Ogami….

The f23…hhmmm…..well first at all, we know that the “black widow” aerodynamics were compromised for the stealth performance, basically is an low wing configuration with that pair of “humps”, i dont like that wing shape for supercruising performance, leveled it makes a lot of vortex in the rear section , i dont know whats the exactly the angle of the wing (maybe is close of the f22)..any know????, the fuselage upper face “low presure” flow could be disturb by the humps maybe creating realtive “higth presure” flow and turbulence, but that humps could “help” to keep an better aerodynamic AOA, but i doubt that the plain is stabiliced in that condition, mainly by the lack of rear vertical fins, also the flats are angled it makes an descomposition of part the “turn force” in an flexion-compresion (i dont know the structural of the f23), yes the figther is stealth…..an i doubt that any international 5Th generation figther would be stealthier like the blackwidow, but it could be detected -but barely tracked- by spetial radar (low-high frecuency combo) the real question is if the other stealth figthers could be enough stealth to push the black-widow in a dogfight…….ahhh also the f23 is an unstable design??????

John ……

yes youre rigth……

And what you are saying that the b2 have not protection????, yes it have, but the speed requierements (the intakes airflow speed) are completily diferent so you need diferent design and diferent problems….

mpjay.. i think that i dont undestand you very good…what are you saying… that the b2 engines-intakes are aligned or not???….sorry for the precipitated answer……

Ogami, ogami, ogami…….

“You’re not logical…
You say that canard as well as any surfaces are not good for stealth then you say it was removed from F-22 for supercruise requirements…..”

both stealth and supercruiser are diferent requierements, look the point is that i dont find any logical and strong enougth argument for the lack of cannards(especifically)-stealth, but i find lots of arguments (not based only in proyects) for the lack of cannard-supercruiser, yes the f22 could be little worse for stealth with cannards, but thats because it has more control surfaces, the yurofigther have only cannards but it doesnt have flats……..

Take it easy ogami (sorry for the “y”) i dont understand why you are so sever….we just are talking about an stupid machine (any machine)!!!!! i dont like the machines, i like the people,…..so calm down, i respect your position……..

MPjay

About the intakes-engine thats debatible….i think that im rigth, you must consider the ondular-nature of the radio-wave….(look the f23 their engines, are more secured), about the angled surfaces yes there are not 90º but there poiting downwards (radar sorces) to an efective stealth design the surfaces must point upwards (so is more compatible with low wing), and about the unstable design the problem is the close position betwen the gravity center and the control surfaces -and TV-.

I want to talk about the others 5h -or 4th- generation usaf machines, f35,f34, their vstol system, succesor of f14, etc…….

Pufff………again with the cannards….. 😮

Ogami, Vortex and others……

About the stealth problems, again any movable surface (slats, flaps, cannards, breakes,etc….) are not good for stealth, if you has more surfaces control it gets worse for stealth i dont find any logical-design argument to say that cannard-stealth doesnt goes….., about the concorde, b-1, tu160 supercrusier, that foreplanes are soo small that cannot be consider as cannard (why they not did an truly cannard??…….shockwaves and drag) but retractable cannards work good in takeoffs and landins (tu144), yes at supersonical the planes get an “estabilicied” condition, thats because the supersonical “conical” wall, so they need more control, about the regional proyects they try to increase agility (increase of control surfaces) and soft control paying with drag… :rolleyes:

The f22 doesnt have cannards mainly because supercrusier requirements, with flats and tv its enougth in supersonical regimen handle….the design takes a lot of careful with shockwaves, even his flaps are “incrusted” in the wing to avoid shokwaves…..

The cannard woks better in an inertial unstable than convencional controls design, thats the reason of the “boom fashion” of this configuration…..

Djcross, Mpjay and others……

I never said that the raptor is an sucker in stealth, i only said that is non an stealth design it has some of that, there are some “tips” to do an stealth plane….

1) low wing configuration…..f22=bad
2) intakes – nose separated and low trasversal area……f22=bad
3) inclinated squared surfaces……f22=good
4) surfaces not pointing to the radar source……f22=bad -even in frontal face-(it take to trash the 3))
5) intakes aligned with the engines…..f22=bad (need ram deflectores)

and others that i dont want remember because were walking arrond cirles…. :rolleyes:

Basicaly i dont see any evidence that could say that is high stealth….

please lets talk about;

“the f35, its like an smaller f22 but with less ambitions, why it have that very special intakes design????? are paralell vortex inductors?? , is an stealth feature???or increase the eficiency engine???? are good at high AOA??? or a little off all factors??? i acept that i dont studied this design with carefull…… also, that plane will replace the f18???, and wich machine will replace the f14??????? It could be an navalizied f22????? the fate off the Boeing f34????, and marines will handle with easy the complex lockheed VSTOL sistem??????”

cool post ogamy, very cool post!!!! 🙂 🙂 ……

I agreed with you at 85-90%, i still believe that an Su-35 or an GOOD unstable design can perform better in dogfight (I know…. the raptor also has supercrusier an some of stealth), but again…..we can live whit that diferences……….