Well you have B2, but yeah, different conceptOriginally Posted by Atzo
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
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.I don't think so this kind of plane can have jet engine inside of it...it's just too thin
Oh you people, you bring me lulz.
Kthanx.
let me clarify the errors point wise:-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.
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.
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
if that was the case why don't we see any flat nozzles in the world????
dude in a engine having a conical nozzle the efficiency can reach a disproportional high of 90% even if the compressor and turbine efficiency are only 60-70% which no other design can give.
Because a flat nozzle only makes sense in a stealth optimised design? Otherwise there is no point since even if the potential thrust loss is small (say 5%), thats still a net loss. The B-2 bomber, F-117, and the F-22 have flat nozzles.
You were saying ?
You were saying ?
i am deeply sorry for the typing error.I wanted to say "if that was the case why don't we see many (not any)flat nozzles in the world????"
i know that flat nozzles are used for scattering radar waves which is a very critical stealth feature.
the bottomline is:-
1) flat nozzle = stealth but lower performance eg F117
2) conventional nozzle = higher performance but susceptible to radar detection eg chengdu j20
the only exception to the above is the F22
Because low observable considerations weren't a priority in design until less than two decades ago.
Because that's the difference between a nation with tremendous research and funding in stealth technology and the wannabes who put some fancy plates on.
Because that's the difference between a nation with tremendous research and funding in stealth technology and the wannabes who put some fancy plates on.
hehehe.... but dude spending on R&D for a stealth plane is just one part....building,operating and maintaining a 5th gen fighter can make the richest of rich go bankrupt.
thats why both F22 and F35 programs are facing crisis.
How many nations can afford a plane that cost more than 100 million $ a piece?? in case of F22 thats 350 million $ per unit.
The PA- 50 is going to make an impact. There is technology on both sides of the Atlantic and what the media usually portray as superior to the rest can change in a eye-wink.Technology change as R&D will make profound changes. Watch this space in the near future!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
