EOTS has a full coverage of the aircraft’s bottom hemisphere with an almost full front hemisphere coverage as well…

Do you have any information about EOTS’s angle of elevation (if it’s not a secret of course)?

There is no modification of tail “supports”,it’s just a slightly different camera angle.

Sorry, I forgot about the 2 L-band radars in the wings 😮

I read somewhere that Su-XX carries 11 100 Kg of fuel….

On photos of the unpainted prototypes aren’t there 3 KS-U-shaped openings just in behind the radome?…

Logically, yes, Ken. But damn doesn’t fit shape exactly as you see.

They look RF transparent. Maybe it’s something to help radar coverage?

A couple years ago there was some talk about Epaulet-A. Any info on what happened to it?

……
while Marchukov did tell of 2D nozzles, it’s a long way from talks to practice, and now I give less chance for them to appear on finalized version (Davidenko/Pogosyan patent of swiveling nozzles to hide IR radiation is another proof to my theory). I would be pleased to be proven wrong.
…..

Any chance of a link or a picture of that patent?

@TEEJ
Thank you for the effort.

Of course what Col Anicic fails to realise is that all strategic nuclear capable heavy bombers are covered by the START treaty. The Russians conduct on-site inspections and swap data with the US on the numbers of heavy bombers in service. For B-2 Spirit of Missouri, or any other B-2 airframe, to simply disappear without trace is simply illogical. Such a loss wouldn’t last five minutes in the US Congress and neither would the Russians keep quiet.

Of course Spirit of Missouri, serial 88-0329 is very much alive.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA—Air/Northrop-Grumman-B-2A/1283296/L

http://jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=88-0329

http://www.ozatwar.com/usaaf/13threactivation16.jpg

From 2005 Grim Reapers reactivation.

http://www.ozatwar.com/usaaf/13threactivated.htm

TJ

He is assuming that it’s Spirit of Missouri. All he knows for sure it’s something big like B2. Unfortunally the translation is good but not perfect and the moderator keeps interrupting him with stupid questions just as he is trying to tell us the good stuff 😡

As for START treaty all I can say is that “politics are a bit..”. Anyway I believe him, he is a good and honest man and I don’t see any reason for him and his crew to lie.

@jetman-2

But this has in it’s core a pulse detonation engine, all he added was a compressor to force air in. I had the exact same idea 10 years ago but I slowly forgot about it.I remember that in the end I ended up with a valveless pulse detonation engine with a compressor, witch is really nothing new like this article mentions: http://www.pulse-jets.com/valveless/

Marconnet figured that a blast inside a chamber would prefer to go through a bigger exhaust opening,
rather than squeezing through a relatively narrow intake. In addition, a longish diffuser between the
intake and the combustion chamber proper would direct the charge strongly towards the exhaust, the
way a trumpet directs sound. He tolerated what hot gas did escape from the intake.

In their descriptions of the Marconnet engine, F. H. Reynst and J. G. Foa (each in his time a noted
expert on pulsating combustion) agreed that it could not have worked very well, really requiring forced
air at the intake (by a fan or a similar device) if the blowback was to be avoided. Foa actually called
the Marconnet “a bad ramjet” on account of the need for some ram pressure at the intake. In
principle, it does resemble ramjets of a few decades later rather closely.