They are still at the same stage today.
Just because you said so ?
You mean to say those thousands of engineers at saturn and Salyut have been doing nothing but drinking vodka for the past 3 years ?
Wake up yourself guy, the influence of YF-23 is clearly evident in PAK FA.
the influence of Su-35 is also evident in Pak fa , which is at the apex of maneuverability.influence is influence it doesn't define the total performance of an aircraft, every airframe is different and so is its performance.
Still doesn't change the fact PAK FA's verticals are less than YF-23.
The tailfins of YF-23 were called ruddervators , because they performed the function of both rudders and elevators , which means they couldn't perform as full fledged verticals , they had to sacrifice some of their rudder characterstics to work as elevators , which is not so in PAK FA the verticals act as dedicated rudders thus giving authority over yaw.
Have you missed flight school 101? The wide engine set isn't going to do anything to help the verticle axis which is the problem here. PAK FA can roll all day with those wide engines, but that isn't the problem. With such poor verticals and a wide engine set, the yaw is terrible.
Thrust vectoring doesn't act in roll axis , it acts in pitch and yaw axis.
The thrust vectoring in horizontal plane is called Yaw Axis thrust vectoring . are you telling me yaw axis thrust vectoring has no control over yaw?
Let us try some basic physics shall we , if both nozzles move in left direction, in which direction will the nose of the aircraft move? in the right direction , that is yaw axis thrust vectoring in layman's terms for you.
again here is some more basic physics for you
moment of a force = force x distance between point of application of force and axis of rotation
in this case the axis of rotation is the vertical line passing through the centre of the fuselage, so the further the engines are placed the more the moment will be generated. get it?
It is called the centre-line and no, it doesn't provide significant lift. It creates a vortex which breaks the airflow. This is why fighters try to reduce as much of the engine exposure from the fuselage as possible.
Vortex generates lift , so in essence you are contradicting yourself,and as for the significance of the lift generated here are some figures for you
The flat, pancake-like section between the engines acts as an airfoil to provide additional lift, giving the Tomcat an effective wing area about 40% greater than its actual wing dimensions.
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f14.htm
40% more wing area means 40 percent less wing loading.
No, but I've seen it on the Su-34 and that is a flying brick compared to your list of fighters.
Now you are just trying to derail the topic , first you brought the YF-23 into discussion , now you are trying to bring the su-34 into discussion , just to save your tail.The su 34 has LERX which gives it more maneuverability but it is also heavier , less aerodynamic , less powerful and without 3d tvc which hampers it's maneuverability . how the heck can you compare PAK FA to Su-34.
And you think that makes it more maneuverable...
With this one , you just crossed the realm of uninformed and entered into the realm of stupid.
1.lower wing loading means better takeoff and landing performance
2.lower wing loading means better climb rate
3.lower wing loading means better cruise performance
4.most importantly lower wing loading means higher sustained turn rates.
and not only Pak-fa has large wings it also has centerline tunnel both of which combine to give the PAK FA extremely low wingloading.
still laughing?
We've seen their concealed technique... they haven't done it because they can't get a comperable thrust. Just another example of their limitations.
Just another example of PHYSICAL limitation and not russian limitations , concealed engine means lesser thrust, Period.Heck Even the american's couldn't get comparable thrust that's why they ditched the YF-23 , moreover concealed engines means no TVC , this also is a physical limitation and not a russian limitation , that's why there aren't any concealed engines on the PAK FA cos russians put more importance on maneuverability.
In the subsonic regime, the YF-23 couldn't keep pace with the 22. F-22 is way better at flat turns and could use the TVC in the negative G-turns. PAK FA won't compete in this realm either with such limitations in the vertical control.
explained above.
He is saying a mature product will be available in the post 2015, meaning when Russia expects to release the serial production which is 2015, duh.
This is what kopp said for which you started criticising him
Therefore, from a technological strategy perspective, the PAK-FA renders all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant and non-viable after the PAK-FA achieves IOC in 2015.
Even if PAK FA Reaches IOC in 2015 without UHF Aesa and with current engines , it will still leave legacy us fighters and F-35 irrelevant , what is the point of contention?
Due to the plethora of usless comments that don't bear fruit to reality. There is only so much time in the day and too much crap to sort through.
If you don't have the time then please don't use that 0.5 m^2 figure , because it is unsubstantiated.
The point is, NATO partners are dropping F-35 orders like hotcakes. Euro-canards will be the backbone of our TACAIR for years to come. If America decides to start exporting F-22, we will want to upgrade.
Isn't this what kopp is saying , that america should start exporting F-22 and Allied Tacair should start updating , he hasn't said anything about your euro canards.
