Go and stick an apple or an orange or even a piece of wood in your cars air intake and come back and tell me how well it worked with an obstruction in the intake.

Go and read “Mechanics of Fluids” by Bernard Massey & John Ward-Smith, (7th ed. nelson thornes press)- and you might be taken seriously.

:D:D Griffon39 if I was involved in Project пак-фа I wouldn’t be posting here (or anywhere else for that matter!!). My work is in Asset Management (principally equities & securities in the Emerging Markets), I speak reasonable Russian, however @ university (some years ago, now) I did some modules in CFD & FEA, so I have a very rough idea of their design aims & methods. I might add that the (western) software they’re using today is far more advanced & accurate than that was available to us undergraduates.

I’m just an avid aviation enthusiast (been a ‘Guest’ for years) who’s here to learn as much as possible (from the many professionals, aerospace and other on this forum) and contribute as much as I can…..and no- I’m not Otaku (as you’ll find out when his/her suspension expires).

Anyways, good to meet y’all (well mostly).

JA.

Are you sure Scorpion82? RAF GR4s use RB199-103 (unless the suffix numbers have strange orders).

Re: Luftwaffe Tornados & MTURB199:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/01/21/160467/mtu-delivers-compressor.html
http://www.mtu.de/en/products_services/military_business/programs/rb199/

Who’s Otaku, pfcem?

Goodbye, Mr. PParker.

Rejected because they wanted to use the basic flanker intakes for reasons of thier own, eg the overall layout and bay design. …Saying it will cause no engine loss is a nonsense too, .

There is nothing basic about the T-50 design, in fact it is the most advanced of the 4- walk into any university aerospace/mechanical engineering department and they’ll tell you the same.

There is certainly nothing basic about the intake design, well-lit high-res. images will appear in time, and their secrets will be revealed, maybe as soon as Aero India 2011. Here’s something to chew over in the meantime (i.e more advanced than a DSI ‘bump’, certainly overclocking those CFD packages!):

Also take note of engine alignment and it’s obvious these are not simple flanker intakes.

I won’t mention these again because these have been argued over ad nauseum for nearly a year now, and ofcourse, you’re free to believe whatever you want, but be careful what you preach if the evidence and logic suggest otherwise.

Oh, and there’s a difference between “mitigated” and “no”.

I don’t think a serious Russian NGB tender will be submitted anytime before 2020, it simply doesn’t figure in their current defense re-organisation/review plans- no matter what Putin & Zelin say. Untill then upgraded Tu-160s (with possible resumption of LRP) and new munitions will suffice, also their UCAV programme has a higher priority.

Russian defense budget (present & forecast) details pg.8:

http://issuu.com/abe_media/docs/observer31

Growth road map for ‘International Super-Hornet’ (pgs.24-25):

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416153058&o=int&prev=si