A question depending on many variables.. rate of climb is the ability to gain energy of the aircraft. dE = m * g * dH also equals to dE = 1/2*m*dV^2, where dV stands for change of velocity with respect to time, or simply acceleration. So in short we all fall back to simple formula of F = m * a.

For an aircraft F = Thrust – Drag. If we put into former formula, and divide both sides with mass, Thrust/mass – Drag/mass = acceleration. As Lift equals mass for 1G flight condition, and equal TWR, acceleration is only determined by the overall Lift/drag ratio of the aircraft, which cannot be -accurately- spaculated with present info. That said;

Assuming T-50 has same airfoil of MiG-29, means they will have similar Cd at similar AOA conditions, which should occur at low level high speed conditions. This will lead to conclusion wing area is the only thing that determines the drag. Overly generalizing, with ~207% wing area, PAK-FA will have more than double the drag of MiG-29 9.12 at lower altitudes.

Assuming 152 kN engine thrust, T-50 has 187% thrust of MiG-29. Proportionally comparing, PAK-FA will have slightly inferior Thrust/Drag ratio, and wont have same rate of climb of 9.12 MiG-29A.

With increasing altitude, T-50 will be able to utilise its lower wing loading to achieve noticably smaller AOAs, leading to increased L/D ratio and decreased Cd. At such conditions, odds should slowly move into T-50’s favour.

However, I don’t think PAK-FA will have same TWR of MiG-29, and I don’t think it will use such thin airfoils as MiG-29.

I will delete my post if I was you amigo … Not the best read from planet Andraxxus…

For example, climbing means traveling with an angle with your weight vector :rolleyes:

I never said it’s a B2. Nor that there is nothing to see on the picture.

I found (as I wrote – see above post #3) that picture really interesting. It has a lot of great info in it.

However, my own little opinion is that this is not the NGB or any future aircraft.

The News is that it seems to have an electrostatic fluid system and perhaps some kind of plasma propulsion. Some of the things that (I am convinced) have flown on others platform on a more discreet/lighter manners.

That the DOD is ready to acknowledge the existence of the tech is, by itself, really interesting.

But, as everybody know it here, it would be smart to fly the things along a Citation and an F16… Just in case 😉

Probably older tech (B2/Avenger years). I don’t mean the platform but what is show cased. My own opinion only obviously.

@Eagle: Why would you like to know more ? In what context ?

Some low cost airlines are alrdy probably looking how to fit (and charge) for an extra passenger seat in there 😉

Without opening lines of polemics if the drone is “phase” ctrld via the ground it means that there is no automation at all. I have never said that it was radio-ctrld.

the point here is the automation, hence the level of maturation of the AI.

A world premiere in that case would have been on board AI discriminating by itself those phases (in a war mode):
– Sensor to IA: Someone rejoining on us
– IA to Sensor : Identification requested
– Sensor : friendly
– IA to FCS : smooth mode on boost
– IA to sensor : track formation elements

I that was the case, there I understand what the flight engineer was validating on his tablet. Note that I strongly believe that MD could have reached that point.

But that it had to be presented as a world premiere, this is obviously doubtful. EoA.

Back to my glass of Bourbon

The farce have reached a momentum…

Today the press in France is bragging around the Dassault´s world premiere…

Among that this interesting quote:

le drone lui était dirigé depuis le sol, d’où une certaine complexité dans la préparation de ce vol. Philippe Deleume, chef pilote de Dassault Aviation.

¨the drone was led from the ground, hence some complexity in the preparation of this flight¨. Philippe Deleume, chief pilot of Dassault Aviation.

As a french I hve come to teh point that I will add some Bourbon to my Chateau Margot 😡

Confirmation of plane climbing near max safe alt and holding that high for 20min

Before disappearing from radar screens on March 8, the commercial airliner deviated from its planned route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing by turning leftward over water while it was still inside Vietnamese airspace, the Malaysian aviation source told CNN’s Nic Robertson.
The aircraft then climbed to 39,000 feet, just short of the Boeing 777-200ER’s 41,000-foot safe operating limit, and maintained that altitude for about 20 minutes over the Malaysian Peninsula before beginning to descend, the source said.

Source´
cnn.com

Extra Ressouces

Map of search zone @ CNN.COM

I understand your position You pretty stick to what you´ve alrdy said last year.

However, if the Navy has in mind capability growth though EW refinement and a futur low RCS concept, they won´t go first with a flying wing as an initial step.

The draf is said to include a 24h 7 days requirements. That means that the bird wld have to take-off and trap by any weather in any sea state. What I understand myself reading the report is that the admirals have come to teh point that they need to remind eveybody that the N in USN stands for Navy ansd that all the fancy stuff comes after you get that cap.

Another reading of what is reported of the draft wld be that the USN want to ensure contractors that they do not have to run in each other in the classic USAF way (my RCS is smaller than yours).

A Sea Avenger with all its matured electronics can alway be redesigned around a steathier platform with less risk (first mature UCAV at sea then go for RCS).

If I was the guys at Northrop I wld plug a removable sting with a butterfly tail at my sleek looking flying wing.