    ПУШЕЧНЫЙ КОНТЕЙНЕР УПН-23-250
    Gun pods UPN-23-250

    РЕАКТИВНЫЙ СНАРЯД
    missile

    АВИАБОМБА
    aerobomb

    ПУШЕЧНЫЙ КОНТЕЙНЕР
    gun pods

    in reply to: Yak-38 Forger Info #2265702
    paralay
    Participant

    во-Первых, почему существуют два самолета в верхней части таблицы?

    Почему он говорит:
    1. вертикального взлета
    2. короткого взлета

    Знание языка не требуется. Google – переводчик, чтобы помочь вам 😉
    http://translate.google.ru/

    http://www.redov.ru/transport_i_aviacija/aviacija_i_vremja_1995_06/pic_18.jpg

    in reply to: Dorsal fin intakes and stealth #2266369
    paralay
    Participant

    From the book “Modern fighters,” the price of these machines is not there, so they are approximate:

    F-4 “Phantom”, which first flew in 1958, series of 1960, built 5195 pcs., The price of 3 – 5 $ million.
    F-15 “Eagle”, the first flight in 1972, the series in 1974, was built in 1239 pcs., The price of 20 – 25 million $.
    F-22 “Raptor”, which first flew in 1991, series 1997, built 183 units (or 381 units), the price of 137 – 220 million $.

    And what does that mean? And the fact that the sixth-generation American fighter:
    F-26 “…”, which first flew in 2017, series 2035, built 18 – 50., The price of 685 million – $ 1 billion 😀

    in reply to: Dorsal fin intakes and stealth #2266461
    paralay
    Participant

    This is the latest image from LM referencing a possible 6th Generation design

    Low maneuverability. RCS about 0.2 square meters. In close air combat, fight super maneuverable fighter PAK FA / Su-35 or against highly maneuverable fighter F-22, can only with all-aspect short-range missiles.

    in reply to: J-20 Thread 8 #2266785
    paralay
    Participant

    19.8 m x 13.2 m 😎

    in reply to: Fuselage layout pros and cons #2267124
    paralay
    Participant

    The fuselage of the Su-27, MiG-29, F-14 or PAK FA has high lifting properties, through the tunnel between the engines. Maneuverability, range – better. RCS – worse. This design type as the fuselage F-16 provides ideal conditions for the engines.

    The fuselage of the MiG-25/31, F-15, F-22 is better suited for the aircraft at supersonic cruising speed. Because it has a lower resistance to the speed of M> 1. Load-bearing properties of the fuselage below, maneuverability and range – is worse. RCS – better.

    in reply to: Ugliest Aircraft, your opinions… #2267560
    paralay
    Participant

    Beautiful plane – flies well! (Andrei Tupolev)
    Born to crawl – can not fly! :p

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/switchbladengc/mystery/XVF-12A.jpg

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 11 #2267563
    paralay
    Participant

    http://paralay.com/t05/35%20(10).JPG

    http://paralay.com/t05/35%20(7).JPG

    in reply to: F35 debate thread- enter at your own risk. #2270858
    paralay
    Participant

    All B-1Bs were delivered with RAM coating.
    All F-15s delivered after 1990 have RAM coating.
    All F-16s delivered after 1988 have RAM coating.
    All F-18s delivered after 1991 have RAM coating.

    Work on the creation of ship radar absorbing materials were started in the 50’s. At this time, developed radio-absorbing coating – “Tilt”, “Mail”, “leaf”, “The Shield.” However, the first generation of radar absorbing coatings (EPA) was not implemented in shipbuilding because of the large mass and size characteristics, and also due to the complex technology of fastening them to the protected ship structures. To create a new radar absorbing materials to attract a wider range of organizations of the Navy, and the Academy of Sciences, Ministry of Chemical Industry companies, Minneftehimproma, Mintsvetmeta, Ministry of Higher Education and Minsudproma. A great contribution to the studies made by scholars such as YM Patrakov, AP Petrenas, VV Kushelev, JD Donkov: they showed that the introduction of fiberglass semiconducting carbon fabrics gives it absorbing properties. In 1965 he received the first samples of solid absorbing uglestekloplastika, called “Wing”, from which the superstructure is made crew boat. Application of this material has reduced the reflected field vessel of 5-10. Thus was created the first practical radar absorbing material of construction.

    For the widespread introduction of radio-absorbing coating on the ships needed a lightweight, thin, durable and resistant to harsh sea conditions. These requirements have left their imprint on the nature and direction of research in this area. In 1972-1974. YM Patrakova, RI Anglin, NB Bessonova, GI Byakin developed the first samples of thin absorbers (“Luck”, “screen”). In 1976, the first covering “Luck” set on one of the small anti-submarine ships. Results of field trials have shown that the coating of “Luck” to reduce the reflected signal of 5-10.

    In parallel with the EPA “Luck” in the late 70’s a group of scientists under the direction of A. Alekseyev was developed and implemented full-scale tests of the magnetoelectric cover (“ferroelastic”). It was applied to the large anti-submarine ship. About the effectiveness of the coating is similar to EPA “Luck.” Further developing the third generation ship coatings related to the search for new and more effective fillers, improving application technology (“Lac-5M”), extended frequency response and increased absorption properties (“Lac-1 OM”), reduced weight and size parameters (“Litmus” ).

    http://flot.com/science/sk1.htm?print=Y#СЗК

    All Soviet ships from the mid-eighties were covered with radio absorbing materials 😎

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271149
    paralay
    Participant

    BTW the engine of Jas-39 also fully masked cause it have only 1 engine and 2 intake

    Radio absorb the material? Hidden motor fan? We are talking about the JAS-39? 😮

    I want to ask a question, explained to me why greatly reduced RCS aircraft if it has no internal bays? One pylon arms RCS is about 1 square meter! JAS-39 – 7 pylons 😉

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271284
    paralay
    Participant

    still doesn’t explain why it 10000 bigger than what US government say :confused: , and also different to what Gripen producer say :confused::confused:

    Advertizing is the engine of commerce…

    RCS JAS-39 0.1 square meter?
    So the MiG-21 even less! Fully shielded motor fan. As you know, canards has a large ESR. Protruding antenna on the fin, also degrade stealth. 😉

    http://fxm.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/tjeckiskt-gripen1.jpg

    http://rumaniamilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mig-21-lancer-1.jpg

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271315
    paralay
    Participant

    It seems that we do not understand each other. Translator?
    Can you imagine what size the B-2?

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271342
    paralay
    Participant

    there are thousand kinds of cruise missiles which one you are talking about ???

    H-55 (X-55), Granat, Tomahawk, ALCM, before they began to cover the absorbent

    http://samlib.ru/img/l/lxwow_w/cwetklewera-9/070809224033_raketka.jpg

    oh i just read it against , so the value is for fighter when they perform maneuverable :confused::confused::confused:

    You have to choose: maneuverability 6 – 9 g or RCS less than 0.3 sq.m.
    Fighter with low maneuverability and very low visibility (RCS < 0.3 sq.m.). Top position of the air intakes can not actively maneuver.

    in reply to: RCS of fighter , bomber ,missile #2271370
    paralay
    Participant

    Russia and honest in the same sentence? Someone must’ve forgotton the Kursk debacle and the Moscow theatre seige. On both of those occasions the Russian military and government lied through their teeth in the full gaze of the international press. I’d reevaluate your thinking on the subject if I were in your shoes.

    Politicians lie, always and everywhere, regardless of nationality. I talked about the technical data 😉

    Sorry but your figures are worthless.

    I do not think so. Calculated RCS Su-27 is identical to the real – 5 and 15 sqm Calculated RCS maneuverable fighter stealth with the data from the article Mikhail Pogosyan – 0.3 sq.m. Calculated RCS cruise missile without radioabsorb material coincide with the real data – 0.2 sq.m.

    FUNDAMENTAL AND APPLIED PROBLEMS Stealth
    http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/VRAN/03_10/STELLS.HTM

Viewing 15 posts - 1,006 through 1,020 (of 1,325 total)