Page 434 of 480 FirstFirst ... 334384424426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442444 ... LastLast
Results 6,496 to 6,510 of 7196

Thread: Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA

  1. #6496
    Senior Member EdisonTrent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikoyan.1991 View Post
    Go and sleep kid.your avatar is telling me i am arguing with a kid.
    Bahahahaha! Sorry....bahhahaha! Also have a nice time on the forums while you still can

  2. #6497
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Do you have any evidence of this? Any at all? No? Then STFU about it already.
    As an example the F-35 has a worse thrust/weight ratio then the F-22, F-16, F-15, Mig-29, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. While far from being an exhaustive examination of maneuverability it's certainly indicative that it's at best en-par with 4th generation aircraft.

  3. #6498
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amur_Tiger View Post
    As an example the F-35 has a worse thrust/weight ratio then the F-22, F-16, F-15, Mig-29, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. While far from being an exhaustive examination of maneuverability it's certainly indicative that it's at best en-par with 4th generation aircraft.
    What load out and engine thrust are you using to determine T:W? According to test pilots its maneuverability is equal to or greater than the F-16 and F/A-18, neither one of which is exactly a slouch.

  4. #6499
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    What load out and engine thrust are you using to determine T:W? According to test pilots its maneuverability is equal to or greater than the F-16 and F/A-18, neither one of which is exactly a slouch.
    Full load out with full fuel. Naturally if you have neither of these you're going to get a lighter more maneuverable craft. Link Link With 50% fuel things get better of course but I don't really see this as indicative since that's something all aircraft can do. What the test pilots may have been referring to is turn rate which is harder to track down as a figure otherwise I'd have been happy to compare that.

  5. #6500
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amur_Tiger View Post
    Full load out with full fuel. Naturally if you have neither of these you're going to get a lighter more maneuverable craft. Link Link With 50% fuel things get better of course but I don't really see this as indicative since that's something all aircraft can do. What the test pilots may have been referring to is turn rate which is harder to track down as a figure otherwise I'd have been happy to compare that.
    P&W themselves have said the engine has run at over 50,000lbs thrust. Also, are you including the additional drag that weapons, tanks, etc. add to conventional fighters, as well as the load limitations of those items?

  6. #6501
    Senior Member artjomh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    According to test pilots its maneuverability is equal to or greater than the F-16 and F/A-18, neither one of which is exactly a slouch.
    In general, higher wing loading ~=> lower maneuverability (all other things being equal).

    PAKFA = 329,95 kg/m^2
    F-15 = 357,52 kg/m^2
    F-22 = 375,45 kg/m^2
    Su-27 = 377,90 kg/m^2
    Mig-29 = 402,63 kg/m^2
    F-16 = 430,57 kg/m^2
    F/A-18 = 438,68 kg/m^2
    F-14 = 509,54 kg/m^2
    F-35 = 526,23 kg/m^2

    PS: Please no flaming about lift-to-drag, etc. I am generalizing. But it's a pretty valid generalization to make with regard to F-35's maneuverability relative to other aircraft.

  7. #6502
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    P&W themselves have said the engine has run at over 50,000lbs thrust. Also, are you including the additional drag that weapons, tanks, etc. add to conventional fighters, as well as the load limitations of those items?
    If you can provide the technical information I'd be happy to compare until then I go by what we see which is that the F-35 doesn't have great T/W compared to 4th gen fighters at best being equal and in many cases being a fair bit less. With regards to the engine running over 50k pounds of thrust while I certainly believe that they may have done so many engines are capable of exceeding their ratings but will suffer from maintenance and attrition issues as a result, they may have made improvements in that as well but I suspect that they'd uprate the engine if such improvements were found. I'm content to admit that there's plenty of uncertainty around the F-35's full capabilities but what we have seen isn't particularly promising.

  8. #6503
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artjomh View Post
    In general, higher wing loading ~=> lower maneuverability (all other things being equal).

    PAKFA = 329,95 kg/m^2
    F-15 = 357,52 kg/m^2
    F-22 = 375,45 kg/m^2
    Su-27 = 377,90 kg/m^2
    Mig-29 = 402,63 kg/m^2
    F-16 = 430,57 kg/m^2
    F/A-18 = 438,68 kg/m^2
    F-14 = 509,54 kg/m^2
    F-35 = 526,23 kg/m^2

    PS: Please no flaming about lift-to-drag, etc. I am generalizing. But it's a pretty valid generalization to make with regard to F-35's maneuverability relative to other aircraft.
    Except not all else is equal. It's fairly well known that the F-35 and F-22 were designed to use the fuselage for lift as well as the wing. Sure, all aircraft do to one degree or another, but most weren't specifically designed with that in mind. For example going by your list both the F-22 and Su-27 should be out turned by the F-15 but we both know that is not the case. And TVC only speeds up nose-pointing, you still rely on lift to actually change the flight vector. Another example would be the F-16. It easily out turns the F-15.
    Last edited by C.Puffs; 03-13-2012 at 09:04 PM.

  9. #6504
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amur_Tiger View Post
    but what we have seen isn't particularly promising.
    Fortunately we rely on professionals to make that determination. They disagree with your assessment.

  10. #6505
    Senior Member artjomh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,945

    Default

    Yes, lifting bodies will have lower loading. Maneuverability will also be affected by drag (external weapons) and TVC. I know all that.

    But that still doesn't make a turtle into a hare.

  11. #6506
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artjomh View Post
    Yes, lifting bodies will have lower loading. Maneuverability will also be affected by drag (external weapons) and TVC. I know all that.

    But that still doesn't make a turtle into a hare.
    And calling a thing a turtle doesn't make it one. Sorry.

  12. #6507
    Senior Member artjomh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,945

    Default

    I'm not turning the PAK-FA thread into a F-16.net subsidiary.

    You asked for numbers, they were provided (with caveats, yes). The rest of the quibbles are with interpretation that is, frankly, off-topic.

  13. #6508
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    25,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by artjomh View Post
    I'm not turning the PAK-FA thread into a F-16.net subsidiary.

    You asked for numbers, they were provided (with caveats, yes). The rest of the quibbles are with interpretation that is, frankly, off-topic.
    Not to mention unprovable one way or another.

  14. #6509
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    Fortunately we rely on professionals to make that determination. They disagree with your assessment.
    link?

    I don't discount 'professionals' being able to make a better assessment then myself but I do question whether who they're working for affects what the public hears about it. If an F-35 test pilot found the F-35 to be a turtle I'm not certain that this would reach the public, which is why I like more scientific measurements particularly since there won't be many pilots out there that can compare a TVC Flanker, F-22, F-35 and Eurofighter all in one go.

  15. #6510
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    728

    Default

    with todays weapons is any of this stuff even relevant? Does anyone really expect an F-35 or T-50 to be dog fighting? One of them is going down long before they close enough for that

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
  •