gf0012-aust;198820]
be serious. this is not amateur hour - you obviously get the point, you just don't like hearing it. you do realise that my comments included rhetorical points?
I don't see why you continuing with rhetorical points, yet you it seems to expect an answer..
When i answer you, this is what i get.
pls try to be more specific about what i don't like hearing
And stop generalize eveything i'v said.
pls Show your fellow posters some respect, or you will get non in return
CREF above/ of course you can tell if AB are on - but you're not getting the intent of the message
was it full military power?
when did afterburners kick in?
was it dummied with a combat load?
was the pilot tasked to lift off at certain runway points to test engine strain and loading events?
was it carrying a full fuel load?
etc etc...
Now you lost me..
What
is your message here?
no, I'm not sure you are serious, you're jousting because you want the plane to be held in respect when nothing has been shown to earn it yet,. nice plane, but zero info yet. don't make it something it isn't. and yes, I know you like russian kit, but you can still try to be professional in your assessments even though you're taking it personally.
No i'm not making this prototype into something its not..
Pls show me where i did just that?
Zero info is not excactly true is it?
Sukhoi has shared some info on engines(current engine).
If the first batch will feature the IRBIS radar.
Then we have atleast some idea of what to expect from this radar.
It is not certain the first operational Pak-Fa will get any AESA radars.
We have to wait and see how the Russian AESA radar development progress.
I'm not sure what other info you expect anytime soon regarding this prototype.
LM didn't put out much info on the YF-22/F-22 when they still where on the development stage.
And still its much we still don't know.
So if you expect other posters on this forum to only post reveled info on the T-50, this thread will not see much news..
If its against this forum rules to post some pics or vids from aircraft without sharing specs that is impossible to come by, just say so.
you can be as sarcastic as you like, and you can even complain about me again, but it still doesn't alter the fact that its debate content and technical issues being discussed here - and in a proper robust technical manner. when you get serious then I'll change my approach. respect is earnt - not given, engage in considered debate and it will commence - up until then I'll continue to point out the obvious even though you make claims to understanding the very issues that I raise.
With all due respect mr, your first reply was nothing but sarcastic.
It contain several uncalled remarks, and i stand by my complain.
Isn't a fellow member on this forum allowed to complain if he feel a reason for it.?
Why cant you PM me instead regarding my complain about you, and not discuss it here on the open, it doesn't seem fair since you beeing a Moderator on this forum..
it's not that hard - and yet you don't seem to gte the intent behind my comments...
eg the onboard fuel effected this performance how?
do you know what others don't yet?
what weight differences etc were involved againts known parameters... you just can't compare its take off against other aircraft and videos. thats abject nonsense.
I was talking about aircraft on air shows in particular.
They use wery little internal fuel, do you dispute that?
Infact so little fuel they can't fly off to other airports, only to cover the planned flight time.
you appear to be taking it personally again when its an academic discussion.
That is your point of view, not mine..
what do you think the screens on the bottom are? what do you think the inlet baffles are? they're not s bend ram coated baffles -as some of the youtube experts have tried to promote (I use youtube because the technical debate on those videos is less than stellar and far from professional input - ie a polarising perspective to add discussion measurement)
The screens at the bottom are for optimizing the airflow to the engines.
If you use youtube as a perspective measurments thats your choice, but i don't see the revelence to this debate.
when did a FOD rack and an S bend FOD baffle become a LERX? I'm not sure what engineering manual would even remotely think that a LERX is even remotely close to the baffles and racks.
I was only pointing out that some folks have speculated that those movable LERX could be used to shield the farward compressor fan.
My point is that its not.
again, if you don't like my technical debate and feel a need to engage in technical merits issues, I'm more than happy yo have you PM me. It seems to me that you're more interested in having a public defence of the plane that you like rather than listen to technical issues - esp if you perceive them as slights against the air show antics that are supposed to represent tactical capability.
How can i defend something that we know so little about?
Have i compaired it vs any other aircraft? No.
To show some entusiasm is not the same as beeing nationalistic or biased.
And pls keep in mind there are other posters on this forum.
Perhaps they enjoy some of my post, that beeing vids or pics.
In the future i might post some more clip or pics.
If i have a question, i will ask about it.
If i want to debate tactical capability, i'll do so out of my own leisure.
Again, airshow and tactic is not the same thing. I have not claimed so eighter.
I was only stating that it is possible to measure different performance between different aircraft.
I'm talking about kenetick performance.
Not BVR capability etc etc.
Thanks