You are being immature. For two reasons: One, trying to somehow “prove” that an exposed first stage would not impact RCS, and using non-examples like the YF-23 to support this flawed hypothesis. The bottom line is that a clear view of the compressor would be a negative for both RCS and NCTR (and therefore supremely unlikely that the Sukhoi has not mitigated this through both a mild curve in the duct and a “blocker” similar to the planned F-32 variable guide vanes).

Two, long after pretty much everyone has come to the conclusion that Sukhoi is not relying on hiding the face of the engine alone, you are attempting to show what isn’t there (or rather what is there clear as day in photos). The obsession with the YF-23 is exhibit A in the intellectual dishonesty you are displaying.

Let people have the thread back without being subjected to twisted theories such as: “No, the Pak-fa engines would not be visible due to my amateurish drawing circles on a diagram”, or even better “Even if it shows, no big deal, look at the X-32 and YF-23”

To summarize, an exposed engine would have a significant impact on RCS so drop that part of the argument. The Pak-fa will not be relying on a curved duct to hide the engine face alone, so drop that part of the argument. Lastly, Sukhoi isn’t stupid, trust they have done range testing on their solutions and found it acceptable from an RCS standpoint. Hence there is no argument except in your mind.

Minus the personal stuff, I agree with the gist of the post.

The arguments I am making are for the stealth absolutists. And some of you on here have moderated the language a bit regarding the intake.

I dont understand what you are trying to say. I said the engine in line with the blue circle because it points down. Both blueprint and photos support my point.That why it showing . Who said it is in line with your red circle?

The famous illusory pic makes it look like its the green circle. And the engine is canted inward also. Again, contrary to the famous pic.

You said

How about we playing the game of being rational and mature?

I am the one being immature ? When we all know that Sukhoi was mandated and set out to design a 5th gen stealth aircraft. And I am just trying to prove what we all already know. And people are just using cheap tactics and filibusters to try and prove something that is not true.

why did the competing Mig 1.44 have S ducts ?

Nonsense, this is the PAK-FA engine face even with LEVCONs in pointed down position, and you claimed that YF-23 showed more engine face ??????

Look at the blueprint again. Production version has significantly more pronoun DSI bump

Engine pointing at slightly different direction doesnot change the fact that a significant frontal area of them is exposed, so no , why black lines aren’t wrong. Why else would you think engineers made S duct or intake blocker if slightly canted the engine is enough ?

Yes your black lines are totally wrong. So I will revise them.

Look at the PAK-FA print you posted

Notice the 2 circles i put in ?

On your downward pic, you are not accounting for the engine being canted inward. Which it is. So your black line is just wrong and not where the engine is actually pointing.

The blue print shows that F-23 engine face is hidden from front with significantly more pronoun curve than on PAK-FA.

This is simply untrue. More of the engine face can be seen in the actual F 23 prototype than the Pak Fa. And the differential in the production blueprint is not great enough for you to conclusively make that claim.

Now nobody get excited that I am posting this again. I know its not the production jet (red herring imo but anyway..) But. You have to prove that the production blueprint makes a big enough measurement change that it hides more fan than the Pak Fa.

The only one having this arguement is you:
1. The unbuilt F-23 EMD did not have a direct line of sight to the engine-draw all the lines you want, still does not change the fact the duct bent upward and inward.
2. The X-32 does not prove your theory, it disproves it. The inlet of the X-32 was a result of needing a massive amount of airflow at low speed for the direct lift system. The guide vanes that composed of the radar blocker choked off airflow at subsonic speeds to lower RCS. At supersonic speeds, the flow would be unrestricted, but fan blades would be exposed to a degree (this is according to what Boeing proposed for the unbuilt production version).

None of this says the Pak-fa isn’t stealthy because there is no clear determination of exactly how exposed the face is, or what Sukhoi has planned. So please, drop the whole freaking nonsensical arguement.

1. The unbuilt F-23 EMD did not have a direct line of sight to the engine-draw all the lines you want, .

As the F 23 EMD blueprints clearly show, the engine placement was not nestled higher than your ilk thought. Nor was the production blueprint different in this regard. Nor did anyone ever deny that it wasn’t off center upward and sideways (like the Pak Fa’s is)

BTW I never said there was a direct view of the engine on the YF 23. There isn’t on the Pak Fa either.
Show me the measurements between the 2 blueprints that are different enough that it would prove to change the view through the intake.

There isn’t nothing wrong with using radar blocker expect performances penalities.

There are aerodynamic/performance penalties for diverting air too.