crobatoI am not talking about the IFFs itselves. I am talking about the attachments at the base of the antenna cover..
And what is wrong with that? At least they got water tight washers apparently, not like the lack of sealing in rivets that allow for rust streaks.
What does it say? That MiG produces an extra smooth version for airshows and a riveted version for common users? 🙂
BTW, the F-16 is also from an airshow.. So what?
That MiG is extra smooth? Far from it. But they’re likely to bring better ones for the air shows.
That F-16 could be air show prepped too. But I’ve seen operational American fighters up close, and either the construction is truly meticulous or the way they paint the matt camo paint tend to hide imperfections better.
crobatoOnly if they were stacked one on top of the other to interrupt the flow air.
Soviet T-34s looked like crap. They did not work like crap. Their gun was still powerful and their armor still well designed and thick.
All tanks look like they’re welded or cast out of metal. I don’t see much difference from one tank or another.
Doesn’t look pleasing? Yes. Affects performance of the aircraft? No.
It leaves me with major question on the very flyability of that particular plane.
Agree with what? They got access to new manufacturing tools, so they used them? That doesn’t mean they were *required* to produce a combat aircraft that meant the stringent requirements of an air force.
They are *required* as part of today’s modern commercial climate.
This doesn’t apply across the board (e.g. western quality machine tools produced higher quality 2A46M series main guns) but as far as aircraft goes …
Better quality machine tools does make better cannons. The better your tolerances are…
It goes across the board—better engines, more reliable and smoother working mechanisms.
Nice MiG-29SMT picture btw, flex.[/QUOTE]
crobatoThose bird slicers happen to be AIFF. They’re there for a purpose, much like the much draggier OEPS in the MiG-29 or SU-27. There are stuff like RWRs that stick out in other planes you know.
Rivets and bumps that stick out do not serve any avionics purpose.
The second MiG looks much better, but it’s no doubt it’s from an airshow, and Russian made planes have shown a marked improvement in build quality across the 90’s decade.
crobatoBut look at the workmanship in that plane…. Nice isn’t it? It’s truly inspiring. Gives you the sense of confidence of a winner.
crobatoF-16E/F all the way.
Too many trade-offs in the SuperHornet design. But if you don’t have visual range
air combat in mind you could live with it…
I’m not inspired by the Block 60 design either. The specific wing loading is too high. It does not matter if you got higher thrust, higher thrust don’t mean a damn thing if you are required to have higher landing speeds (greater danger) on that thing, or have higher speed stall points when you are in ACM.
CFTs do not add to that sense of confidence to your flight performance either.
I much prefer the F-15K as the last great American fighter prior to the F-22/JSF generation.
crobatoAs Garry B said, a tiny protruding rivet does not penetrate the boundary layer by any meaningful degree, and you sure as heck can’t find any huge bumps of any consequence that don’t need to be there on any Russian 4gen fighter.
When you have lots of them, they do.
‘MiGs’ by Bill Sweetman covers this as well, IIRC- the MiG-21 for example continued the trend of placing any such visible bumps in the airframe (for reasons of simplicity or structural strength or whatever) well back, where the airflow over the aircraft had already been broken up. A tiny rivet that protrudes by some infintesmally small amount is not of consequence aerodynamically. Can you find any pictures of a Russian series built Su-27 with really shocking protrusions and bad workmanship? Because “not as neat” does not equal “bad/unsatisfactory/unacceptable”. That’s a pure false dilemma fallacy (i.e. either/or).
The first picture is an example of a Soviet era MiG-29. Pure slop isn’t it?
The second picture is an example shows that today’s Russia doesn’t agree with you anymore. That quality is indeed in the eye and they now work to show it.
You are simply restating your original “toyota maxim” without logically demonstrating why it must be so. This is not an argument, just assertion.
Furthermore, you are exaggerating minor imperfections (that are barely visible upon inspection) with no effect on combat performance into “don’t pay attention to the outside”- that’s simply absurd.
Demonstrate the logical connection, with evidence, between “finish isn’t as smooth as x” and “must break down a lot”. It’s pure style over substance, nothing substantive there at all.
That’s the context, these weapons were designed expecting to fight it.
Demonstrate the logical connection between “finish isn’t as smooth as x” and “must break down a lot” please.
When it looks crap, you bet it works like crap. How you assemble things are reflected both simultaneously inside and outside. You should know this, if you are ever in production.
The first picture shows a Soviet era aircraft. Slop isn’t it?
The second picture shows a post Soviet era aircraft. The Russians don’t agree with you anymore. Slop is not permissible in today’s age. They build to satisfy and they do now.
crobatoMeaningless? In the principles of aerodynamics it is meaningful. Every tiny rivet or protrusion adds their own little bit of drag; multiply that thousands of times, and it adds up a lot. Why don’t you ask Boeing or Lockheed Martin if that axiom is indeed meaningless or not.
How you make the plane outside does reflect how you build the plane inside. If you don’t pay attention to the outside, then you don’t have the ethic for quality. And that reflects on how you weld, rivet, screw, assemble, and bolt things in the inside. How your plane _WORKS_ is reflected on this. Will it break down? Can it maintain operability? How long will it last? Your airframe, your engines, your wiring, your linkages…
It’s not WW3 anymore by the way. And even when you’re preparing for war, you must still have your standards so you can be assured that when the time comes, they will work as expected, and not break down.
By the way, about milling machines, machine tools and lathes, if you want to run a google search for those made in China, you will find a very long list…
crobatoThe Chinese aviation industry also provides airframe sections and components to Boeing and Airbus since the mid nineties. In order to do that, you pretty much know your quality standards to meet the requirements of Boeing and Airbus. Among those companies that provide these parts are the very companies making your J-11s and J-10s.
As for whether finish is that important, I am a deep believer in the Toyota maxim.
The attention you pay on the outside, reflects the attention you pay in the inside.
crobatoRussians have good experience of fabricating titanium, but they r behind in other processes and materials. For example the Eurofighters structural parts are made of Carbon fibre Composites (CFC).70% of its outer skin is CF.
Russian aircraft tend to be heavier than their western counter parts and rely on brute power to obtain the same performance. This results in using thirsty engines, hence short range. This is the main reason why Russians have not been able to produce a single engined aircraft to match the performance (in terms of payload, range etc.) of F16 or Mirage2K.
For example to counter F16 (blk60) with a Russian aircraft would require twin engined Su30 which is a huge machine compared to the F16 and would result in bigger runing costs. Mig29SMT may be good in a short range shooting match but it cannot match the F16 in alround performance.
Eurofighter structural parts are still metal, and in fact, JSF also moved back from structural composite to all metal as well. The problems of composites for structural components may be more problematic than first thought.
The Russians are certainly capable of using composites. The tail in the MKK is composite and so it’s said, so are the SU-35 by association, and other skin parts of the aircraft as well. The SU-27KUB also uses composite, and I think the SU-30MK does too, and so does the MKI by association, probably in the skins of the aircraft.
There is nothing admirable about the F-16’s weight. You’re certainly barking up the wrong tree. If anything the F-16 is extremely overweight for a single engined fighter. The F-16 Block 60 is over 9,000kg empty, right up to MiG-23 levels, while the MiG-29, with two engines and a larger plane is about 10,000-11,000 empty. In fact your early MiG-29 matches the twin engined, composite adorned Eurofighter Typhoon in empty weight.
Another plane with a really bad weight problem and it uses structural composites is the Japanese F-2. This F-16 derivative weighs at 9,500kg empty, almost as much as a two engined and much bigger wingspan Rafale. Heck your twin engined J-8II weighs around 9,200 to 10,000kg empty, depending on variant.
The Gripen weighs in at over 6600 kg for the single seater, the F-CK-1 Ching Kuo and the FC-1 both weigh in slightly at over 6400kg, despite having less composites than the Gripen.
To give you how light older planes really are, a MiG-21F is only about 4,800kg empty, a J-7E is about 5,300kg, and a MiG-21bis is about 6,000kg.
crobatoIf you look at Russian and Chinese aircraft in detail they don’t look sleek and smooth, with rivets clearly visible e.g look closely at Mig29 and Su27 and compare them with F16.
YOu can easily hide rivets with a thick coat of paint or primer. Get close to a Western airliner and you will see rivets and nothing different from that of the Chinese plane. I think the Chinese planes are pretty up there in terms of workmanship but they don’t try to be sparing labor by having the plane built from a few large pieces instead of many smaller ones.
Does this mean that Russian/Chinese manufacturing techniques are not up to western standards?
Maybe behind a bit but the gap has certainly narrowed.
Do the Russians or the Chinese have indigenous advanced 5-axis CNC machines. These days in the west aircraft structural parts such as wing spars and wing ribs are machined from solid blocks. For example F16 wing spars are machined from a solid block using Cincinnati five-axis V5-3000 vertical machining centre. 400 pound aluminium block is machined and when finished it only weighs 80 pounds.
I may be wrong but i think both Russians and Chinse depend on imported western technology. I can remember reading about China buying advanced CNC machine from US for manufacturing parts for MD-80 civil airliner and the Americans were supposed to be keeping a close eye on that machine to make sure the Chinese only used it for what they claimed they were going to use it for. Also in the 1980s it was rumoured that Russians obtained advanced CNC machines illicitly from Germany, for aeropace applications.
The Chinese have gotten American, Swiss, German, Swedish, and Japanese precision machinery for years and years now. At this point they may be able to make their own by copying or reverse or inspired engineering.
I remember there was some publicity pics of the FC-1 that showed CAD/CAM involved in the process, with one midsection (or the main midsection) appeared to have been made from one piece.
crobatoLet’s not forget that the Taiwanese named the radar of their F-CK-1 fighter after one of the members of this board: Golden Dragon.
crobatoThe guy running must be scared of his life. If the missile explodes, there is plenty of shrapnel flying around.
crobatoThose XW-41 missiles have a delta wing and a sharpened nose. They probably travel much faster and at shorter distance, as they are smaller. My guess they are antiship missiles.
crobatoLooks like the deal was never finalized indeed. Instead, it appears that China ordered only a number of A-50I without the radar, on which the Chinese will fit their own radar.
I believe the system datalinks not just the J-10, but also the J-8II, J-7s, JH-7s, SU_30MKKs and SU-27s.
crobatoJ-10 RWR system
Sign In
