dark light

topspeed

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,311 through 2,325 (of 2,657 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2289055
    topspeed
    Participant

    none, you’d need a detachable (very solid) capsule at such speeds…

    Zvezda K36 would be pretty much the best (or one of the two best) seat out there allowing supersonic ejections… but still, not at M3.6

    Okay…I think the fuselage design has to be as follows..at a major airframe failure the pod where pilot sits has to stay in one piece at all times…and this pod has to have a BRS for 400 KG load deployable at 10 000 meters or below at any speed to slow down the pod, then it has to have jump seat to be deployed..in case of fire etc.

    Here is the new stealthy fuselage….frontal smaller than previous. APG/67 still fits in the nose.

    I think for the aerodynamics sake this needs only 2 x 12 kN rocketengines with 7-8 kN turbofan.

    in reply to: 1000-2000 market for a cheap light fighter? #2289062
    topspeed
    Participant

    Yeah, but most of the potential customers for a light, inexpensive fighter can’t buy enough of anything to fight an attacker with the biggest & best. What they need is something able to take on their peers (who, like them, can’t buy F-35s or the like), & enforce airspace sovereignty.

    What do you figure would be a price for an affordable jet ?

    I figure following;

    1. RADAR APG/67 700 000 USD
    2. ENGINE 5 000 000 USD
    3. STEALTH AIRFRAME 3 000 000 USD
    4. JUMP SEAT 50 000 USD
    5. AVIONICS 300 000 USD
    6. LANDING GEAR 100 000 USD
    7. REST BITS AND PIECES 500 000 USD
    8. STEALTH PAINT 300 000 USD

    That is about 9 950 000 USD

    Lets say it goes with new engine technology with 36 kN engine at least MACH 1.6 with supercruise…and carries 4 x AAM ( concealed ) and 4 x GBU-39s and a 27-30 mm cannon. RCS about size of a pin head. Service life 8 000 hours minimum.

    1000-2000 planes sold instantly ?!

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2289201
    topspeed
    Participant

    There’s a little bit more science to designing an actual VLO stealth fighter than merely drawing up a model with a few facets and applying the word “stealth”.

    Think angle and role.

    With those side fuselage angles (main fuselage surface at 82.5 degrees cant angle) it’s side faceting is entirely pointless.

    The very large 83 degree side surface will allow it to be tracked in a networked environment for extended periods of time (TIP: the longer the range at which it can be detected, the longer it can be tracked as it passes a radar) allowing engagement from missiles from quite a long range.

    The missile doesn’t have to come from the the vehicle that spots you on radar any more. Being seen from the side makes you just as dead as being seen from the front.

    There’s a reason why stealth fighters tend to be wide, its not just a matter of preference or whimsy. It’s because to create shallow side angles to increase the angle of incidence of RADAR beams illuminating the surface from relevant depression angles ( 0 to 30 degrees below horizontal for medium altitude aircraft and 0 to 40 degrees for high altitude aircraft), you need to increase the width (subsequently the cross section) of the aircraft.

    Contrary to some grossly uneducated and uninformed opinions, materials will not compensate for bad shaping and with the enormous (and mobile) X-Band radars now being put into operation by the US (and maybe China in the next few decades), every little compromise is a killer.

    Oh yeah, wing and fuselage intersection on this design is a MASSIVE dihedral corner reflector.

    Well I am glad we got these minor defects at this stage fixed. Thanks Action Jackson !

    It was more stealthy earlier before I started to enhance/address the drag issues.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-azW-Bcl4DBQ/UVh57KxXweI/AAAAAAAACJE/qyUyTz9ULFw/s1600/Gekko12A.jpg

    Also the rudders are massive deflectors of the radar beams rights and pilots helmet ?

    I should have seen this beforehand; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BHu0iYC6bw

    in reply to: 1000-2000 market for a cheap light fighter? #2289266
    topspeed
    Participant

    I bet it is a challenge to make really lite small jets and still have capability to really punch the attacker that has 5th generation jets available.

    Then there is the other side…AMRAAM ( best ) costs around 1.5 million a piece..you cannot carry a 1.5 million arsenal lets say 4 of them ( 6 mio ) with an only 5 million aeroplane…it makes little sense. But you should and a radar.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2289277
    topspeed
    Participant

    With my unabashed logic I get 250 kg for 18kN rocked engine ( and fuel ) of this type developement enclosed ?!

    Any real rocket scientists here ?

    Please advice can I make ( could it be made rather ) it under 250-300 kg/unit to get Gekko/Velociraptor into 25 km altitude ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobee

    Apollo mission used these; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_Propulsion_System

    12 kN 230 kg; Altair 3rd stage in Deltas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(rocket_family)

    Even these ( 2 ) could bring Gekko into mach 2.5 ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT4A1M2peFc

    Rocket plane cannot become simpler than this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC05YkzIrY4

    in reply to: Pak-Fa News Thread part 22 #2289286
    topspeed
    Participant


    From my memory, PCM fan blade and hollow titanium blade were both potential candidates of technology solutions for PD-14 engine before 2011 just like 6+1 and 8+2 configuration of the core engines, Perm Engine Design Bureau chose 8+2 core engine and hollow titanium blade for further engineering development. Design bureau made her choice in order to reduce risk and avoid too much dragging of this project.

    CIAM did her job to do R&D to mature this tech to a certain level and provided solutions for Design bureau to pick up and make a choice.

    Wouldn’t a 38%-63% advance mean a 40 kN engine going mach 2 in supercruise one day ?

    in reply to: Iranian stealth superjet F-313 Qaher ??? #2289348
    topspeed
    Participant

    Emerson fitted APG/67 is 420 mm x 660 mm.

    http://en.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/93427

    in reply to: Iranian stealth superjet F-313 Qaher ??? #2289350
    topspeed
    Participant

    You would call that useful? When it comes to Qaher it might fit if the pilot amputates his legs.

    “only veterans will fly this…”

    It might be useful in a very stealthy aeroplane..Emerson fitted APG/67 is 420 mm x 660 mm.

    in reply to: Iranian stealth superjet F-313 Qaher ??? #2289365
    topspeed
    Participant

    Say what? MiG-31 has two turbofans, just for an example.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soloviev_D-30

    Please, do some research.

    I am doing it all the time. You ought to do it too.

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2289387
    topspeed
    Participant

    ejection seat doesn’t mean a certified safe escape (especially at supersonic speeds). Besides, the Mk15 is to be used for speeds not exceeding 300kts… about M0.5…

    Right what e-seat do you recommend for mach 3.6 at 98 000 ft ?

    in reply to: Size of the new 5th gen fighters…too big !? #2289389
    topspeed
    Participant

    my bad, it was X-43, not X-47, sorry

    There is some similarity with my papermodel yes. Engine position is also a bit similar.

    in reply to: Iranian stealth superjet F-313 Qaher ??? #2289413
    topspeed
    Participant

    And meanwhile in the real world their airforce is still flying 1970s vintage F-4/-5/-14, small numbers of MiG-29s and Su-24s as well as that mighty air defence virtuouso: the Chengdu F-7.

    That looks awful lot like a Mig-21; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7

    It is the only aeroplane with turbofan to go mach 2 excluding Helwan HA-300 by Willy Messerschmitt using under 65 kN thrust ?!

    in reply to: F-22A Raptors to South Korea. #2289425
    topspeed
    Participant

    I doubt a handful of G-50s would’ve resulted in easy victory for Finns. The Finnish ground forces did spectacularly well in Winter War without air superiority anyhow.

    And I didn’t ignore Stalin – Finland was in between a rock and a hard place.

    But your contention that they were not the aggressors in 1941 is incorrect (but then the Soviets were aggressors in 1939).

    First of all as obsolete as FIAT G.50 may look today in 1939-1940 this engineer Gabrielli’s design was outstanding. It was obsolete in 1943 when it was no longer allowed to cross the east border.

    The kill ratio with the few G.50s we had was 44/1…better than any other FAF inventory aeroplane..just the amounts werent very large. In Winter War especially it would have made a lot easier to sustain air superiority..Fokker D.XXIs were obsolete and yet they scored some too.

    Without a doubt USSR considered the German troops a threat in Finland…and since they had no conceptual understanding how our democracy worked they attacked…making them an attacker which infuriated the people and public opinion here. This developement was partially due to the Hitlers speech…of being in alliance with Finland ( even there was no alliance ). He lied like he always did ( at least no document of such alliance has been found ).

    Our long time president Urho Kekkonen called the finnish actions in WW II era as drifting tree theory. Meaning we really weren’t much able to help where the log was going to end up. Hitler was going to try to beat Stalin and he did everything in his viewpoint was necessary. I think many here considered both mad men…Stalin and Hitler ( so rock and a hard place is correct ).

    in reply to: F-22A Raptors to South Korea. #2289426
    topspeed
    Participant

    My only point of contention.

    Finland also attacked USSR at roughly the same time and was planning it’s attack in conjunction with German attacks. In fact on 25/28 May Finnish and German officers met to discuss the offensive plans.

    Not discussing whether it was justified or not, just that you did.

    No our soldiers plotted many things… their plan was to do co-operation.

    I said there would have not been a war if USSR had not bombed Finland for a week. There is a difference.

    in reply to: F-22A Raptors to South Korea. #2289432
    topspeed
    Participant

    We are discussing Finland’s participation in Continuation War aren’t we, not pre-1941 German-Soviet machinations?

    Whatever the case, the Finns threw their lot in with Germany. By 1944 you had German formations fighting the Soviets on Finnish soil (including 122 Infanterie Division, a StuG Abteilung and a Luftwaffe air group (Luftflotte 1 and 5)

    EDIT: Oh and a joint Finnish-German naval detachment on Lake Lagoda.

    The Finns allowed Germans to use their airbases prior to Barbarossa – recce elements of Luftflotte I were deployed to Finland on 20/06/41 (remembering Operation Barbarossa started 22/06/41). On 22/06/41 Luftwaffe starterd to deploy bomber aircraft in Finland.

    I doubt a handful of G-50s would’ve resulted in easy victory for Finns. The Finnish ground forces did spectacularly well in Winter War without air superiority anyhow.

    And I didn’t ignore Stalin – Finland was in between a rock and a hard place.

    But your contention that they were not the aggressors in 1941 is incorrect (but then the Soviets were aggressors in 1939).

    We certainly would have liked to live peacefully all throughout 1939-1945. We have Winter War 1939-1940 and a Continuation War 1941-1944 + Lapland War 1944-1945 ( First german was shoot here in Oulu while driwing a 2 seater motorcycle after the time had expired for germans to leave the city )…and we saw only way to stay independent to let Germany protect us while they attacked USSR. Also Ernst Heinkels memoirs tell that the East Campaign was sold to the nation ( and whole world ) as a 2 weeks lightning war ! I don’t think our chief Mannerheim who had been commanding imperial troops in Russia really underestimated USSR. They tought they can navigate better in this kinda weather ( that was to come in 1941 ).

Viewing 15 posts - 2,311 through 2,325 (of 2,657 total)