Done…

but let’s not over react here… it ain’t a big deal.

Couldn’t help but be amused by those trying (maturely :rolleyes:) to discredit the previously posted plots as “completely” incorrect based on pyhsical optics methods being used, especially the guy taking a 2yo, unused account out of mothballs to post on it for the first time.
PO provides decent estimations of the specular RCS of objects, period. It’s more than acceptable for comparing the exposed surfaces of to-scale shapes and good enough for numerous military and civilian universities to use in their engineering courses.

PO does not take into account corner reflectors, edge diffraction, creeping waves, and it ignores shadow regions, but as mentioned earlier these things would actually accentuate RCS spikes of cluttered shapes with little surface blending and alignment, not negate them.

Cross sections are used in these samples rather than entire aircraft to help keep models simple and avoid too much inaccuracy.

The same material selection was used in sampling both shapes (PEC) so RAM is irrelevant. Applying RAM to both models would not change the angle of RCS spikes, nor would it benefit one shape and not the other.

Cylinders are not a stealthy object, they provide a decent, uniform return all the way around. Applying RAM to one makes it a slightly less detectable, non-stealthy object (hint, cylindrical poles are not used on RCS test stands). No cylinders were used in these cross section samples in any case.
I’ll get to those for my own curiosity later, along with comparing the LO impact of all moving rudders, ventral fins and those enormous flap actuators on the J-20, wing leading edge length, sweep angle, sharpness and edge design, and the lumpy-guts F-35 (though I have a feeling it might have been cleverly done).

As Obligatory said, I think if they were going for an all out stealth fighter, they would have. It seems that the basic design of the PAK FA all centres around the engine configuration. They just want to keep those engine spread wide and in that V arrangement. This dictates the centre tunnel being a part of the design which in turn dictates how the IR missiles will be mounted and what cant angle can be used on the nacelle inner surface.

Perhaps the fact that a guy who has remained silent for 2 years, just reading the forum, felt the need to come on and tell you why you shouldn’t be using PO to do such an analysis should be ringing alarm bells in your head. But a large ego is a bad thing.

As someone else already mentioned, you don’t think Russians have access to what you might have?

And second. Your models may be inaccurate, your plots are not labelled and your ego is not allowing you to show us exactly what you did.

The only thing I may give you some basis for carrying on talking is that you haven’t been clear with what you did down to the smallest detail.

Do that and then we’ll talk.