dark light

emile

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 525 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2384577
    emile
    Participant

    My friend, the truck isn’t the objective reference. In this case the J-10 is.

    Oh yeah? to measure the truck due to length of J-10?:cool::p:diablo:

    Agreed, but it’s better than trying to use people and helmets, and arbitrary unknown canopy lengths.

    Oh yeah? do u have a concept for canopy’s scattering, refraction?:rolleyes::cool:

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2384814
    emile
    Participant

    http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/4879/j20j10comparison.jpg
    Have fun emile.

    First, I don’t use such low quality foto to measure, last doing such stupid thing was also in measuring by truck, a badly low quality also.

    Second, theoretically, the larger the view angle is, the vertical red line on truck at right position should be closer to rear border of window, but you can see totally opposite situation in foto by eye.

    Thirdly, two pics, two scal from truck caused very much deviation out of conversion.

    Most of fotos taken by 希望之盾 are valueless he branded logo on, but only one.

    To the scale measuering, I stand with 佟旭,whose 3 view is precise more than any others. I noticed him by submarine drawing which I put a wrong precondition then lost.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2384816
    emile
    Participant

    Emile, can you post the picture without the F-22 overlapped on?

    And that comparison is flawed anyhow. I’m not saying it isn’t close to the truth, but it’s very imprecise and subjective.

    Here is the foto you ordered
    http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/4/7/thumb/thumb_e7bd6bf5.jpg

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2384903
    emile
    Participant

    So um… how do you know that J-20’s bay matches EXACTLY the one from the Raptor ? Can’t it be longer, wider, shorter or thinner ?:confused:

    And this comparison being …in regard to the J-20 being 23m long ?

    The MATCH for the position is not size.
    I endeavored to enlarge the F-22 for matching the size of J-20 in foto in terms of the postion of weapon bay, so that the more the size close each other, the more the size of J-20 is closer to F-22’s 18.91meters.

    But there is precodition: the F-22’s weapon bay in foto couldn’t overflow from the corresponding postion of J-20.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2385046
    emile
    Participant

    Somebody clearly did not want to unveiled truth, eago the pic merely shot in sina several hours before it is retreated. But I caught it!
    A J-20 with very slight roll angle like this, so I enlarged the F-22 to be as same wide as J-20, we can see the position of F-22’s weapon bay exactly match where weapon bay for J-20.http://xmages.net/storage/10/1/0/1/2/thumb/thumb_1d3d7872.jpgObviously, because that slight roll angle remain, the wing span of J-20 should be wider alittle bit than F-22, say 13.7 or 13.8 meters more or less.
    Also we can see the F-22’s weapon bay can not cover where the J-20’s weapon bay which seems inset the place between two main door of undercarrage for length, due to an obvious pitch angle being there.
    http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/1826/gvuginobvh8hrga.jpg
    Even with the pitch angle, we can see the J-20 in foto still is not only about 1.2 meters at least longer than F-22 on rear but also about half meter longer on nose, moreover we do not count a reduction by pitch angle in.

    in reply to: Der Pak-Fa Episode 17, return of the stealth #2311692
    emile
    Participant

    In terms of looks, only.
    The underside and rear especially looks very similar to the flanker’s portions, imho. And the overall placement of the engines and inlets kind of bulges out, exposed and underneath like the flanker too, but of course with the addition of the internal weapons bay in the pancake area.

    http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/pakfaunderside1.jpg?w=584
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su34/images/su34_2.jpg

    All good if you like flankers I suppose, cheers.

    :p
    http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/F-14-Tomcat-161.jpg

    More words are needless rubbish

    in reply to: Der Pak-Fa Episode 17, return of the stealth #2311937
    emile
    Participant

    Mentioned seater, I bet there will be a two seater version for PAKFA.

    in reply to: Der Pak-Fa Episode 17, return of the stealth #2311947
    emile
    Participant

    Beautiful.
    http://russianplanes.net/images/to47000/046077.jpg

    This view angle showing
    not only beautiful, but almost perfect thought for a design of two engine nacelle shouldering a flying wing, far-far greater than any of contempary generation fighter.
    http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/4559/853yy.jpg

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2312494
    emile
    Participant

    Don’t you think that merely is a J-7?

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2321146
    emile
    Participant

    Both are unreal. Second one is a photoshop of an old CG (someone decided to add wingtip missile rails).

    Arh yes, you can see what our aircraft fans can do:p

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2321228
    emile
    Participant

    😎

    The first pic is unreal.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2321232
    emile
    Participant

    Are you suggesting that the Tejas is closer to a 5th generation aircraft than the T-50? That’s kinda absurd.

    If weapon bay is an essential charactor for 5th gen fighter by your meaning, then I am failed.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2322146
    emile
    Participant

    Latest aircraft for IAF in Gujarat
    FGFA in Gujrat ? Hmm

    2014 will be the time in a hurry, Sukhoi 50 will be not a real 5G fighter untill second phrase engine is fitted in.
    If India is eager to 5gen fighter, then to modeficate Tajes inlet to CARET with F414 fitted will be a proper path, if you are able to get F414 indeed.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2322340
    emile
    Participant

    😉

    Unlike the Su-27 series, the Su-47 comes back to narrow-set engine nacelle, which cause internal volumn limited by engine and its air-intake through into.
    No doubt the thickness of Su-47’s center area is not narrower than Su-27 but occupied by weapon bay either.
    The Su-47’s wing area is significantly smaller than Su-27, so, the wing volumn for fuel capacity is suppose to be less.
    Cunclusion all above, the 12.7 tons internal fuel is highly suspectable.

    to say the least, with 12700kg int-fuel, then we get 17+12.7+7(or8)=36.7(37.7) tons for MTOW, still not reach 39 tons.:p

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2323410
    emile
    Participant

    Su-27, max. take-off – 30500 kg, Al-31F – 2 * 12500 kg
    Su-47, max. take-off – 39000 kg, D30F11 – 2 * 15500 kg
    😉

    Impossible, the Su-47’s weight as below list:
    Empty: 17 ton
    internal fuel 8-9 ton
    internal weapon,
    (tandem weapon bay)
    4×AA-12
    2×AA-11
    1 ton
    MTOW is 26-27 ton

    If there is external load:
    2×3000L under inboard pylons
    2 or 4× missiles
    TOTAL is 6 tons more or less

    SUM: 32-33 ton

    never reach 39 ton.

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 525 total)