This discussion just keeps going on and on and the same things are always said, but some people seemingly wont listen.

The engines as shown in the picture above and in side view are CLEARLY higher then the intakes. Worst case is 1/2 the compressor face would be visible, best case 1/3 is visible.

Dont forget to that (yes here we go again) that the undercarriage main wheel retracts vertically into the side of the intake but a large amount. This means the intake must go around the wheel well…..

The oval shape of the intake which can be seen in one picture indicates a very thick wall, unlike the flanker which are “thin” and straight.

Im not saying that 100% of the compressor is visible, A conservative estimate would be around 30 to 40% is actually visible, but we dont know if there is a blocker or not.

Does anyone else think those markings on the intake wall are indicative of something, like possibly a RAM coated panel that lowers into the intake blocking the compressor face? Such a device would a hinderence at high AoA, but in a cruise or high speed dash configuration would block radar nicely. Then when in a close in flight the door could be opened to allow better airflow and dogfighting.

You can see a perferatted (?) door sitting flush at the top of the intake.
If you have a look at the high res picture Quadro posted above…. But it doesnt appear to be able to block the entire intake mouth.

his words were he may do it in ‘some spectacular fashion’ but not anything to do with the aircraft and no reference to crashing the aircraft or harming anyone else other than himself.”

Crashing a plane would be in a “spectacular fashion”

Hopefully he get the help he needs 🙁

We don’t see those air grills at the bottom of the airducts like we see on the Flanker here.
I could swear the T-50 have them though..:confused:

There are grills on the inside of the intakes (in the tunnel area), as opposed to underneath.

Ok, it seems that two people have told me what the PAN call is for now?
Sorry but I already knew and no one has answered my question or actually responded to what I have said.

The Pilot used the term “I am declaring an Emergency” apparently because he was so low on fuel he was commited to land and could not go-around.

If this is true then he should be stood down.
He used incorrected phasreology, did not declare a fuel emergency until it was too late, endangered the lives of his passengers, broke the rules about minimun fuel, did not divert enroute to a refuelling point.

Pan Pan is actually used for situations of urgency, where immediate assistance is not required and where the aircraft and its occupants are not in immediate danger.

And a low fuel situation in which it is alleged that he couldnt even do a go-around is not worthy of a Pan call?