|
They're Russian supplied engines, Sukhoi is coming to mind for some reason. I think they may be from the SU-35, but someone might correct me on that. It's thought they are having all kinds of trouble with regards to thermal signature though (because the Russians haven't figured it out yet)
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 11:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
I've actually heard that it has 3D thrust vectoring. Don't know about the supercruise, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
Aleks_r posted:I've actually heard that it has 3D thrust vectoring. Yeah, but since it's Chinese it's not proper. The pilot has to wear those red/green glasses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 16:35
|
|
|
Aleks_r posted:I've actually heard that it has 3D thrust vectoring. Don't know about the supercruise, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
Can someone expand a bit more on that Chinese stealth fighter? Or perhaps stealth fighters in general? After hearing about all the trouble with the F-22 (not to derail) I'd assume that China developing a functional fighter of their own is a pretty big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 22:01
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:I'd assume that China developing a functional fighter of their own is a pretty big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:Can someone expand a bit more on that Chinese stealth fighter? Or perhaps stealth fighters in general? After hearing about all the trouble with the F-22 (not to derail) I'd assume that China developing a functional fighter of their own is a pretty big deal. It sould be noted that "First Flight" is nowhere near functional. It's not too tough to make a modern-shaped plane that will fly. The difficulty is in the avionics and electronics. The prototype for the F-22 first flew in 1990, but the plane didn't enter service for another 15 years. Getting all the different systems in the plane to work correctly together is fantastically complicated. If China is attempting anywhere near the level of complexity of the F-22 it will be at least a decade before that plane enters service in any useful number.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:They're not dumb, and they've done it before. They have, though it seems like China usually sources the engines from Russia. As for getting all the subsystems working, do you suppose the Chinese saw the F-22/F-35 programs and decided to keep avionics and other subsystems fairly conventional?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2011 23:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:They have, though it seems like China usually sources the engines from Russia. Outside of the nutty secret radar and guidance stuffs, isnt a huge part of modern avionics about keeping the flying hulk of metal in the air? I was pretty sure most jets need computer assistance otherwise they plummet out of control in a firey doom?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Outside of the nutty secret radar and guidance stuffs, isnt a huge part of modern avionics about keeping the flying hulk of metal in the air? I was pretty sure most jets need computer assistance otherwise they plummet out of control in a firey doom? Most Avionics is for the pilots navigation benefit and general info. Our avionics mostly consist of: TACAN (Tactical Air Navigation VOR/ILS (VHF Omni Ranging and Insturment Landing System) UHF-DF (Ultra High Frequency Direction Finder) ADF (Automatic Direction Finder) MLS (Microwave Landing System) INS (Intertial Navigation System) GPS (Duh) SCNS (Self contained navigation system, just a general navigation plotting and operation system) LPCR or Other RADAR system (Low Power Color Radar is what is found on most aircraft that don't need targeting data from the Radar) Various Radios (UHF, VHF, HF, UHF-SATCOM, etc.) The Rest is general Nav info (Altitude, Speed, Direction, Pitch, Roll, etc.) You also have the Flight Computer and Flight Director, Autopilot and the Pitot Static System That is what you find on most military craft CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jan 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:They have, though it seems like China usually sources the engines from Russia. This is because China still has numerous problems with its homegrown engines. The reason for that, they still suck rear end at anything involving moderately advanced metallurgy. Last time I checked they still had problems with J-10s falling apart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:They're not dumb, and they've done it before.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
Q_res posted:This is because China still has numerous problems with its homegrown engines. The reason for that, they still suck rear end at anything involving moderately advanced metallurgy. Last time I checked they still had problems with J-10s falling apart. Even the Russians are at least a full generation behind Western military jet engines in terms of performance. eggyolk posted:Can someone expand a bit more on that Chinese stealth fighter? I'm not so sure that the J-20 is a fighter aircraft, and a number of aviation journalists have been thinking that as well. First of all, it's enormous - best estimates put it at between 75 and 80 feet long; roughly a third larger than the F-22 and about the same size as an F-111. Unless this aircraft is to be a heavy interceptor in the same vein as the MiG-31, the J-20's size is working against it. Second, the Chinese have a huge need for a stealthy, bomber/maritime strike aircraft to replace their aging fleet of JH-7s. An aircraft like the J-20 could fit this role quite well. With the deployment of the J-11 (a license built Su-27) and the J-10, I'm not so sure that the Chinese are overly keen on developing and deploying a stealth fighter. Sure they'd like to have some, but I think they realise that their greatest "threat" is maritime in origin. MrChips fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jan 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
I tend to agree, it's a fighter-bomber at most. Notice the placement of the rear landing gear in the side of the fuselage. I suspect the internal weapons bay on the belly is going to be quite long. Should be enough to hold 2 Russian Anti-Ship Missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Most Avionics is for the pilots navigation benefit and general info. Please tell me that in 2011 our most modern and lethal fighter jets arent using non directional beacons and VORs to navigate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Please tell me that in 2011 our most modern and lethal fighter jets arent using non directional beacons and VORs to navigate. Probably not primarily, but they better know how to use them. A lot of them probably learned on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 06:28
|
|
|
US finally stopped using LORAN last year, if it makes you feel any better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
^^^We shut down the system last year...the Navy wasn't actually using it anymore, were they? Hell, the last telegraph running Morse was shut down just a few years ago.Captain Postal posted:They're Russian supplied engines, Sukhoi is coming to mind for some reason. I think they may be from the SU-35, but someone might correct me on that. It's thought they are having all kinds of trouble with regards to thermal signature though (because the Russians haven't figured it out yet) It's one of the many slight variations of the AL-31, one of which does power the Su-35...others power most of all Flankers anyway. Nerobro posted:They're not dumb, and they've done it before. Nothing this ambitious. The FC-1/JF-17 is the only modern Chinese fighter they can call indigenous without having to use an asterisk or be outright lying. But even in this case, they couldn't build their own engines. The FC-1 uses a variant of the MiG-29's engine, purchased from Russia. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 16:45
|
|
|
grover posted:US finally stopped using LORAN last year, if it makes you feel any better. Sigh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Sigh. I think this guy is sad to see them go, though: 
grover fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jan 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
I don't think many people (anybody?) were actually using LORAN as a primary navigation system anymore. It was a backup for GPS. The thing that sucks is if you were in a place that had several LORAN towers, now you can't sight-navigate by them. In Cook Inlet you used to be able to figure out where you were on a map 20 miles from shore just by spotting the towers, even over fog banks. Oh, and we actually still have LORAN stations running. We have treaties that require them operational (I think a couple near Canadia are still operating). At least, that's the last I heard. Back to aircraft... Kitfox has an LSA kit now with the Rotec 2800 engine. Man, when the day comes to get my license it'll be tough to choose between that or a Super Sport Cub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
LORAN lasted a long time because eliminating a piece of government infrastructure which lives depend on comes with long and fair warning. By the way, this is what a modern kitplane's panel looks like:  That thing is better at navigation, ILS approaches (or NDB simulated by GPS for that matter) and in flight entertainment than 80s airliners, possibly including some new ones - allowing for apple/orange adjustment factor and hyperbole margins. And that's Garmin's unit, it's in many certified aircraft as well. There are several manufacturers, such as Dynon, Grand Rapids Technologies and Advanced Flight Systems, that make really advanced yet simple to use stuff. You can fly an ILS approach that looks exactly like Microsoft Flight Sim with the textures of 1992 but terrain detail of 2002 - including the "highway in the sky" enabled, virtual squares you fly through to guide you along the flight path. Here's a NASA employee and experimental enthusiast talking you through a recording of an approach in his RV-8. You will note it is almost three years old already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8SID85-BQk And here's possibly a life saved by those gizmos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27VPOMfH7OM Lancair pilot has engine failure (severe power loss, but not total failure) while in IFR conditions above mountains. This is normally a deadly scenario - you have to descend blind towards jagged edges. Imagine having to crash a car into a rocky hill at 80 MPH without crumple zones or airbags. If you have a vacuum system and if the prop isn't spinning then you're not only descending blind but also with no reference of up and down. He gets amusingly talkative (understandable), nerding away to the flight controller about the cool poo poo he has onboard. The controller is all "..umm..roger". The main point is that the pilot knew he was going to reach the airport the minute he made the decision, and he would've seen that wasn't going to if the engine conditions changed. And how about this? Another life saved. He had the same technological opportunities as the guy above, but could see that he wasn't going to make it. But, his gizmos told him of a private strip next to his descent path and he landed without a scratch - again, in what is normally a deadly scenario. quote:I declared the Emergency… If you ever want to hear a frequency go totally quiet, just use those words. Informed Approach of a total power failure and requested vectors to the nearest airport. Houston Approach was for the most part absolutely wonderful. Without missing a beat they informed me that Brazoria was 7’Oclock and 5 miles. I IMMEDIATELY started the turn and realized that with my now wonderful tailwind turned headwind, there was no way I was going to make it. Full narrative and synthetic pics of descent here: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=57122 God drat I love the future. The Jetsons haven't got poo poo on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I don't think many people (anybody?) were actually using LORAN as a primary navigation system anymore. It was a backup for GPS. INS is the backup for GPS on most USAF aircraft, GPS keeps INS in check (INS can stray something like an 8th of a mile every 4-5 hours, GPS keeps it dead on). GPS and INS really are all you need for point to point navigation, but for landing and pre-landing VOR/ILS and TACAN are the primary systems
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2011 07:15
|
|
|
I'm honestly not up on all of the latest aircraft navigation systems (heck, I'm not up on the old stuff - I'm not a pilot yet), but I can say that I definitely appreciate them. On our flight out of Juneau Wednesday we took off into a headwind then aimed directly at a mountain less than a mile away to gain altitude and turn around. I don't think they made that departure at night even 5 years ago, but since they've been testing the new equipment in Juneau more and more departures/arrivals have been possible. I have to say I was quite amused to see Southwest advertising that they have it at 11 airports on their route system now - All of Alaska's planes have had it for years and they use it a very large portion of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I'm honestly not up on all of the latest aircraft navigation systems (heck, I'm not up on the old stuff - I'm not a pilot yet), but I can say that I definitely appreciate them. On our flight out of Juneau Wednesday we took off into a headwind then aimed directly at a mountain less than a mile away to gain altitude and turn around. I don't think they made that departure at night even 5 years ago, but since they've been testing the new equipment in Juneau more and more departures/arrivals have been possible. That's because Alaska has been the testbed for voodoo magic known as WAAS and RNP; the latter which airlines LOVE because it allows more efficient departures/arrivals (and thus saves fuel).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
I knew that much, the state (not the airline that I know of) has also been the testbed for ADS-B.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:I'm honestly not up on all of the latest aircraft navigation systems (heck, I'm not up on the old stuff - I'm not a pilot yet), but I can say that I definitely appreciate them. On our flight out of Juneau Wednesday we took off into a headwind then aimed directly at a mountain less than a mile away to gain altitude and turn around. I don't think they made that departure at night even 5 years ago, but since they've been testing the new equipment in Juneau more and more departures/arrivals have been possible. http://www.k-makris.gr/AircraftComponents/Laser_Gyro/laser_gyro.htm  MEMS gyroscopes are tiny enough to fit onto a microchip and cheap enough to put into cell phones and video games, but have a rather high drift rate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 17:58
|
|
|
grover posted:MEMS gyroscopes are tiny enough to fit onto a microchip and cheap enough to put into cell phones and video games, but have a rather high drift rate. MEMS gyroscopes are apparently good enough for business and regional jet applications: http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/br/AHS-3000A_S.html?smenu=109
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 18:11
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:MEMS gyroscopes are apparently good enough for business and regional jet applications: http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/br/AHS-3000A_S.html?smenu=109
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
dietcokefiend posted:Outside of the nutty secret radar and guidance stuffs, isnt a huge part of modern avionics about keeping the flying hulk of metal in the air? I was pretty sure most jets need computer assistance otherwise they plummet out of control in a firey doom? You are likely referring to fly by wire systems that have been in use in fighter jets I assume. Those are required due to the tendencies in modern jets to not want to stay in the air (negative static stability) and so require computers to control the surfaces. From the way it looks the J-20 would need such a system. Though I'm no expert so who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Alighieri posted:You are likely referring to fly by wire systems that have been in use in fighter jets I assume. Those are required due to the tendencies in modern jets to not want to stay in the air (negative static stability) and so require computers to control the surfaces. From the way it looks the J-20 would need such a system. Though I'm no expert so who knows? That nose is retarded long and the wings are right at the back, so I don't think it's out of the question that the J-20 might have been given positive static stability, possibly due to the Chinese not having the capability to develop a reliable fly-by-wire system. It kinda depends on how heavy those engines are and where the bomb/missile bay is. The fact that it has canards kinda supports that idea too. They can simultaneously solve two problems. First, having the CG too far forward (the extra lift on the front end would move the Center of Pressure forward to compensate), and second, canard layouts are a good way to make an aircraft "stall-proof" without using a computerized control system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 20:16
|
|
|
Great documentary about a cool dude who wanted to make wacky planes for my countries airforce many years ago. Also he restores awesome warbirds! From the NFB site "This documentary is about Bob Diemert of Carman, Manitoba, and his dream of building the world's next great fighter plane. His worldwide reputation as a genius at restoring "warbirds" enables him to finance his dream. The Defender is a lively, sometimes wild and funny, tale about a remarkable, modern-day folk hero." http://www.nfb.ca/film/defender/
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 03:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:INS is the backup for GPS on most USAF aircraft, GPS keeps INS in check (INS can stray something like an 8th of a mile every 4-5 hours, GPS keeps it dead on). The INS is also used for Radar Systems because GPS isn't accurate enough or doesn't have a high enough update rate...I forget which, and at least in the older planes (all that I've worked on) the AFS it's a blended solution of GPS/INS/ADC using Kalman Filters and lots of complicated math so bombs fall on the right spot. e: I believe that most more modern airborne Radars have their own INS/INUs. Plinkey fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Jan 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
Neither of those is necessarily true...might be platform specific. The E-3 has an integrated GPS/INS system called...wait for it...GINS. The GPS inputs are primary, with INS as the backup. The GINS reports it's own position to the mission computer, which is how the guys on the radar scopes know where they are since they have no windows. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
I was talking about ground targeting radar, like a bomber, GMTI type stuff...that's the only thing I've worked with, and the old GPS is too slow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
I remember the Falcon 4.0 manual stating that GPS can be jammed, hence the inclusion of an INS in an F-16. Take that as you will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:I remember the Falcon 4.0 manual stating that GPS can be jammed, hence the inclusion of an INS in an F-16. Take that as you will. GPS can be jammed OR spoofed, especially on hardware that old.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
People actually read the Falcon 4.0 manual? I took one look at the filesize and never touched it again. Of course, that meant all I could do was play 1v1 against my roommate on wifi, and the winner of the first round would spawn camp the other until running out of gas, at which point the roles would reverse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
I had Falcon 4.0 when it first came out, it CAME with a manual in a real nice binder with maps. Wish I still had it, but I think I traded it to a goon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Ah, my copy came with a PDF file. I don't blame them for cutting the cost of printing, it was hundreds of pages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 17:53
|
|