Vibration around the vertical tails?

The Hawk was one of the most potent “hitter” during the Irak/Iran air war. A battle rich in ECM usage.

I’m not an native English user, so I might misunderstood the post from you Tomcat.
The picture of the internal structure shows a much higher cutout aft of the inlet duct. But this is anyway needed to make room for the PTO (power take off; say dynamo and hydraulic pumps) and other auxiliaries on top of the engine. I does not prove that the IGV and the D9 are vertically offset. Still they can be… who knows…

The smaller hole in the bulkhead above the inlet duct, is simply a “tank hole” (or whats its called in English). Remember, the whole “pancake” wing box, and also remaining cavities around inlets etc. are fuel tanks. The structure is basically all “wet”. There is not other way you can squeeze that amount of fuel into the air-frame. I am still a bit skeptical to the estimated fuel load of the PAK-FA. Significantly more than a flanker seems optimistic.

Berkut, you have some insight in the 3d modelling; does it support a 10.3Te fuel load? Composites do also take up more volume than metals, in general, so the permeability (nautical term; how much fuel volume is it really inside the mould lines) should be somewhat reduced compared to the flanker

You are right it could be what your are describing… However, I don’t think so.

Without going deep down-to speculations, let’s look closely of what a “Tank” (oil? / Fuel flow regulator ?) would means:
The eng are removed by pulling them from bellow and then crate them out of the under-surface of the plane. Structurally it’s easy to see that with all the struct frame above by presuming of a panels only geo bellow. So let’s agree there.

So you remove the engine by unbolting from mounts positioned cleverly and access is granted without the need of a Chinese golden medal winner in gymnastic (don’t laugh… I hve seen that for real – every engineer shld have one at hand reach!). So… every thing is perfect until one guy tells you that the oil/Fuel Flow tank is still attached to the engine pipe. Because if this ellipsoidal frame hole is there for a tank, it means that the tank is fixed (or the eng is racks mounted and slide bckwrd – but the front frame is not robust enough for that hypo)…

So unless you have agreed to allow some chain saw to be valid tools for your mechanics, then you’ll need your Chinese finalist 😉

More Seriously:
First, thx for contributing here.

Secondly, composite skin are large or full geo panels contributing hugelly to sealing of compartments and obviously skin robustness. A composite wing for example (even only wing paneled) will always hve a fuel fraction better than a traditional one with joints, seals, more ribs etc…

@Admins: thx for correcting the hick-up of the Phantom thread…

Betray? You mean not automatically obey the latest US whim? If you want betrayal, consider 1956. The UK & France were following a stupid policy, but the USA didn’t just refuse to support them, it actively undercut them. And you reckon that if France disagrees with a US action & refuses to actively support it, that’s betrayal? What planet are you on? Do you think the French are the slaves of the USA?

We are running down the political debate what I was not expecting for.

Fr choose to put herself in the fore front of the scene for only a direct Arm selling benefits… In the time the US were actively seeking an agreement to deflate the Nuclear bubble threat around Iran.

Doing so, the US are exposing them-self to a major losses in future contract in the region. And it’s easy to see that the losses could be colossal (Boeing). Frankly on a pure cold blood analysis, there was not even an inch of needs for that. Not an inch. UK PM had a far wiser attitude despite similar concerns (except the last minute rush) and acted professionally. Fr did not.

Last but not least, do I hve to remind you that Nuclear arms are still the ones able to threaten the very basis of life of every citizen on this planet? Those are major concerns. For you, for me. For the future of kids.

Anyone would hve expected that short range calculus would hve been pushed aside for the benefits of a safer world. Especially when beyond Ir, on a long term analysis there is potentially the very own sec of Eu interest. As I dare you to find any major update btw the two agreements, I am not looking toward a reply.

Betraying is all about stabbing a friend in the back or exposing innocents to unnecessary threat when you do hve the responsibility to protect them (because you choose to endorse that burden – nothing has forced Mr Fabius to do so).

I am sry, but in November 2013 that’s what we have seen. That nobody have resigned after is a sign of a major deficiency.

But it is obvious that I do not knwo nothing about how the events unfolded. So there is no need to rebound on this post as its main purpose was to correct the pro-Americanism put in my words (because for some the world had to be parted btw pro and cons for the sake of the idiots).

Oh, and by the way, by 1956, do you mean Suez? Because I don’t see any parallel btw the two events.

So let’s get a far field look for a second.

Fr did betray the US on a major foreign policy concern just to feel allowed to tweet a little bit longer on the Arab peninsula. Then there was the sand storm… And then the Kuwait LOI….

Frankly, it’s time for the Fr to make some washing up among their think tank. Because tanks they are not. No more than a golden sink at least…

Notice the completely different saw tooth style on nose wheelbay door. Paintjob looks very cool.

Good point. It only means that they are absorbing more in the top range of frequencies and diffracting in the lower band.

That thing is probably designed to skim low and face/counter acquisition radar.

[…]or an unproved airframe with exotic components (a lot of composite).

Got too far. 😮 No need to pull away composites