| Author |
Message |
|
firstimpulse
|
 Posted: May 03, 2012 - 03:34 PM
|
 
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Jun 20, 2013 - 6:52 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lightndattic
|
|
Posted: May 03, 2012 - 06:01 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Oct 06, 2005 - 01:43 PM
Posts: 499
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
|
| And they were walking all over it without regard to where they were stepping and without any kind of foot protection so there' probably not a spec of RAM on that airframe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haavarla
|
|
Posted: May 04, 2012 - 12:09 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 577
Status: Offline
|
The J-20 are a protoype or Demontrator, by any account it should not have any RAM on the skin.
As allways the first flying prototypes, are only used for Aerodynamics and second place engines parameter testing.
Rumours have it, it is flying on 135-140kgf engines, which mean it is only fill-in engines, sinse the WS-15 engine are still under development.
Ram coating come way later, possible at the same time u start putting radar and other sensor on it.
Of course they could have 1-2 airframe for ground testing, just like Pak-Fa.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pants3204
|
|
Posted: Jun 15, 2012 - 04:11 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Mar 15, 2012 - 04:42 AM
Posts: 116
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
|
|
haavarla wrote:
Of course they could have 1-2 airframe for ground testing, just like Pak-Fa..
Are those the ones with the crippling airframe cracks? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haavarla
|
|
Posted: Jun 20, 2012 - 11:36 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 577
Status: Offline
|
Ofcourse not. When you design new jet, you allways make units some for ground stress test. It goes for every contractor, LM, Boeing, etc etc.
The word is the '51' is beeing restored(improved) for test flight program again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstimpulse
|
|
Posted: Jun 21, 2012 - 08:40 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
haavarla wrote:
The word is the '51' is beeing restored(improved) for test flight program again.
More like re-built (repaired)! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haavarla
|
|
Posted: Jun 21, 2012 - 08:45 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 577
Status: Offline
|
| Fine. And the difference is?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
firstimpulse
|
|
Posted: Jun 22, 2012 - 05:35 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Jan 12, 2012 - 06:21 PM
Posts: 312
Status: Offline
|
|
haavarla wrote:
Fine. And the difference is??
"Re-built" shows the status of the program at the moment, which isn't overly good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
haavarla
|
|
Posted: Jun 23, 2012 - 10:21 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 28, 2009 - 08:36 PM
Posts: 577
Status: Offline
|
No need to blow this out of proportion. The 52 and 53 are flying regualry.
And if Sukhois word holds water, 54 will fly in last quarter this year.
Hopefully they will get the 51 on tracks as well by that time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
