TomcatViPTomcatViPok, tnx for the clarity :rolleyes:
Aaarff, not my best post…
TomcatViPmaybe they should try to go for a “light” version of the X-32… if they have some trouble with the delta controls, aybe they may even try a partnership with dassault which is used to it… proposing a cheap alternative may undermine some of Gripens markets, and also a few F-35s ones from “standard US customers” who wouldn’t buy french anyway…
There is certainly something to scratch here.
Perhaps there is also still plenty of potential left in the 17 (For example: polar exploration. You’re not going to send civilian crews on the fields in decades years old Antonov or loosing annually significant high paid hours in a short range C130J)…
TomcatViPIf it was flying particularly low maybe it wouldn’t have had much altitude to have spun enough for its crash to show a pattern..
Or maybe the flight control system automatically enacted a controlled landing, etc.
But either way, that seems like the most reasonable explanation of what we see in the photos. The top of the tail had been quite clearly separated from the rest of the aircraft.
Fragile equilibrium of forces acting on an helicopter in flight (a well known video):
TomcatViPI am speculating. It will need a serious complement of information to be a real assertion.
Take it as it is only.
~S!
TomcatViPSpeculated that the tail rotor hit a high tension cable, tearing it off.
Gravity did the rest.
Without the tail rotor, shldn’t it have spun on itself?
TomcatViPIt actually crashed yesterday (or earlier). The image at below site was posted at another forum yesterday at 11:10 in the morning Dutch time.
Interestingly. It seems as if he has juts flat pancaked. CFS ?
TomcatViPI was not thinking at what appears to be an EOTS.
Poor man ship looks rather pejorative but believe me it is not. Engineers fails some time to achieves what they have promised. From whatever nations they are. That’s it. They’ll get a solution but they would need some time to work it by themselves. In the meantime, flush vents they are.
TomcatViPThere’s no question of “re-engineering” the intake duct. They are a central, design-defining feature of all fighter designs, particularly 5G.
What most likely happened was that they utilised CFD code & algorithms to design the duct. However, when they opened up the envelope they found that the real-World data fell short of the predictions. I retract the comment “a step backwards”, what they’ve actually done is applied solutions to address these shortcomings, that they appear more fundamental than the F-35’s maybe an indicator of the differing requirements of the J-20, as well as the steep learning curve it represents for Chengdu et al.
So long as the engine-duct performance squares favourably with the aerodynamic/kinematic design and capabilities of the airframe (see Andraxxus’ posts on the other thread) and later engine upgrade, then they’ll have achieved their aim.
No (sry to be blunt).
The mission have changed. From high to low.
To get a hint, you’d have to track the source of tech of the avionics. I am sure you’d get interesting results quickly.
The mesh of the hexagonal vents, will confirm you what I wrote times ago.
Regarding the theory of BL control that way, I am sry to say that but it looks only as a poor man ship of achieving what the 22/35 does by another means. It also tells me that Ch is late in on-board power generation.
TomcatViPIt takes 18 months to get a raw forging or casting. Machining to final dimensions, passivation and paint adds to that time. Then it has to be assembled into the airplane.
12 months to get a bolt blank, which is machined to final form, heat treated, passivated and quality checked.
12 months to get the body for an electrical connector, and additional time to add the inserts, backshell, collar, markings and quality check.
Well, if that is the standards in your piece of lands, I shld redraw my placards in your language.
I know that ppl tends to think that what might looks complex is obviously complicated, but actually for most of it, it is not. Think about a plate of spaghetti. Complicate , intricate, tortuous but rather simple in fact.
A plane is rather as complicated as my spaghetti (choose your own type of pastas and sauce’s flavor to fit your own idea).
What turned it complex is more the stray of corporatism that have hijacked the industry starting in the 90’s.
TomcatViPThere’s a lot of faith-based engineering happening in this thread.
The much-cited Norwegian range chart, for example, indicates quite clearly that F-35 aero efficiency declines sharply if weight and drag are above clean conditions. Indeed this was openly admitted to as the reason for ditching EFTs from Block 3 KPPs for the A & C. So what will happen when I add weight and drag but with no extra fuel? The range will dive into the ****er. Moreover, LMT has said that 90 per cent of missions will be flown clean.
So all this talk of 15,000 pounds of ordnance is not very practical because the range will be short; in any event, I believe that’s the pylon limit, and rather hard to reach in reality.
The other faith-based piece is “internal fuel good, external fuel bad”. Not necessarily. My internal fuel tankage is stressed to max g and an 8000 hour life – that, the bomb bays and the STOVL penalty are reasons why the F-35A is heavier than Typhoon but has a smaller wing. It’s there all the time – in high-energy air combat, in transonic acceleration, and when it’s empty. I don’t have the choice of big “bomber” tanks and smaller, supersonic-cleared air combat tanks.
Drop tanks, in short, are a good way to adapt the fighter to different missions (CAS, cruise-missile launch, interception, CAP, recce &c) and to cheat the Breguet range equation by changing the empty weight in flight (for extreme examples see the MiG-25RB and B-58). In fact, it’s the only proven way to provide an agile, small aircraft with a decent range and a large, usable supersonic envelope.
As for cost: there are very few training missions that involve dropping tanks, and training is what modern fighters spend most of their lives doing.
Too much faith in Engineering is bad. You are right. But a lack of it is even worst 😉
Regarding the B58 mention, you have to understand that at the time, there was no tech solution to do otherwise and the mighty Convair came with the least craziest solution (see Tony Buttler series)
Regarding the fact that the 35 have a smaller wing than the Typhoon, please understand that the requirement and engineering behind it are not the same. 30 years space the two.
Also, I don’t see how the A suffer from the B stovl capabilities. Anyhow, those design will certainly diverge in the future. For now they are stuck by the debate around the program cost.
TomcatViPLarger wetted area will increase drag: Yes
However, friction drag is less important than frontal drag. Hence, internal carriage is more efficient than external (imagine a cylinder stretched vs a three barrel design).
A larger airframe will need a larger wing that in turn will increase drag. However, drag increase will be around the designed lift coeff when the drag increase of wing carrying EFT will be outside that parameter (AoA).
The advantage of internal Vs external carriage have to be balanced in view of the desired flexibility. Nowadays, the operational usage favor the built-in longer range capability on a per$ basis and force efficiency thanks to the reduced size of ordinances.
As stated above, nobody will let a tanker circle close to enmy border in a near pear confrontation with stealth assets on both side.
TomcatViPHow fast F-22 can go at low altitude?
The question is not HOW CAN but HOW WILL.
Such a complex aircraft as the 22 might not be aero limited in every parts of its flying domain.
If you want to make yourself an idea, I will suggest to look at the FB22 drafting made by LM, given that the medium bomber would have had to cruise at Supersonic speed 😉
By comparing the 2 (calculating first what it should be for the “B”), you shld be able to pull out of this a good approximation of “F” SEP.
TomcatViP(Unofficially the F-15E with GE engines beated some climb record of Streak Eagle which was a lightened F-15A.)
Source would be appreciated.
By the way, welcome in this forum 🙂
Regarding the trapezes for Missiles:
Trapezes have an awful oscillation behavior.
The F102/106 uses the gases produced by a chemical reaction (powder) to get a damping effect (gases Vs gases). I think this is why the F22 teams reverted to a catapult launch. The prob with a trapeze is that you have very elongated part made out of metal that have to sustain the strain. Coupled with flutter/aero effects this can lead to a nightmarish prob to solve.
There is a Nastran animation from the 22 subcontractor floating somewhere on the web.
TomcatViPTo admit I don’t know what they are – esp. these hexagonal shapes – but IMO they don’t look like access panels.
Deino
I would say BL bleeding vent. Location is interesting…
What matter the most here for me is the fractal approach of the panel shapes-> it seems to be independent (again) of the targeted wavelength.
Sign In
