Via CDF, =GT

hawt hawt hawt hawt

That is very nice …even nicer would be a high rez of it! What are the numerous white dots on the upper surface of the wing and fuselage btw? Strain gauges? :confused:

I think ‘gave voice’ might be a better translation – rather than ‘gave tongue’.

It certainly makes more sense!!

Only the prototype T10 had a sliding canopy – the production T10S has a rear-hinged clamshell canopy.

I presume that a clamshell design is easier to seal ??? – the inflatable seals around the canopy edge do not have to slide against anything.

Although having said that, the Su-27 does slide a little bit – if you watch a video of it closing, it clamps down a few inches from the windscreen arch – and then slides forward to engage the inverted-L shaped latches on the cockpit sill.

Ken

Well, i guess that they will have to use an upward opening canopy for the prospective PMI ( or FGFA , as some call it ), since it will be a two seat.

I have no idea what i’m talking about , but maybe having a sliding canopy for T-50 single seat was chosen because the system to slide it occupies less space compared to a traditional upward opening system, with most of it’s mechanisms ( which probably it’s quite voluminous , since it has to lift/close that heavy canopy) behind the ejection seat, bearing in mind T-50 has the DIRCM system right behind the cockpit , and probably other systems aswell.

Just ranting .:rolleyes:

I don’t wanna rain on your parade, but this bird did absolutly not deserve any production run.

It might look cool. But it was a failure, in pure design. End of story.
The designer team did not have the brilliance as seen with Su-27, Mig-29 Yak-130 and Pak-Fa development teams..

Could you please elaborate if you can Haavarla ? Thanks.

Imho, regarding “problems ” with MFI , other than the times it appeared (nineties), i’ve read about some serious software problems. Also imho, i think one of the main reasons for it’s cancellation (again, other than the money part, or lack of ) is that this design just missed the stealth train… some say it would have trashed the Eurocanards with ease , and it would have had capable avionics, including side looking radar antennas too (like PAK-FA , or initial F-22 plans), although aparently the radar would still be PESA.

But one big thing it lacked was shaping (or enough of it), and i guess this made all the difference compared to F-22.

Just my 2 cents.

PPV> Намедни впервые “подал голос” третий летный образец машины …

God i hate those translators …umm can i please ask how is the above sentence translates ? Does it meen something like for the first time the third prototype started the engines or taxied or what ?:confused:

Many thanks.

Also on another issue, something i wanted to ask …there was a discussion about canopies couple of pages back , and what i wanted to ask was , what are the advantages and disadvantages of choosing a backward sliding canopy for the T-50? ( which btw is fairly traditional for Sukhoi it seems, see Su-7/9/11/15, or T-10)

Thanks again.

Hmmm…I wonder if the Americans have been up to underhand sneakiness since losing out in April

It’s not something to wonder about , but rather imho it’s a certainty ( unfortunately).:mad:

Speaking of this F-35 “offer”and that “journalist’s ” assertions , imo the idea that the americans will actually deliver the F-35 in a similar timeframe as MMRCA (or even before the end of this decade , to be generous), at 65 millions per plane ( with engine, avionics etc-yeah right) , and with no strings attached, ie the indians actually own and can modify /add their weapons on the aircraft they PAYED for, and they can use it as the national startegy dictates without fear of spare parts embargo, or restriction on what and where they can be used for (see Pakistan F-16), well that idea is so ridiculously ludicrous it doesn’t even worth the ink it’s written with.

I hope their decission factors have some common sense and will not fall for LM or US government machinations.

According to this article , PAK-FA had it’s 100th flight today …
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2011/11/03/224345.html

( haven’t seen anything on sukhoi.org yet)

Imo, the technico-tactical apport of a frameless vs traditional ( present and planned ), canopy for PAK-FA is practically zero.

On the other hand it will be more complicated, more expensive and possibly less safe for the pilot than the traditional one.

Does it really makes that much of a difference to worth the hassle? :confused: Yes of course the yanks put one on F-22, the Chinese have one on J-20, good to them. It’s their money and their choice.

As a reverse , ask yourself , would F-22 or J-20 be a much worse aircraft if they would have a traditional canopy?