totoroAnyway, there is an complete list coverage all AB and its structure, ano 2013.
wow, that sounds great. i am considering getting that issue solely for that info. still, an important question- does that complete coverage includes all of the individual squadrons within every AB or just Air bases themselves? I would really like to see a list which says:
xxxx AB – contains squadron yyy (such and such type of ac), squadron zzz (type) and squadron qqqq (type)
totorothat is certainly a more plausible solution, the fifth pylon being a small, wingtip pylon. But all that are just developmental ideas until any of such solutions is actually seen in flight.
totoroSo that is one airshow model that shows five pylons versus literally dozens of iterations of full loads on a real plane that show four pylons. (not to mention the separation distance between pylons 2 and 3) I wonder which is likelier…
totoroSo… right now the prototypes of pakfa are flying with what? some further modified variant of izd. 117s? Or the izd.117 that is supposedly 150 kg lighter? (how would the change of mass influence the plane? does that mean all pakfa protos are fyling with 150 kg extra ballast to compensate for the moment when 150 kg lighter engines will be installed?
Or should we just believe that alleged citation that Pogosyan said: “pakfa protos are already flying with new engine (meaning 117, not 117s variant),” and where he allegedly compared the new engine with al-31 (not 117s) and that’s where we got the 2.5 tons of increased thrust and 150 kg less mass. (meaning he was comparing the lesser mass with al31. but since the engine already is final, no ballasts are needed).
So now we have the 147 kn thrust izd.117. And then recently there’s talk of second stage engine which would, presumably, be further development that will be ready sometime in the future for some future variant of pakfa? Or is 117 completely developed and will never be more than an intermediate design, as that new second stage is the one that will be ready in 2017? Or is 117 still being finalised and it is expected it will be fully finished in 2017?
totoroLift can come from various sources. One, more popular is this: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/right1.html
That is the one most people in this thread seem to talk about.
That is all fine but i made this topic so we can discuss a completely separate mechanic which seems to create a completely separate component of lift from a wing.
Another source, whose mechanics i don’t quite understand, and which is allegedly responsible for majority of lift on a wing is this:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/right2.html
it says, among other things: “Lift is a force generated by turning a moving fluid. Since a force is a vector quantity (like the velocity), it has both a magnitude and a direction. The direction of the lift force is defined to be perpendicular to the initial flow direction.”
totoronow we’re getting somewhere. the action-reaction principle is exactly what i was interested in here. My problem is that while i understand how action-reaction works with a jet engine, or even in a situation where i throw a rock away while floating in space, i don’t understand the vectors of force in the situation with wing and air.
I am perfectly happy to accept action-reaction principle is what causes lift but i would like to understand HOW that happens in regard to wing and air.
So, when i am in space, i throw that piece of rock, it flies of in one direction with certain force, and equal force pushes me away in the opposite direction. That’s all cool. But what about wing? If air is that rock, how does the upper surface of the wing push the rock/air?
To my mind, the air/rock simply travels around the upper surface of the wing. The wing doesn’t catch it and it doesn’t throw it. I could understand that other neighbouring rocks/air push the air/rock closest to wing down and away from the trailing edge. But that is extra surrounding air doing the work, not the wing. If anything, that surrounding air (the air on top of the air right over the wing) should be getting the benefit of action-reaction principle, not the wing.
Or is somehow the key in the air sucking the wing itself, due to local viscosity (not due to general difference in pressure above and below wing)? So when air gets turned above the wing, it keeps the wing stuck underneath it and lifts it?
totorowho here has actually read the content of the links i provided? Am i blind or are the texts there talking about a whole different mechanic from the simplified low pressure above wing, high pressure under, therefore wing is sucked up or pushed up rhetoric?
can we please forget for a moment the pressure thing and talk about the virtual air scoop above the wing mentioned in the last link i provided? and use that on the simplified car in the wind example i provided in my last post?
totorohttp://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/airflylvl3.htm
this page gives a pretty detailed explanation, the best so far in my opinion. Yet i am still puzzled by the upper wing surface as a scoop that collects air and forces it downwards. I get that the air sticks over the upper surface of the wing and, due to change in angle, gets directed downwards.
but how does that force of air going on the upper part of the wing, influence the wing to go into the opposite direction, meaning forward and up? if anything, the air is on top of the wing, there is pressure acting to push the wing down, not up. and air is passing by the wing, it is not going through the wing. if it was going through the wing, i would understand it, it would be like an engine. the whole scoop idea seems to point exactly to that, that the wing is in fact an engine for accelerating and redirecting air.
but how does that air help the wing? if i am in my car, and there is a magic gust of wind going towards me and passing me by really close, IN THE OPPOSITE direction of where i want to go, my car shouldn’t feel even a bit of force going forward because of it. or will it? Especially if wind is somehow magically limited to going just over my car. So it can exert force only over my roof. How does that push my car forward even a fraction of an inch? (of course we disregard friction and what not here, it is just to i llustrate the issue here)
totorookay, but these kind of answers are already mentioned in the text. I would like some in depth answers. When we talk about action-reaction portion of lift alone, (lets leave the difference in pressure alone for now), how does that work? the wing itself doesn’t spit out air out of it, so the wing can be spat out foward, and due to AoA, a little up as well.
Or is the line of reasoning i offered in my opening post correct? both the air over and under the wing are exerting force on the wing, and as that air moves towards the end of the wing it also pushes in all directions, including at the back of the wing, which means it basically pushes wing forward and a bit upward. while the forward component of the force is negated by the drag, the vertical component is lift?
As for the pressure difference, NASA mentions it is a part of the process that leads to turning of the airflow over the upper surface, and that turn is in fact what creates lift, not the pressure difference itself. Now that is the bit i don’t understand.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/right2.html
Here is that bit, kinda explained but i don’t really understand it. Just how can a turn of airflow over the upper surface exert some negative force on the object below (the wing) so it pulls the the wing up?
totoro2.F-16 didn’t use AIDEWS. Probably only Su-22s had some EW equipment at that time.
f16 didn’t use aidews at all? That is very hard to believe, what would be the point of exercising if one side was handicapped so hard? We’re not talking just about jammer, rwr is intergral part of aidews. (what about maws, do polish f16 have those integrated? even if they do, they would be a part of aidews, no?)
Am i misunderstanding something here? if that claim is correct, f16s didn’t have any sort of warning other planes were scanning them with their radars, thus they didn’t have any idea where those planes are without resorting to use their own radars. They didn’t know when the opponents were targeting them and from which directions, they didn’t know when the missiles approached (if maws weren’t present) and when they should evade or even when to discharge chaff or flares.
All that sounds very unbelievable. Could it be that aidews was working but it was just the jammer part that was turned off?
totoroi don’t know if wings are similar to some other planes more than il76, but there are certain visible differences. the trailing edge on y20 is more like a single straight line, whereas on il76 it is made out of two slightly different lines. Wings themselves get narrower, when looked at from above/below on y20. Also, the flap system on y20 is a bit different. Wing sweep also might be a bit different, but that is hard to tell.
totoroall that is pure speculation, just as 400 km at mach 4 was. J16 wasn’t mentioned because the author doesn’t expect that to become PLAN’s platform. (same reason why h6k wasn’t mentioned) Also, and somewhat erronously, that is why the author put one missile under j15, as he fears 3 tons of payload would be too much for a carrier borne j15. The school of thought that knows a flanker with 3-4 tons of payload and 6-7 tons of fuel would still normally take off from Liaoning would, of course, disagree.
mach 3 and 300 km certainly looks much more realistic, at least to people who don’t think it is a 7 meter long, half a meter in diameter behemoth. Larger than kh31, yes, but not by a huge margin.
totoroWell, the main bay is some 4,3 meters long (give or take a decimeter). It is roughly bigger than one on f22 for the amount that pl12 is bigger than aim120. Since the engine intakes, just like on the f22, curve inward, around the side weapon bays, and over the main weapon bay, it is unlikely there is some significant depth to them. Again, probably a bit deeper than one in f22 by the amount pl12 has bigger wingspan compared to aim120, but not more than that.
Still, that should be enough to carry a pair of 1000 kg bombs.
totoroThat sort of measurement is terribly unreliable.
New planes get heavier than old ones. That is a fact that’s been around forever. Even a plane of othe same model, like f16, gets heavier throughout its life in various versions. Mig29 also got heavier through its life. F15 too. New materials matter little there. Various other equipment and subsystems always end up adding quite a bit more than the new, lighter materials shaved off.
Then there is the need for today’s planes to fly twice the hours compared to older planes. That also means bulkier structure and more weight. They need to be multirole, “not a pound for air to ground” doesn’t fly anymore. 13 tons for early f15 is an anomaly that will not happen again.
Then there is the biggest jump in weight called low observable requirements. Added structure around the weapon bays. Everything gets bigger and wider. Fuel requirements keep growing and much more of the fuel needs to go into the fuselage, compared with yesterday’s designs. Then there are the radar absorbing structures and materials. Depending on their purpose, they need thickness, they add weight.
It is perfectly normal that a modern plane like f22 weighs over 19 tons. That f35a, a plane of f16s perfomance, weighs over 13 tons. That is a 40% increase over the modern f16s.
IF t50 is made to carry substantial air to ground weaponry inside its weapon bays and IF it is made to match su35 range with such internal loadouts, it will need to carry more fuel than su35. Which also means more internal fuel tanks, piping etc. IF it is designed to be effective against S or even L wavelengths, it will need certain thickness and weight for its RA materials.
In the end, it is impossible to say how much will t50 weigh empty but, if i must offer a number, i will use previous and similar aircraft for comparison, rather than compare area in 2d drawing and trying to get a volume then assume the density will not increase.
My guess for t50 would be somewhere between 17 and 18 tons.
totoroLets stick to the UK govt paying for the forces on falklands. What sort of a force would realistically be stationed on the islands if argentina grew that much stronger by 2020?
Voyager should be able to travel from ascension to falklands (or half way to falklands then return, as the return point is basically halfway) using some 65 tons of its fuel, thus leaving some 45 tons for tanking other planes. Realistically, depending on how close one wants to cut it and how much fuel one wants to keep in reserve, should be able to refuel 2-3 typhoons flying with it.
Sign In
