hmmm…whos deleting posts?..ohh well anyway…

about tacit blue, the idea of that design wasnt about the curved shape that make you stealth,nortrop engieneers just did not have the faceted knowledge -lock-,nor the unstable design knowledge at that time -heed-, the way how they did try to reduce tacit rcs was to put all the reflective area as a low wing configuration, that is all the area pointing upwards, same like f-23

they didnt have the knowledge or experience…but they wanted the weapons deal

“could it end up nothing more then a re-skinned flanker?”

actually i hope so…if you see the forward profile of the flanker, it have far less convergent-negative angles than the f-22…much like the 23, so at the end you have a simpler fuctional planar design

an stealthed flanker would look like the f-23 without these wings or humps, maybe not so stealth than the 23 -not by the lack of diamond wings..BTW-, but far far better overall performance design and very competitive against modern 5 gen planes

no, you dint understand, a nuke war wasnt mean to be a 1 day war, i would take some weeks or months, russians keeping launching them mobile ICBMs, that is the main target of the B-2, isnt that the b-2 comes and strike the launchers before they fire, is about that these launchers WILL survive the first strike and will keep firing missiles, so somebody must hunt them

ermm what have to do with rcs that both trailing and leading edges have same alignment? not big deal for side rcs, specially if u see that the wingtips are flat, and both sides have the same standar 45 degrees, not also a big advantage for backward rcs coz u have longer perimetre, i really though that also would have some impresive stealth feature , but after talking with some friends and analyse it better, that wouldnt be the main reason

that wing was designed primary to incease area, and the trailing edge helps to better force distribution, now designing such huge wing you will have a problem, if you go with a standar delta the aero-centre pressure point will be too backwarded, so you will have troubles with low speed handling, the best solution was such wing, the reason why russians would chose such wing could be that they dont want to design an unstable plane

the fuselage stream flow dont generate lift, because all these canals generate local higer pressure, is a nice feature on the below surface area to increase pressure and stability, so the f-14, su-27 etc..have such canals -well no so such-, the fuselage surface was so compromised hiding fans that turned in an aerodynamical mess

hexpop where you got the info about the last speculatuions of pakfa?

i find them interesting, i mean, the delta config., that would be good for SC, Rcs and more important…production costs

i know -and have said before- that russians dont have lot of experience designing unstables deltas….but it seems that such configuration is actually the easiest to design

so if they go to an delta design that would be clever, but i want to know where you got that info

still i have some doubts about a pure delta , due the russian traditional requirements of short unpaved airstrips, but of course TvCs can help there, and they have apretty basic knowledge with the 1.44

flawed logic is the argument of the 360º-36sec equal 10º/sec as sustained turn, funny that all this mess comes frome there

thats the reason why when comparing performances there are different values as sustained turn and turn radius, both are different, you wont expect to sustain the same turning at the whole circle, the sustained turn of the mig-23 at 5 km is more than 10º as said before around 12º that is the max sustained turn

again the turn -at least of the f-4e- at 15000 fts -4.5 kms- is around 9º/sec that number is well known, you fanboys can dig where come…, i would expect a bit less at 5kms, now bout the f-4f dont have numbers

😀 😀 i find hilarious that Vortex post of “if the f-4 dont works as AA”, then “the f15/16 as AA” then “the the f-4 as AG”,……if A>B, then C+Z….X is equal N…..and ends whit the magestic, obviously that dont have to do with the 23….lol

man i love this forum

you guys are getting wrong thinking that sustain turn rate is something in which the plane keeps and turning and turning and turning with out losing heigh/speed, :rolleyes:

the value is more precise as MAX sustain rate, so the f-4e is around 9 and the mig around 11-13 de/sec at medium lvl, if both keeps turning, both lose heigh, speed ,etc…

again there are lower and higher limits, most fanboys dont know that

unless theres some kind of antigravity device somewhere :rolleyes: