David Hingtgen Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Just a little point I like to make: Anyone can draw a plane that "looks" stealthy. And then paint it flat black. It's been done in every artist concept and video game for the past 20 years. But being off by like 0.1 degrees screws up everything in the real world, assuming you actually calculated out all the angles relative to the scan patterns and lobe shapes of the radars you expect to encounter and at what bearings. Making 3D curved stealth is even harder. I wouldn't be that surprised if the B-1B or something actually has a smaller radar signature than the J-20. "Looking stealthy and high-tech" is quite different than actually being stealthy. IIRC, the F-22 had a hard time in the final shape tweaking to get it to supercruise without compromising stealth, and that was with a combined NASA-Lockheed effort, the two groups with more stealth knowledge and history than probably the entire rest of the world combined. I doubt China could come close to matching its basic aerodynamic qualities on their first try.
Uxi Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Yeah, just on a WAG, I'd think that the Chinese plane would be the least stealthy of F-22 and PAK-FA and I wouldn't give the Ruskies a whole lot of credit in advance, either.
The_WOZ Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Why not? The stealth theory that made the F-117 possible came from a Russian paper after all...
David Hingtgen Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Theory and application are quite different. If Russia could actually have used that theory and applied it, they should be a generation (or two) ahead of the US when it comes to stealth design. Not several generations back.
F-ZeroOne Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Just a little point I like to make: Anyone can draw a plane that "looks" stealthy. And then paint it flat black. It's been done in every artist concept and video game for the past 20 years. But being off by like 0.1 degrees screws up everything in the real world, assuming you actually calculated out all the angles relative to the scan patterns and lobe shapes of the radars you expect to encounter and at what bearings. Making 3D curved stealth is even harder. I wouldn't be that surprised if the B-1B or something actually has a smaller radar signature than the J-20. "Looking stealthy and high-tech" is quite different than actually being stealthy. IIRC, the F-22 had a hard time in the final shape tweaking to get it to supercruise without compromising stealth, and that was with a combined NASA-Lockheed effort, the two groups with more stealth knowledge and history than probably the entire rest of the world combined. I doubt China could come close to matching its basic aerodynamic qualities on their first try. The more pictures I see of the J-20 - well, its always difficult to judge on incomplete information, and it would not be the first time the West has been "surprised" - but the more it looks to me like a relatively conventional airframe design given a bit of a stealth makeover (also bearing in mind that prototypes can sometimes be a bit removed from actual, finished articles). Thats purely on visual impressions, though, if hordes of these things suddenly materialise over the Channel and destroy all the worlds supply of Devon scones I'm fully prepared to eat my hat. With butter, jam, and cream on of course. Edited January 27, 2011 by F-ZeroOne
Bowen Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 It still reminds me of a 'stealthified' (yes, that's a word, shut up) MiG 1.44, just like when I first saw it
electric indigo Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 It looks stealthy, it is black, and it has canards. That should be enough to boost the pilot's morale. And of course I will buy a kit of it.
eugimon Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqbFhTxbQvc Edited January 31, 2011 by eugimon
Graham Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Heh, this is also getting some news coverage over here. Seems Chinese netizens are really ripping into state owned CCTV for this. Graham
Ghost Train Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 This is a lie perpetuated by the biased western media.... obviously Top Gun plagiarized the J-10 fighter footage !
anime52k8 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) This is a lie perpetuated by the biased western media.... obviously Top Gun plagiarized the J-10 fighter footage ! Yep, Tom Cruise used his Scientology voodoo magic to travel 25 years into the future to steal the footage in question from the Chinese. Edited January 31, 2011 by anime52k8
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) I was watching a CCTV military channel and the guy on it was claiming that the lack of the afterburner flame on the test flight take-off was proof that they had managed to mask the IR using conventional looking nozzles..... Edited January 31, 2011 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
miles316 Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I was watching a CCTV military channel and the guy on it was claiming that the lack of the afterburner flame on the test flight take-off was proof that they had managed to mask the IR using conventional looking nozzles..... I was listening to NPR today and CCTV has removed the footage from their web sight.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 IIRC, the F-22 had a hard time in the final shape tweaking to get it to supercruise without compromising stealth, and that was with a combined NASA-Lockheed effort, the two groups with more stealth knowledge and history than probably the entire rest of the world combined. I doubt China could come close to matching its basic aerodynamic qualities on their first try. Come to think of it. It is not even known if either of the prototype J-20s can even supercruise.
David Hingtgen Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 NOBODY commented about the new Super Duper Hornet? http://www.youtube.c...d&v=lE3h8yImm4U Interesting note--the CFT's combined tankage is very close but slightly less than 1 standard Shornet drop tank. But, being zero net drag, would probably actually improve range more than a drop tank would. The Demon is famous for its drop tanks having so much drag that using them could DECREASE range. I am curious if it affects high-alpha performance, covering part of the LEX like that. But, the edges are clear, and that's the critical part.
hobbes221 Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I seen bits of the upgrade but this is sweet seeing it on the ramp. Wish the USN birds get some if not all of those options - lovin' the new engines, never too much power. Thanks for posting that man! As to the high alpha, the tanks look as if they are tucked in close to the centerline so I'm with you - don't think it will be problem, need to find some more pics/info. And if I remember right I heard (a long time ago, things may have changed) that only about half of the fuel in a drop is good for more range, the rest is need just to overcome the drag and weight of the tank itself. So if thats the case then wouldn't the CFTs be almost like have two tanks and free up two pylons at the same time?
David Hingtgen Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 On a Super Hornet---I'd vote yes for a wing-mounted tank due to being on sideways. Maybe not so much a belly tank. I know the general rule is that 10% of any added fuel is burned just to carry the increased weight and thus "doesn't count" for range. But that's irrespective of drag.
hobbes221 Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 ...due to being on sideways Best description of a Rhino's wing pylons ever!
F-ZeroOne Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 Hmm, can you really call an externally mounted weapons pod "internal"...?
reddsun1 Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! If you're gonna tell a lie, you could at least tell a good one! Somebody at their propaganda bureau needs to be sacked! And give their guy in the editing room his walking papers, too!
reddsun1 Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Apparently from a promo film for Swiss training exercise? The Mig 29 appears to be capable of higher roll rate & perhaps better turn radius?2:08 - very ballsy move by the Swiss pilot, inverting down into the canyon. *hook! hook! hook*
electric indigo Posted February 12, 2011 Posted February 12, 2011 Apparently the swiss air force is suspecting the German Luftwaffe to invade their airspace.
David Hingtgen Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Gray and orange are kind of odd for house colors, but here's the first pax 747-800: (I refuse to call it 747-
knoted Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) snip[/img] snip[/img] snip[/img] Yuck ! J20 Looks waaay to elongated for a stealth plane. For 'aesthetics' I'll stick to F117, F22 and F35. Edited February 14, 2011 by knoted
F-ZeroOne Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Gray and orange are kind of odd for house colors, but here's the first pax 747-800: (I refuse to call it 747- The stripes on the white parts almost make it look like a throwback to the days of corrugated skinning...!
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Hmm, they got rid of the winglets?
reddsun1 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The stripes on the white parts almost make it look like a throwback to the days of corrugated skinning...! Hmm, Iron Annie Mk II?
David Hingtgen Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Yup. Boeing likes raked wingtips-----the 764, 772LR, 773ER, 787, and 748 all have them instead of winglets. Boeing hasn't designed a plane with winglets since 1989. (though newer 737s almost all have them now, they are not part of the original 737NG design). Generally--they'll retrofit a winglet, but if starting from scratch they want to rake the tip. I figure it also can't be added later, or they'd have used the 764's tips to retrofit 762's and 763's.
the white drew carey Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 The House of Reps has voted to cut $450m from the F-35 program. Thoughts?
Vifam7 Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 The House of Reps has voted to cut $450m from the F-35 program. Thoughts? What they did was vote to cancel the alternative engine (the GE/RollsRoyce F136).
David Hingtgen Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 If they'd have picked the YF-23 back when, the F136 would already be in-service...
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 If they'd have picked the YF-23 back when, the F136 would already be in-service... Haha, anyone ever checked what was the max number of pages we went on an Aircraft Super thread without complaining about the YF-23 losing the contract? Just like the I-185, MB5, TSR2, XB-70 etc, we enthusiasts need some 'forgotten' aircraft to bitch about now and then.
renegadeleader1 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Haha, anyone ever checked what was the max number of pages we went on an Aircraft Super thread without complaining about the YF-23 losing the contract? Just like the I-185, MB5, TSR2, XB-70 etc, we enthusiasts need some 'forgotten' aircraft to bitch about now and then. Speaking of forgotten aircraft exatly how good was the F-20 Tigershark? How well did it compare to its contemporaries, and how would it have fared in combat against say a mig-21 or 23?
electric indigo Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Just found the designer's page of the main title from "Chevaliers du ciel - nice clip Laurent Brett - Chevaliers du ciel title
Recommended Posts