Thread: Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA

  1. #6421
    Senior Member Universals's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    peace to this young warrior without the sound of guns
    Posts
    8,154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhramos View Post
    why mate?
    is this just a Graphic pic!!!!!!!
    indeed, it's graphic. NSFW. the butt on that plane is hideous.

  2. #6422
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhramos View Post
    why mate?
    is this just a Graphic pic!!!!!!!
    The plane in the picture does not exist, it is a photoshop/concept art. The concept art is based on the Berkut Su-47 technology demonstrator, but has several differences (engine nacelles being the most obvious).

  3. #6423
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    OR,India
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bhramos View Post
    why mate?
    is this just a Graphic pic!!!!!!!
    that plane is practically not possible

  4. #6424
    Senior Member twinblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    In front of the telly, watching cricket.
    Posts
    4,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abhishek-nayak View Post
    that plane is practically not possible
    Umm... why ?

  5. #6425
    Senior Member tea drinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Getting ripped in mp.net's insanity thread!
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twinblade View Post
    Umm... why ?
    it's asymetric?

  6. #6426
    Senior Member twinblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    In front of the telly, watching cricket.
    Posts
    4,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tea drinker View Post
    it's asymetric?
    In what respect ?

  7. #6427
    Senior Member xav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    13,025

    Default

    Do we have an idea yet of how two seat PAKFA will look like? Has there been official concepts out yet ?

    edit: will it be side side like su34 or behind like normal jet ?

  8. #6428
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Anonymousville
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xav View Post
    Do we have an idea yet of how two seat PAKFA will look like? Has there been official concepts out yet ?

    edit: will it be side side like su34 or behind like normal jet ?
    I think behind like a normal jet, side by side doesn't seem like the "stealthier" option

  9. #6429
    Senior Member xav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    13,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atzo View Post
    I think behind like a normal jet, side by side doesn't seem like the "stealthier" option
    Well you have B2, but yeah, different concept

  10. #6430
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    OR,India
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twinblade View Post
    Umm... why ?
    just look at the configuration...if the plane has jet engine inside of it then those vanes at nozzle outlet would prevent from giving a sufficient thrust besides suffering from severe wear and tear.I don't think so this kind of plane can have jet engine inside of it...it's just too thin

  11. #6431
    Senior Member twinblade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    In front of the telly, watching cricket.
    Posts
    4,965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abhishek-nayak View Post
    just look at the configuration...if the plane has jet engine inside of it then those vanes at nozzle outlet would prevent from giving a sufficient thrust besides suffering from severe wear and tear.
    I doubt that those are "vanes". The inner two seem to be the actual nozzles, but its just an artists representation, not an actual fighter
    I don't think so this kind of plane can have jet engine inside of it...it's just too thin
    Look up the pictures of Berkut. It is more or less Berkut with stealthy nozzles and oddly shaped stabilizers.

  12. #6432
    Senior Member metberkut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,430

    Default

    Oh you people, you bring me lulz.

    Kthanx.

  13. #6433
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    OR,India
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,747

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twinblade View Post
    I doubt that those are "vanes". The inner two seem to be the actual nozzles, but its just an artists representation, not an actual fighter


    Look up the pictures of Berkut. It is more or less Berkut with stealthy nozzles and oddly shaped stabilizers.
    let me clarify the errors point wise:-

    1) the nozzles are rectangular in shape which would prevent the engine from giving a sufficient thrust to stay afloat in air.The nozzles should always be near conical in shape.

    2) the nozzles in the middle are a hindrance to generate a sufficient thrust.At no point does a stationary part of a jet engine comes in direct line of fire of a high velocity jet stream.Even the most high grade titanium cannot tolerate such a high beating.

  14. #6434
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abhishek-nayak View Post
    let me clarify the errors point wise:-

    1) the nozzles are rectangular in shape which would prevent the engine from giving a sufficient thrust to stay afloat in air.The nozzles should always be near conical in shape.

    2) the nozzles in the middle are a hindrance to generate a sufficient thrust.At no point does a stationary part of a jet engine comes in direct line of fire of a high velocity jet stream.Even the most high grade titanium cannot tolerate such a high beating.
    Thrust loss for flat engine nozzles vs cylindrical can be as low as 5% supposedly for modern designs, according to some statements from Saturn and Salyut I've read.

  15. #6435
    Senior Member DasVivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Computer
    Posts
    2,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by void View Post
    Thrust loss for flat engine nozzles vs cylindrical can be as low as 5% supposedly for modern designs, according to some statements from Saturn and Salyut I've read.
    I cannot quote directly on thrust, but in speaking about the topic with my father briefly (him as an expert on Jet Engines working over 30 Years in Defence and me as a complete imbecile on technical things) I think he said something about the loss in energy between flat engine nozzles and cylindrical could be between 0.5%-2% for some engines if he recalled correctly.. And of course with such things advantages and disadvantages are always intertradable

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •