Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Bash the Pak-Fa thread


Tied
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

kZZm2tR.jpg

 

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?

 

nq7qbvC.jpg

 

 

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?

ZjD7EBf.jpg

 

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:

F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.J

While the F-14's start from the tops of the engine pods:

1280px-US_Navy_051105-F-5480T-015_An_F-1

 

But then again, the flanker has podded engines and its vertical stabilizers are absolutely enormous:

tUXFsFC.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...