Jump to content

Aircraft Vs Super Thread VI


Nied
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by F-ZeroOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :p

Edited by anime52k8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..... :lol:

I was listening to NPR today and CCTV has removed the footage from their web sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...