over Gwell, the f23 didnt have vertical tails, and that was the reason of the maneuverability problems, directional stability in high AoA is important, even basic planes control the vertical fins play a big part, at high speeds one can test some designs like the “H” front side view of the f23 (using it humps as some kind of stabilizators) but in subsonic you realy need the fins -with large surface control- because the airflow is slower
of course you can go and test the “no-fins” stuffy, but will gona be a headache, but i realy dont know how would have performed the 23 with TVCs, but maybe would have been worst , since in the point of critical turbulence you need to change the vectorial direction of the nozlles constantly that actually could increase the problems, and in the end you should need more stabilizators, in some cases is good idea to share thrust and stabilization, but to share completelly both is problematic, also at high speeds is better to dont touch the nozzles, there are many fancy projects around the world, but not all of them works
btw for the guys that think that is a problem of stealth vs dogfight , close combat shouldnt be sacrifised by stealth, since in a stealth vs stealth fight the dogfight is more probable (by the problems of airborne radars against ECM)
over GMaybe?
Both from http://paralay.narod.ru/.
—–JT—–
interesting, cannard-delta configuration actually could be more stealth than conventional, since it use smaller controlls, but really there isnt a huge difference, anyway the problem isnt if have a conventional tail or if is cannard, the problem is if the control surfaces are aligned with the main wing, of course we arent talking about a “tri-plane”
the vertical tails looks interesting to me -the ones that are moved as inverted “V”, that is clearly a stealth feature, but a plane with such tails will have problems with it AoA, maybe could be solved moving that outer the fuselage -as also is in the picture-, anyway from where come such pakfa speculations??
edit;, something also interesting is that the aero-models of the berkut have actually these tail design, and the sukoi lfs also have it, maybe these fins will be in the pakfa?, who knows, anyway, about the comment of 3D vectorial exhaust system to replace the fins, forget about it, and isnt because the russians are more worried about agility :rolleyes: , is because is pretty hard, reduce the performance of the plane, and simply, well, is a stupid solution for stability at high velocities, a propulsion system that must impulse the plane and also change constantly it vectorial force to stabilization, not good idea IMO
before to make stealth a plane…….first it must fly 😮
over GFrazier, as 23 said old radars dont have problem to detect it, thats because almost all the old radars are in band below the J/X one, X band is tracking for automatic guidance, but with a search radar -to detect and targeting- and a active head radar missile tracking, -also X band, but works in much closer ranges in which stealth features are useless, also you can use the search radar -A to C /G in other measure/ band i think, if remember well- and IR missile head to down the plane
and all that also with the fact that the 22s is not a complete stealth design
over Germmm, again the 22s thingy???
well, there are some missconceptions to say that everything in th 22 is stealth, the plane isnt that stealth
also the stealth tech is overrated, it dont have effect on search radars, but most figther radars works in X band , but there are otheres that works in other bands, so
im tired for that , ppl see the f22, and say, “the wing is designed to stealth”, “the canopy is for stealth”, “the nozzles are for stealth -yea sure-“, “the wheels are for stealth”, etc,etc
i dont have anything against the 22, but guys dont overate the things
a stealth design is the 23 one, and still that wasnt practical
is the stealth fashion……
over Gwell, there are some biased “facts” that keept for years and years, like the famous “engine burning” of the mig 25 after M3 -belkayov-, or it lack of performance taking modern planes in close combat -some skirmishes in gulf war 1-
and the myths are ther and will always there, anyway that sells well….like the funny stealth features of the sr71…
anyway i dont think that the mig25 is faster than the sr71, never, never, never had the design to be faster, but it didnt need that, wasnt it reason, had missiles to down it and had speed to track it
btw in the 60-70-80s fast planes were needed to SU, now the US main nuke force is slbms, but in that time were tons of b-52s armed with cruiser missiles, to reach these planes faster before they reach the shoot point was very important, remember that russians keept alive the foxbat with the 31, US had slower planes, coz soviets didnt have may bombers with missiles, so isnt so simple like that mig-25,mig29-su29, speed stuff, that is a ooold crap that ppl love to say coz is one sided view…
the mig25 had found other roles than only interception ,like bombing or reconainsence, or others, for an engieener the sr71 is a gizmo, but the foxbat is “the man”
over Gthats an interesting question, i really dont know, but maybe they could control the flow with automatic doors arround the bypass to the combustion chamber or as the fan bypass???
the engine use counter rotative fans, it have a effect to increase the pressure, i dont know if have effect in the bypass control
it use a centrifugal compressor????
well, anybody could help me???
over Gbecause the mig25 use such layout that dont mean even that they use the a5 at a “good begining”, again i will put you the sst example, the boeing researched the sst configuration even after the concord and tu144 were in the sky, if they would reach the production stage that would mean that they would used the concord-tu144 as a “good begining”????, not, because they -as all the other proyects- they researched different configurations and the best was selected, nothing more
again the same for the f15 proyect, they didnt use the mig25 as a “good start”, were configurations that looks like the foxbat, again they reached similar solutions, and the best configuration was selected, nothing more
fairly well documented????, where???
the problem is the cold war legacy in this industry that almost always was an absurd reason of pride :rolleyes:
anyway i really dont like such converstations, are boring and pointless, with a lack of tecnologic arguments and filled of speculations, but the only thing that i can tell you is how works this industry
over Gohhhh sferin, all proyects have different “startpoints”, as example for the american or russian sst, were done different configurations -even with vg wing-, but that dont mean that the configuration selected have something to do with the other studied
the same case for the mig25, f15, f22 etc…
the concepts requierements and performances between the f108 and the A5 are completely different…..what are you smoking????…..i want something of that 😀 /kidding/ -now is probable that they used scraped concepts, but that is other thing-
they didnt copied the mig25 for the f15 design, why???, only because both have -as the famous phrase say- “general layout”????? :rolleyes:
well, about the topic, the russians can design something based in the falnker-fulcrum that can match the low rcs or the subsonic agility of the raptor -features that are very overated-, things like supercruiser or supersonic manouverability i think that just canot match, i mean the design of a truelly supercruiser engine or the sacrifices of the supersonic lift design, i guess that they dont whish increase the cost in that way
i dont know if they could use internal bay, perhaps is better a conformal configuration
perhaps they could develop new techs like better afterburners -with ramjet concepts- or turbine combustion thermodynamic cycle, but it is begin from the start
but perhaps the industy is doing the same error in the 80s -the military high bypass turbofan-, i mean is more practical the use of huge dry engines -that are more directly affected with the heigh and speed- than to improve the afterburner or post-thrust sistems????
a delta needs unstable design, i dont know if the russians want to put such feature in the plane -i mean they have experience in fbw, but not in truely unstable concepts-, but the same as china -with the j10-, i dont know how good is the j10 compared with the su27 (j11??? i dont remember), but sometimes is better older an very well known concepts instead to venturing in something new, actually a less unstable machine have their advantages, im not saying that the russians cant develop a unstable plane, but put it among al the requierements of the first russian 5th generation plane…..in this conditions…..with this market……..and without experience……..i should think twice :p
now if the russians achieve that, well is probable that they have a……pact with the devil :dev2: 😀 -this is a cool devil, not like the other, i dont like it, i mean :diablo: –
anyway the last pakfa configuration discussion is only speculative 🙂
over Gthe only thing that i have missinterpret you is about the “4 engines, T tail,” etc
the great sin is that if a proyect selected from diverse designs looks like a occidental plane , then is a copy :rolleyes: -that is about the T160 and russian shuttle, or even the mig23-su24-
over Gagain sferrin, there are different initial designs for one proyect, there were version of the mig 23 without VG, if the russian would chose the not-VG, all the fans would said that it was a truely rusian design, but they dont design for your opinions, they design for the performances and requierements, versions of the fx that look like the mig 25, versions of 4th russian gene aircraft that looks like mig25, some designs go with the proyects, others are crapped.
ohh so 4 engined aircraft is a copy???, you need more power, put other engine, the same for the T-tal, high wing, etc… :rolleyes:
there are other proyects in which the specifical performances are more strict, and requierements are similar, like a shuttle -that actually the concept is diferent /only the fans think that both are the same/, it was designed from the energia rocket, or an intercontinental M2 bomber, sometimes different engieeners reach to the same conclusion, the grippen, the EF, rafale, f106, mirage3, f108,cf105, concord, tu144,etc…
is like to say that the f5 use a copy of the f104 wing, or the f22 is a copy of the f15 or mig 25 because all use the “general layout”, or the canard-delta f35 prototype was a copy of the eurocanards, etc,etc,etc :rolleyes:
over Gagain aerospacetech, with these arguments you are saying that the mig 29 is a copy of the f15?? or the f15 is a copy of the mig25???? or the foxbat is a copy from the a5???
in the proyects you use different configurations, that are done by different teams -even from the same company-, some are scrapped, and then is selected the best design
over GWe’ve provided evidence that supports our assertion. Where is your’s that supports yours?
1)all that is based in a rumor
2)the designer was belyakov
3)all proyects use diferent configurations
4)both machines are veery different
5)you are a nationalist paranoid :rolleyes:
ohhh no so the ye-8 is based in the f107???, and the eurofighter is based in the ye8 or the f107????? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
over Ggreate…
1) all that based in a rumor, that if is true also have nothing to do because the 25 is completely different with the a5, in design, aerodynamics, requierements ,performances, engines, (even materials), maybe the common point is weight, btw the designer wasnt mr. belkayov? :rolleyes:, again there were some draws on the fx proyect based in the mig25, it dont mean that the eagle was developed from the foxbat, also for the 4th generation soviet machines was studied a mig25-31 configuration, but it dont mean that the su27 was based in the mig25, not???:rolleyes: , in the proyects are studied different configurations and then selected the best
2) greate, so the mig 23 have the f111 wing, the jaguar landing gear and the f4 intakes!!! oooohhhhh… :rolleyes:
3) russians and americans were very documented about the others weapons, that is nothing new
4) all the proyects study other proyects, but its seems that are some puritans and fans that dont understand how works this industry
anyway, there are speculations and speculations, again with the same absurd miths
over Gohhh, well i know that it will be endless, the american fans will say that the mig 25 is an a5 copy, the russian fans that the f15 ia a foxbat copy, that the russians were “evil stupids copying everything from the west” etc,etc,etc
whatever you want sferin.
over Gfirst, what you are saying is that the mig 25 was based in the a5, that isnt true
i dont know if northamerican used the a5 info for the f108, both planes are very different
with your logic, the mirage 3 or the EF or any plane that looks more like the f108 than the mig25 were designed also as a M3 plane, but you dont see, that in design sometimes you need something that is more for speed, or is more for climb or turn or take off or low speed handling, etc…, not because both planes are M3 machines all design requierements are exact :rolleyes:
also thats the reason why the mirage 3 and the f104 are different, but both have the half cone intakes, because both teams reach to the same solution in that specific problem
but in other cases the solutions were more similar like the B1-tu160, canards-delta, shuttle, etc…
so please stop that ridicoulus “everybody want to copy us”
Sign In
