Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sukhoi PAK FA News

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fox is absolutely terrible.

    CNN used to be vastly superior, but they got slammed in the ratings by Fox's entertainment programming (I cannot call Megan Kelly's or Sean Hannity's work "news") so they basically copied the format. MSNBC has been irrelevant and worthless since day 1. Basically, aside from PBS, American news outlets are nothing but shouting heads for 3.5 minutes at a time, with no effort on the part of the journalist to demand sources or evidence. I didn't save the link, but there was a "debate" on gun control a few days ago where one guy's source was...HIMSELF. In an article he wrote for HIS OWN ORGANIZATION. This is news, apparently.

    I haven't watched the new Al-Jazeera America network yet, but when I was deployed I loved their (piped in from Europe) network. It was the most even-handed presentation of actual meaningful events I've ever seen (my previous favorite was the BBC). They even praised Israel when appropriate.

    Comment


    • Jimmy, please don not confuse their news programing with their commentary work.
      Fox News, has covered if not broken news ignored by the mainstream press, such as:
      1) When Eric Holder wanted to try the 9/11 terrorists in a court room in downtown NYC.
      2) When Obama wanted to relocate the terrorists from Gitmo to a prison in Illinois.
      3) Reported on Fast and Furious, the running of un-trackable, serviceable AK-47's to Mexican drug cartels to undermine the lawful gun trade in the US.
      4) Reported on the whitewash of the Benghazi terrorist attack as overzealous protest because of an amateur film. The film maker is still incarcerated.
      5) The incarceration of the doctor that aided the US, in locating Osama Bin Laden, and the fact the US has applied little pressure to secure his release.
      6) The IRS scandal that is not truly being investigated, as the FBI Director could not name one investigator on that case.

      These story has been thoroughly reported and or, investigated by Fox News. The mainstream American media has given more press time to "Bridgegate" (that involved the closure of toll booths), than all of the above listed news stories combined.
      Last edited by surfgun; 25 Jan 14,, 21:15.

      Comment


      • There's a very, very thin line between their news and commentary. Fox didn't break those stories, with maybe one or two exceptions, and much of their reporting on those stories is hilariously biased. If Fox provides enough information for you to be satisfied, enjoy. I like my news a little less interpreted and filtered ahead of time.

        Edit: And again, CNN does the same crap now. Headline News used to be great...now it's all cruise ships with overflowing toilets, waterskiing squirrels, and TMZ copy.

        Comment


        • Just want to second what GGTharos said. For once I get to share my area of knowledge (structural engineering). Steel can absolutely fatigue, and this can be problematic especially in regards to bridge design. You can have fatigue resistant designs, but if you get repeated vibrations on steel you still get fatigue.

          Comment


          • I hope this not a redundant post, forgive me if it is. This clip is over an hour long which mostly talks about development of the PAK FA. It is in Russian but you can activate the English caption, unfortunately translates word by word instead sentence by sentence which causes some truly funny translation coming out of it.

            There are some interesting description and statements regarding T-50’s development, its performance, capabilities and flight envelope which by looking at the physical shape and obvious appearance details of the jet they don’t add up.

            For example at 17:38 and few second after the camera records clip of the underbelly of the T-50 in lead with a SU-34 and a SU-35 (?) trailing on the either side. Looking at those fuselages and disregarding the distinctive nose cone droop of the SUs and the shape of the engine nacelles intakes, not only those fuselages look similar but they look identical, even the shape of the horizontal stabs look the same. I’m sure there are modern and more composite material is used on T-50 but it is hard to accept that T-50 has equal or even exceeds the RCS and other stealth properties of the F-22.
            In other section of the clip the narrator is trying to explain and show the advantages of internal carriage of the weapon system but they show the belly of an F-22 with its internal weapon compartment doors opening and closing.

            Please don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to look down on T-50, I believe it is a marvel of engineering and a beautiful aircraft like numerous other military and civil aircrafts coming out of Russian aviation industry but still it is hard to assume its capabilities is on par with Raptor. May be final production jet will be and look different than these 2 prototype test beds.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
              While newer materials may become available, there's nothing magical in there. I don't think you can say that an F-22 airframe is all that superior to an F-15E airframe. It has different features and may behave differently in various parts of the envelope, but it still has two wings, two engines, and is rated for 9g. Same with Su-27's and PAK-FA's.

              I'll also add that the F-15A came out in the 70's, the Su-27S in 1986 and it still wasn't aerodynamically superior to the its contemporary eagle-A in any way (the A received OWS which allowed them to go to 9g instead of 7.3. IIRC). And before you start mentioning LERX' and turn rates, the F-15 designers knew all about that since such devices had been employed in other aircraft. It was a design choice, and as a result the F-15 ended up with superior acceleration and top speed.
              F-15's max speed with F100-PW-100 is not better than the Su-27's under standard day conditions. It's around equal (Mach 2.3) when engine trim is 102.2%, and the Eagle can only attain Mach 2.5 when it's 10 degrees colder than standard day conditions. Now, I don't know if this applies to the -220 engines.

              Attached Files

              Comment


              • I seriously doubt that a Su-27 was ever in danger of fighting an eagle with -100's. And yes, -220's have much better performance.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
                  I seriously doubt that a Su-27 was ever in danger of fighting an eagle with -100's. And yes, -220's have much better performance.
                  Okay, the -220s are rated at 23,770 lbs of thrust compared to -100's 23,930 lbs. As I recall, the biggest benefit of the -220s is vastly improved reliability and resistance to stalls and faster response to throttle input, which I think it worth the minuscule drop in thrust. Now, I don't know how the two engines compare in high altitude and high mach conditions, but if there's not much difference, I don't see how a -220 Eagle would be faster than one with a -100.

                  As a side note, is it possible for the F-15C to accommodate the -229s? As I recall, the F-15E's intakes are slightly different from the F-15A-D. In any case, with -229s the acceleration and T/W of an F-15C would be pretty obscene.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Radical View Post
                    Okay, the -220s are rated at 23,770 lbs of thrust compared to -100's 23,930 lbs. As I recall, the biggest benefit of the -220s is vastly improved reliability and resistance to stalls and faster response to throttle input, which I think it worth the minuscule drop in thrust. Now, I don't know how the two engines compare in high altitude and high mach conditions, but if there's not much difference, I don't see how a -220 Eagle would be faster than one with a -100.

                    As a side note, is it possible for the F-15C to accommodate the -229s? As I recall, the F-15E's intakes are slightly different from the F-15A-D. In any case, with -229s the acceleration and T/W of an F-15C would be pretty obscene.
                    Yes, the -229's are MUCH better than the -220, even the -220E; a 6,000 lbs. increase in AB thrust is nothing to sneeze at. I would LOVE to see the Golden Eagles get the -229 but, with the recent budget cuts, that's highly unliklely at this point (I'm sure the USAF would look at that as a threat to the F-35 program).
                    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Radical View Post
                      Okay, the -220s are rated at 23,770 lbs of thrust compared to -100's 23,930 lbs. As I recall, the biggest benefit of the -220s is vastly improved reliability and resistance to stalls and faster response to throttle input, which I think it worth the minuscule drop in thrust. Now, I don't know how the two engines compare in high altitude and high mach conditions, but if there's not much difference, I don't see how a -220 Eagle would be faster than one with a -100.
                      At supersonic speeds the -220 operates like a -100 with VMAX on or better. And I don't know why you'd even mention thrust ratings - at such low difference, it's completely meaningless and changes according to the engine's programmed schedule (btw -220 are rated up to 25000lbs static IIRC) which the crew chief can change as desired, airspeed, and other factors. The -220 can withstand higher temperatures for routine operation, which the -100 could not do.

                      As a side note, is it possible for the F-15C to accommodate the -229s? As I recall, the F-15E's intakes are slightly different from the F-15A-D. In any case, with -229s the acceleration and T/W of an F-15C would be pretty obscene.
                      The USAF does not seem to care to stick -229's in them ... the reason is that the -220's work very, very well and an uprating is simply not needed.

                      FYI, the graph you posted is not 'end of story'. Read the note on the graph. You can bet that F-15 will reach M2.5 in standard weather, though you'll be replacing those -100's. And FYI, NASA has flown their F-15B to M2.69.

                      Comment


                      • T-50 catches fire near Moscow shortly after landing, pilot is reported to be uninjured.



                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • There goes, like, 20% of them.
                          "We are all special cases." - Camus

                          Comment


                          • As Andreas Rupprecht pointed out at CDF about the damage shown on the underside of the fuselage, looks like a write off.

                            Comment


                            • Pilot didn't eject, so I assume the plane had allready come to a stop and he was leaving, or at least unstraped... some fuel line broken on landing, spilled fuel to hot engine?... At least it happened on the ground, this way they can examine it.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jlvfr View Post
                                Pilot didn't eject, so I assume the plane had allready come to a stop and he was leaving, or at least unstraped... some fuel line broken on landing, spilled fuel to hot engine?... At least it happened on the ground, this way they can examine it.
                                More likely FOD . . . . .
                                "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X