[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER] – Oh, yeah. The stand is almost always going to look messy. They are always multipurpose equipment designed to accommodate multiple engine designs and so they will have a lot of connection points, cabling and such that you won’t use on any single design (designed for flexibility). You just spool that up and stick it away somewhere and it’s fine. As long as you have one termination point which is easy to locate should field workers need to do so then they can always trace it back in short order and fully verify the connections (the starting point for troubleshooting). So I’ve just been paying attention to how the cabling was connected to and routed around the engines themselves. Anyways, I wasn’t trying to start a fight. We’ll see how the program goes. If, as Dr. Snufflebug suggested, they are about to commence a flight with dual 30s then their engine is purring nicely. If we see it in 2019 like they first indicated then the same, it will just be a little while longer before any of us know.

[USER=”7524″]paralay[/USER] – I thought about your answer for a while. I see what you are saying, but me personally, I still like to find opportunities to hedge against risk. A wartime environment would absolutely require the acceptance of more risk. But also, the example you give is one of production. The izdeliye 30 is in development and so what we are considering here is prototyping. Prototyping is a far more complex process with considerable unknowns to deal with and master. Production is more straightforward and repetitive. And Soviet WWII designs tended to emphasize simplicity and high tolerances – precisely so that they could output a high volume under harsh conditions. Today, the complexity of modern weapons has increased to such an extent that even production will in, some cases, be impossible under similar conditions. A factory producing howitzers might be able to continue production under the conditions of frequent attack. But a semiconductor plant making advanced ICs – a process that requires clean rooms and low pressure facilities to achieve nanometer level precision – simply cannot. Any product that they tried to make with damaged equipment simply wouldn’t work. And a modern airplane cannot fly without such equipment. I can say with high confidence that Russia’s new tank won’t work either.

The Russian government is certainly aware of facts like this. I’m sure that is why one of their requirements to initiate a nuclear counterstrike is ‘any aggression which threatens the survival of the nation’. (not an exact quote) They simply won’t allow anyone to put them in that position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Wx67vc_Xo

[USER=”20563″]haavarla[/USER] – See seconds 37-42 for a test setup that is nice, tidy, and clean. The cabling for the test engine is properly configured and bundled together, and clutter is minimized. Cables are bundled together according to official drawings and documentation. Should they get unexpected results on the test rig, the engineers can quickly find the proper cable bundle, verify the proper connection, and determine whether they simply have a connectivity issue or a true unexpected result. The Russian setup is a mess. If they have unexpected results they will have to jump on that thing and hunt, and the very fact they have it bundled up that way makes it more likely that they will cross connections or something of that nature. Now, some will reply that doing it that way is faster to setup. It is, but I’ve never had much respect for that opinion. I’ve always liked to get a schedule made up at the beginning to account for a nice clean job at all levels, and should I need to expedite to satisfy a requirement I rush elsewhere – such as speeding up deliveries, front loading start dates, etc. I don’t like to take shortcuts on test day. Your grade is whether you completed the project on time and on budget. Being ahead of schedule helps you some, but nowhere near enough to compensate for being behind schedule. So I try to avoid situations that will likely lead to unplanned work – like a lengthy troubleshooting. It’s just my philosophy on engineering design and program management though.

I’m not saying their program is flawed. They are clearly making progress (and the publications show they are confident in their results). Whether they are on schedule or not I can’t say, of course. And it doesn’t mean they are going to run into problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx2CxkRmpvY

Seconds 41-47 shows the setup for the F135 engine. It’s haphazard and cluttered too, and it turned out well. It’s just not the way I would have done it

“I really don’t know why people lump nationalism together with fascism.”

Simple! Nobody wants to debate anymore; everyone just wants to demonize others. EMOTION rules public discourse, sad to say, and reason has been banished into the shadows.

[USER=”37608″]JSR[/USER] – That’s a pretty bold and pessimistic prediction since Rolls-Royce, Airbus, and such are some of the giants in aerospace today. I have serious doubts about the viability of the UK and Fr-Ger programs too, but they are centered around the business plan of the program. It is absolute insanity to begin work on a platform which ignores the developing market for 5th gens and will not have a viable export market for 35 years. (The only market will be those involved in the program) And there will be significant competition when it arrives. They are trying to save on costs by skipping the 5th gen but they are just going to pile up more costs down the road due to lack of economies of scale.

So, the sections of their aerospace firms which caters to the defense market will likely take a hit (it may not be fatal), but their civil sector should make it through.

[USER=”20787″]QuantumFX[/USER] – It is aerobatics that wows crowds. Also, it is a clear indigenous solution. The Russians control the deflection farther forward and this isn’t the paddle trick that has been tried before either. I doubt that they can get much deflection from the petal tip method, but it is something that they should be able to easily install on other aircraft – including J-20.

We’re discussing two completely different things, bring-it-on. I’ve already said that if they are contractually bound (and, like you said, they likely are) then all of the hardware, design software, and recorded data, measurements, simulations, and such cannot be used. But none of that takes away from the fact that Rolls Royce still has a lot of people who are now knowledgeable of the thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, and such of a three stream process. And, no, there is nothing that prevents those people from using that knowledge elsewhere.

That’s why I said it would set them back a good ways but it doesn’t put them back at the very beginning. They already have a core team who has a pretty good idea how to approach the problem (in new ways). The setback is in having to duplicate/modify what they did before.

…but knowhow as well…

That part is not true. You cannot patent, claim, or restrict knowledge or use of physical phenomena or scientific subjects/fields. The reason why is because they simply are, they weren’t invented. Only specific inventions making use of such things can be protected. As I said, if the contract does have a clause which prevents future work (or requires royalties or such off of it) then recorded data gathered and designed hardware and software either cannot be used or only with strict limitations. But, personnel who were involved in ADVENT can use the knowledge and understanding they had gained of the fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, etc. involved to develop new ways of managing these. That’s why I said that it would set them back but it doesn’t mean they would have to start off from the beginning.