SuperComrade Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Why aren't you writing for Jane's again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priory_of_Sion Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Pak-Fa has a 384 m/s climb rate Thats apparently a record Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 Why aren't you writing for Jane's again? I imagine he'd want to write for a source that isn't dogshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm_kruger Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Pak-Fa has a 384 m/s climb rate Thats apparently a record With the primary source looking to be Sputnik International quoting a Russian blog quoting "sources" on Facebook, and no actual time-to-altitude numbers... Somebody said something about a "a source that isn't dogshit"? (Most of the FIA time-to-altitude records for jet aircraft are currently held by two Belorussian MiG-29 pilots IIRC.) Priory_of_Sion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Somebody has a hard time with Google: http://www.defenseworld.net/news/15394/Russian_T_50_Fighter_Demonstrated_Climb_To_Mount_Everest_Altitude_In_23_Seconds#.VspeO59MHqA "Russia’s T-50 or PAK-FA fifth generation fighter aircraft achieved a climbing rate of 384 meters per second, a speed at which it could reach the altitude of Mount Everest (8848m) in 23 seconds. This feat was demonstrated during testing recently, according to Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Consensus view I've seen is that the 384 m/s climb rate is a low-altitude climb rate, not a sustainable rate. That's somewhat better than most existing designs if that's an initial climb rate, but it's something like twice as good as existing designs if it's a sustained rate, which is much harder to believe. Priory_of_Sion 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Consensus view I've seen is that the 384 m/s climb rate is a low-altitude climb rate, not a sustainable rate. That's somewhat better than most existing designs if that's an initial climb rate, but it's something like twice as good as existing designs if it's a sustained rate, which is much harder to believe. That's based on the time to 29,000 feet, so yeah, it's low altitude climb, but it's not exactly a sprint, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 I forgot that Mt. Everest is basically a tiny bump compared to the service ceiling of modern fighter jets. Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperComrade Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I like this camo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Sukhoy is working on 6th gen fighter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted March 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 MiG should take a crack at it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted March 11, 2016 Report Share Posted March 11, 2016 Key Publishing's usually interesting PAK-FA thread has devolved into a lot of stupid name-calling surrounding the issue of the PAK-FA's small-ish vertical stabilizers (and Paralay tragically misunderstanding how mach cones work). They are right about one thing; the F-22 has gigantic vertical stabilizers: And the PAK-FA does not.Most of the discussion has centered around whether the LEVCONs could add enough yaw authority to compensate for the teensy tailfins. I have an alternative hypothesis. Doesn't the "tunnel" created by the podded engine configuration add side area? And isn't most of this side area aft of the center of gravity? But we can check this hypothesis! The F-14 also had podded engines. How big were its vertical stabilizers in comparison to aircraft of similar size and role? Hmm, yes, they do seem a bit smaller. Especially when you account for the fact that the F-15's vertical stabilizers start on booms at about the vertical centerline of the fuselage on the sides:While the F-14's start from the tops of the engine pods: But then again, the flanker has podded engines and its vertical stabilizers are absolutely enormous: LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scolopax Posted April 8, 2016 Report Share Posted April 8, 2016 Belesarius and LoooSeR 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted April 10, 2016 Report Share Posted April 10, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted April 11, 2016 Report Share Posted April 11, 2016 From december of 2015, to this date PAK-FA is going through tests with extenrally mounted weapons (including big missiles like Kh-31) Scolopax and SuperComrade 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 For years now I've been reading that PAK-FA has some sort of variable geometry inlets. But for the life of me I cannot see any sort of variable geometry elements in the inlets. I see SU-27 style FOD protection grilles, but I don't see anything that looks like an adjustable ramp next to a bypass door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted April 12, 2016 Report Share Posted April 12, 2016 PAK-FA with iron bombs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted April 14, 2016 Report Share Posted April 14, 2016 ... I'm sure they have a good reason for doing that. I just can't imagine what it is. Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted April 15, 2016 Report Share Posted April 15, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 Static testing of T-50-7: Random scrap iron is piled onto airframe in this ancient Russian art of massage. And there are a bunch of hydraulic hoses and wires everywhere so they can science harder. LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted April 18, 2016 Report Share Posted April 18, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted April 19, 2016 Report Share Posted April 19, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted April 22, 2016 Report Share Posted April 22, 2016 PAK-FA is given a nice, relaxing facial mask at Sukhoi OKB day spa after a hard day of work. LoooSeR 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.