That may be the case with your faith but you can’t talk about something you haven’t investigated. Islam is not another version of Christianity or some other “faith” which requires “blind belief” in x, y and z without meaningful proof and evidence. But again, we’re detracting from the forum here, feel free to PM me if you want to continue that conversation.

I can’t resist saying, that yeah, it from a certain point of view, it does look like it is another version of Christianity. And let us not pretend that there aren’t factions within Islam just like within Christianity.

my 2c

Just testing the feasability of the wing and tail feathers. I decided to stretch the forward fuselage 200 mm after seeing this “3D model”.

Several stealth features along with engine and their inlets are not in this yet cause the engine is not running it would have disturbed the really low reynolds number model flying caracteristics beyond recognition. Wing here is also around 2% thick only.

This was a flying model…next is the 1/8 scale ducted fan flying r/c model with intakes.

There are plenty of models that fly, but a full scale blow up would never and vice versa.

A scale model of an F-16 flies for example, but as you go up the scale, the unstable design of the plane means you need more and more avionics and a hell of a lot of mathematics to make it fly !!

I said, I admire your persistence but you are chasing a naive dream here.

Mig21s did OK for Iraq vs Iran… (but that is because they operated within GCI and close to lots of frontline airfields, whilst the iranian attackers were operating beyond their effective GCI and had to fly in a longer distance to the combat zone, giving the Iraqi MiGs time to scramble and position themselves)…. those are usually the factors affecting effectiveness of aircraft in combat far more than papersheet “specifications” or the oft quoted quasi-racist “better pilots” angle! 😀

Israel had the best GCI and ground planners… not necessarily the best pilots! In vietnam, an effective GCI made life dangerous for Phantoms too…

This whole thing, I find personally nonsense. There is always a four fold issue with battle. Tactics, Training, Weapons, chance/luck.

ALL military planes are weapons of war. They are meant to be lethal, and that is what they do.

A MiG 21 is a very small plane, and a very fast too. Used correctly it can do a lot of damage. The F-16 is a very agile plane with a very broad mission envelope, a highly effective tool. The list goes on and on, for all planes. Reason; they all addressed service requirements, they weren’t created hot rod style to just be more spectacular than some other type !

You mean not as aesthetically pleasing as you wanted it to be by your standard, right? Engineering elegance is achieved when a hard problem is solved by a simple and low-cost solution. So the little fences solved wing buffeting on the Su-34? I call that a job well done.

The boys in Boeing seems to have done exactly the same to the Growler, too. Remember all those years of flight testing on the E/F to half-solve that transonic wing drop?

and I had said the same thing back then, only to have someone suggest that the fence may have been due to the wing pivoting points forbidding other solutions. it could have been bs.

I am seeing the opposite taking place here on my screen !

This has been done a plane this small..but not packed like this..with this kinda innovations to place the elements to make it go really fast and economically. He-162 was a bit this size with an e-seat. 195 mm longer actually and 840 mm higher ( due to engine installation ).

That flew in the 40’s .. it has as much connection with today’s planes as the chariot has with the T-72 !

I have the kevlar on top and steel underneath there are also engine and several other equipments and in some angles the bullet would have to go 2 x 1 cm thick kevlar + other structures before the 5 mm steel plate.

I don’t think its possible to make a lite plane with stand a direct 30 mm hit ..but if there is a bit deflection in the surface and distance more than 200-300 meters some guns are already less effective.

I worked several hours with the inlets to engine and LG and the cannon and looks like it works..I bet no other craft is packed this tight…ammos in the wing and splendid gear system all save the space a lot .

AA guns are not designed to be less effective with range.

I appreciate what you are doing, I admire your enthusiasm, I am just pointing out that what you are considering cannot be. If it could, it would have already.

I think the forces on the control surfaces are dependent on speed

I don’t really see how it’s a “step backwards”. The general layout of the Flanker was finalised before the 32/34 variety showed up and by now the 34 has been continuously developed in a direction quite different from the other Flankers. So perhaps along the way they realised that the steps that they had taken didn’t quite work out with the “vanilla” Flanker layout and adding miniscule wing fences alleviated the issue to a sufficient degree vis a vis the trade-offs (whatever those might be) that it was worth implementing.

Basically, calling it a step backwards implies that you know exactly what these possible trade-offs are and you know they’re real bad too. So what are they? Increased RCS? The Hellduck isn’t exactly a stealth platform to begin with. I don’t know, I think you guys read way too much into the feature being somewhat reminiscent of 50’s and 60’s aircraft.

The wing fences are an obsolete means of controlling wingtip stalling in this instance. There is no reason to be there, there is no aileron immediately before it.
Why didn’t they use slots?
Not only that, but primarily they are supposed to prevent stall at low speeds. Why would the hellduck need that? more importantly why would the hellduck need it and not the vanilla flanker with a similar layout which flies the hell out of low speeds.

it is just weird.