Yes of course. But it’s cost mainly. Redesigning a wing box for example impact the entire wing and wld need a complete field/fleet testing for just ~30% of mass gain. A high price to pay for the amount of synapses lost in the process.

F15&16 did field the usage of composites as a tech maturation test (horizontal and vertical surfaces + torsion box).

Dassault started to integrate composite parts on its models as early as the 70’s.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/passion/histoire/sites/biarritz/

Quote:
L’établissement de Biarritz se spécialise alors dans l’industrialisation et la fabrication des pièces composites pour les avions civils et militaires. Ainsi la première pièce avion en composite, le gouvernail de Mirage III en carbone/nida, est-elle réalisée en 1974. Suivent, en 1978, les éléments de série en matériaux composites des Mirage F-1 et Falcon 50 et la fourniture à Saint Cloud de la dérive et des sous-ensembles composites du Mirage 4000. Viennent ensuite les éléments du Mirage 2000, du Rafale et de tous les Falcon.

Translation:
The establishment of Biarritz then specialized in the industrialization and manufacturing composite components for civil and military aircraft. So the first part of a composite aircraft, the Mirage III rudder carbon / honeycomb, is it made ​​in 1974. Followed, in 1978, the series elements in composite materials Mirage F-1 and Falcon 50 and the provision in Saint Cloud drift and composite subassemblies of the Mirage 4000. Then there are the elements of the Mirage 2000, Rafale and Falcon all.

As early as the 78, Dassault tested a full wing modern skin panel on a flying Falcon 10 (carbon fiber).

If the US had thought at the time that composites were cost effective on a fighter aircraft, I hve no doubt they would have fielded it on the 15/16.

Fact is (in IMOHO) that the high volume of productions in US prevented their full usage so early (before tech had matured and was tested with fleet study- Valky did use some composites (honeycomb) as well as other early project like the SR71 and, not sure, the X-10/G26 or something like that).

But the good old trusty Al still hve a play IMOHO. AL usage and techniques are simply out of date, forcing engineer to multiplicate the connecting parts (heavy) and preventing them to fully use the materials properties to reduce weight while still enhancing strength.

With the aircraft repainted each time to match whatever his current hair colour is.

Yeah, and I wonder what would be the transonic acceleration with all that face piercing ?

I’ve figured out that the world would be a much better place if everyone brought F-35.

Here’s the rationale:

1. If everyone brought the F-35 (including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea) that would mean that the world is actually at peace and risk of war is gone as US is willing to export its flashy stealth jet to everyone.

2. As world peace is achieved, everyone can then scrap their F-35 fleets except for a few museum pieces that would have caption “Relic from a bygone age.”

Still no sign of any F35 or Lightning II here:

http://www.adoptapet.com/

We might hve to wait a bit longer :very_drunk:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]221238[/ATTACH]

[…]
And? Haven’t you seen a plasma spark plug before?

Well… no. Thx for the insight. Seems I hve been outpaced by my expectations on this one 😉

@MSphere:

Ideally, in fact, the ratio btw free stream velocity and jet stream velocity in a turbojet is close to 2. Two time the aircraft velocity.

@Andraxxxx:
The mist cloud above the wing is not related to any flows separation. It’s created by the area of low pressure above the wing (and lifting body) created by the geometry of the wing. Not an indication of any flow separation.

Also, the vortex shredding (rupture de tourbillon in French) or more commonly known as Alley of Von Karman after the name of one of the father of the modern aero (effect discovered in the 30’s – Karman has written books that are readily reachable via Amazon and worth the time spent reading) is not specific to round or circular nose.

I see that you hve outsourced the animation from Wiki, so I let you re-read the article. The prob that you are identifying is related to the effect of the vertical surface nose masking. Hence the added surface BELLOW the plane where they do not suffer from the masking effect at high AoA and prevent flow separation at the rear/side of the fuselage.

Any non-laminar flow will interact with the structure and might potentially cause damages. This is not related to the circular section of the nose (think of F18)

Edit: after reading your post again, I must point that you are mistaking what mass-flow is. In an enclosed volume (such as an idealized engine), the mass flow is constant. Hence the con div nozzle doesn’t modify this value. What it does is changing the balance btw pressure and speed.

Massflow is the amount of air in mass passing thought a section per seconds (massVolumic_of_air*area_section*speed).

The particularity of supersonic flow, such as the ones encountered in the exhaust jet of a turbojet engine is that the axial velocities are exceeding Mach1. Beyond this speed, the geometry must be divergent to further accelerate the gases.

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/04/13/pakfa/

In addition, the AL-41F1 is equipped with a plasma ignition system, all-aspect thrust vector control and digital engine control system.

The P word!

Meanwhile the USN’s 114 E/A-18G will be heavily tasked having to support not only USN CAGs but also USMC and USAF!

To put things into perspectives, one single squadron flying Growler (stretched to the limits) covered both the Op needs in Irak AND Lybia. So 114 is not that bad at all. :rolleyes:

Berkut is right, i’m speculating that neither T-50 or Su-35 makes over M1.2 dry on current engines, (f-22 kpp 1.5, performance 1.75)
pak-fa was always meant as a predator

The only limitation that I can see on this plane is its composite skin.

Looking only at its aerodynamics, I won’t be surprised to learn that this bird has a max mach ranging somewhere btw 2.5 and 2.8. Look at it, it will scare the hell even of a Milennium Falcon.

If you had told us that the 50 had some rolling inertia issues (limitation on G rolling) or something similar, that will be worth debating. But a Mach 1.2, less than a T50?!!!