SundogThose pictures aren’t of the first flight if they’re from that video. That video is obviously of when they just lifted the nosewheel off the ground in preparation for first flight.
As for the inlets, yeah, they are like the F-22s, they’re three dimensional shock fixed inlets. In fact, the first aircraft I actually recall seeing fly with them would be the McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, X-36.
Also, I doubt the exhausts will change as they’re probably 3D TV nozzles.
SundogIt definitely looks like the image that was at the Saturn web site months ago. The Flaptor has flown, and it looks cool. I always thought that Saturn image was cool looking and it didn’t let me down. I just hope model companies don’t rush to make a model of it until they have good data. I don’t need a replay of the early F-117 and MiG-29 kits (The early Hasegawa kit had a fuselage that was way too short).
I should add, as a fan of the F-22, I think this looks cooler. I always preferred the YF-23 and had hoped the production F-22 would have smaller verticals, but without 3D TV, they probably couldn’t.
SundogInfact, I’d be shocked if it didn’t 🙂 The point is that almost nothing has made its way into the public domain, from whatever source.
I realize that. At least the USAF had the courtesy to release very bad paintings of the ATF prototypes a while before they rolled out. 😉
Of course, I still think that the “Flaptor” artwork shown at the Saturn homepage may prove accurate, in which case, so did the Russians. 😀
SundogThe U.S. has it’s spies, just as Russia does. I wouldn’t be shocked if the U.S. has known the T-50’s configuration for quite a while now.
SundogYes, there are reportedly three airframes, although one is a static test article.
SundogEven if Gripen could supercruise with reasonable A-A load, what exactly is the advantage? Mach 1.0 is only a psychological value, whether your aircraft flies M1.08 or M0.93 is not decisive for the outcome of a fight.
Actually, those values can be very decisive in a fight, as the aircraft with the higher airspeed has a higher energy state, which gives it maneuvering advantages, all other things being equal. Also, if it is a missile fight, the aircraft with higher energy launches it’s missiles with higher energy, so it generally means greater range for it’s missiles.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. 🙂
SundogWhat you’ve posted is completely whack, as the drag formula you’ve used pertains mainly to subsonic aircraft. You need to calculate wave drag. Plus, you need installed thrust figures at altitude, which you aren’t likely to find. I’m still laughing at the Su-27 supercruise speed you came up with, as it just isn’t going to happen.
Nice try, but there aren’t any “simple” formula’s to calculate this performance data. The only way you could take an accurate guess would be to have access to actual supercruise performance data for many existing aircraft to extrapolate for another. However, most air forces and aircraft manufacturers aren’t going to give that data up. 😉
SundogThe funny thing is that if Sukhoi selects the su-27 development, it will be bashed hard by fanboys, but actually, such design will most likely get better LO characteristics than the F-22….
I don’t know what you’re smoking, but I hope you share, because it’s obviously powerful.
The simple fact is, all we know about the PAK-FA’s planform is that it is a twin engine design, smaller than the Flanker and larger than the Fulcrum. Of course, that’s assuming that what they’ve released in and of itself isn’t disinformation.
Also, a layout similar to the Flanker would have a higher signature than the Raptor. I realize it’s self evident, but sometimes it needs to be said.
I also have to laugh at how secret they’re keeping it’s configuration. The only thing they’re avoiding is embarrassment. Afterall,
1) Most of the worlds powerful nations most likely already know the configuration based on espionage.
2) It isn’t going to be anything so spectacular no one has seen it before or not know how to construct it.
3) It will be in development so long that anything kept secret until the rollout will be known long before it enters service.
I can only conclude that the only reason it hasn’t been shown is because it simply isn’t completed. They’ve missed most of the previous dates set for it, I don’t know why anyone expects them to make this one (end of year). However, they will eventually have the schedule right; it will be on schedule the day it rolls out, just like most aviation programs the world over.
SundogThe reason the F-18 has a trapezoidal wing planform is to minimize transonic wave drag. It’s a simple matter of area ruling for a specific design mach number. Now, many here are probably already aware that the YF-17 design was optimized to minimize wave drag at the maximum sustained turn rate at M=1.2 . I have no idea if they maintained that design point with the F-18, but that gives some insight into it’s aerodynamic configuration.
Top speed is largely irrelevant, at least as released by manufacturers, since it’s in a clean configuration and not in a combat configuration with armament, and even then it depends on what the weapons load out is, but the F-18’s wing is obviously fine for it’s design specs. Most modern jet combat happens around Mach unity anyway.
The Hornets and Super-Hornets only serious draw back has been the same that usually affects Navy planes; they’re underpowered. However, with the uprated engines, that could be largely rectified.
SundogBit of a stupid question I know, by why does it still have a ‘cockpit’ type blister (is it for sat coms?)? surely there are more aerodynamic, and CofG positions to place this lump?
It most likely is the satcom antenna and it’s probably placed there so it can traverse/follow the satellite without interference from the rest of the aircraft, like the engines and the tail. The farthest it is going to be away from those is in the nose. It also may make sense to put it it there from a weight standpoint, but I don’t know how much they weigh. You also have to take into account maintenance issues/accessibility. There are many good reasons to put it up in the nose.
SundogActually all there eurocanard have much higher AoA limits than F-22 without TVC Rafale does 100*/40 kt negative speed, Gripen easly reaches 90* AoA, Typhoon and XF-31 70* AoA, what is F-22 woth without TVC? 19* AoA?
I’ve yet to see any evidence of a Rafale flying beyond 30 degrees AOA operationally. If you have evidence, please provide it.
I understand you don’t know much about aero engineering based on what you’ve posted. You’re very enthusiastic though. I suggest you go to school and get a degree in aero engineering, it will greatly enlighten you.
SundogActually it’s the other way around. You can’t deep stall canards, but you can deep stall elevators. Hence TVC in F22.
Actually what it comes down to, for an unstable aircraft, is the ability to push the nose down from high very high AOA. The F-35 doesn’t have TVC and can do this. Canards simply don’t have the trim power to push the nose down from very high AOA. There isn’t any reason the canard itself would be stalled just as with a horizontal tail when the wing is stalled. It just simply doesn’t have the leverage to push the nose back down.
SundogWhy would the the USN have limiters on its aircraft to 9g?
To increase air frame life.
Sundogunstable/canard means less load at the same g..(alot bigger momentarm between the weight and the controlsurface) and rafale got a smaller wingloading(more wing less bulky) in a light configuration. So it does not need to be “overdesigned”!
The F-35 is unstable as well, so are you taking into account the lift provided by the tail when making your calculations as well? A canard does tend to lower over all size, therefore weight, hence cost, but also tends to have AOA limitations that conventionally tailed configurations don’t suffer from, if they’re designed correctly. It’s one of the main reasons the F-22 has a conventional tail and not a canard.
In fact, I would love to see a comparison between the F-35Cs bring back weight and the Rafale M’s bring back weight. They aren’t designed for the same mission, but I ask it out of curiosity. I doubt the true numbers are available, atm.
If the Rafale was designed for 11g, compared to 9g for a similar aircraft, it’s over designed. It requires more structure to withstand 11gs than it does 9gs, hence, more weight. Besides, a pilot isn’t going to sustain 11g’s for any appreciable period of maneuver.
However, I must say, comparing the F-35 to the Rafale is quite literally a study in stupidity.
A) Because the mission defines the aircraft, not the other way around. I’ve yet to see anyone here post the actual mission design specifics for each aircraft and considering they’re most likely classified, I’m not expecting to see them.
B) The F-35 wouldn’t fight the Rafale, since the F-22s and EF-2000’s would have most likely already cleared the skies of any hostile aircraft; although, outside of maybe Kuwait being hostile, I don’t know any hostile nations that fly Rafales, so once again, it will remain largely academic nonsense. Other than, once again, my countries penis is bigger than your countries penis.
C) Based on what so many people “know” around here, we should start a thread on which is better, the F-22s replacement or the PAK-FAs replacement (Assuming the PAK-FA makes it into production within the next twenty years). I’m sure it would be filled with as much knowledge.
I could see it now, “Well, yes that is the turn rate formula, but you’re assuming that we’ll still have air in 2050 and….”
SundogThe most important performance number for the F-35’s mission is it’s fuel fraction. Name another fighter that compares?
The Rafale is a great airplane, but it’s actually too small for the mission. Which is why it hasn’t sold well.
As for the whole F-35 vs Rafale, well, the F-35 will either shoot it down at BVR range or simply fly around it without engaging.
As for the 11g claim as the design load capacity of the Rafale, if true, that just tells me that the Rafale is overdesigned and hence, heavier than it needs to be for the mission. Which would be an even larger detriment considering it’s size.
Sign In
