THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THE TRUTH ABOUT CHINA, KOREA AND JAPAN THE 3 MOST CRUEL, SELFISH AND UNILATERAL NATIONS. BUY FROM THEM TO MAKE THEM BECOME RICHER AND RICHER (THAT'S THEIR WEAPON) BUT THEY NEVER BUY FROM OTHERS AND DOWNING EVERY OTHER NATIONS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AT THE SAME TIME (BY THEIR UNDERCOVER AGENT WHO GO DO THIS IN EVERY MARKET).THEY ALSO EXPORT SHIT FAKE PRODUCTS
Seems to me that the reason the high alpha isn't working is because the way the forward canards are attached to the air foil they pivot at the leading edge of the wing, thus killing the airflow over the top of the wing which causes the stall at slower speeds.
The fix as I see it is to keep them in the same position but have them pivot from the side of the fuselage half way through the edge that is against the fuselage and not on the leading edge of the wing/airfoil surface.
Just when I had the LERXs on my PAK FA dialed in I flew it into a 20KVA power line and cut it in half. I did find that I could actually fly the PAK FA just a smidge tail-heavy cause with the LERX's dialed down a 1/4". My PAK FA is almost done.
In the meantime I used the same method of LERX hinging on the PAK FA to simplify the build on my new SU-47 BERKUT canards. WOW. Talk about nimble. The Canards step the BERKUT up a whole new level of agility.
i love how people always compare to the f22... look at the plane... its an f22 with added bells and whistles.. its not "new technology" its old technology with upgrades. its almost like comparing my imac with a pc from 1995. you realize that the f22 is not a new airplane.. its like 15 years old. lol
How on earth could you know this?? Never mind, you can't. Only 2 have ever flown and those were prototypes. No on in the west knows what the PAK-FA's capabilities are or how they will match up to the F-22.
Please, stick to RC aircraft, leave defense analysis to the experts.
@xero993 G'day.., I agree. I have no Idea how one goes about "Sacrificing Gravity"...! It sounds like a pretty neat ritual, I'd like to see it uploaded. The most obscure Aerodynamics I know turns a Broken Boomerang into a Gayandi. Search 'Magical Thinking Part 2. Australian Aboriginal Magic-Spell Enhancers & The Sorcerer's Apprentice.'... Part 3 of the Triptych shows the tethered tumbling Autorotational Aerofoil being flown, via a Headcamera.
I have been flying my PacFa T-50 v2 build for about a month now and have had a blast with it. But i think this jet hasn't seen it's full calling with the megajet powerplant this is just a pleasure to fly but leaves you wanting more. So i am building a second airframe that will be powered with 2-70mm EDF's with TV. Great job Scott and thanks for your hard work.
I don't want to unsubscribe from this channel because I love it but seriously, I don't feel so connected to you all anymore. Have not seen your face in months. Always behind the PC with a damn micrphone...
@HaDaBoiZ I'm not entirely sure what you meant with sacrificing gravity, but basically they'll make your plane look better, but make it harder to keep it under control at low speeds - if you're sinking too fast and need to get extra thrust to pull up, they won't help as much. RCSuperPowers actually have a video specifically on why they don't use them, but I can't be bothered looking it up.
why would you want to put canards on a plane "built for speed?" this would be my choice for a great park flyer because of it's maneuverability, but not for flying over triple digits on a 5s pack.
@wildhover It wasn't necessarily built for speed, but it works well at speed whilst also acting like the real thing - they could make a fictional jet that's fast, but this one is (relatively) scale whilst also just plain aerodynamic enough for speed.
@xero993 I completely agree with you. In The first video I saw with this plane , Scott mentioned that it was their very 1st plane built for speed. Then he mentioned it again here. It's a great looking plane that I would build/design for aerobatics, but Scott's description of it does not fit a speed planes specific functional form. Otherwise, engineers would have put canards on an SR-71 blackbird
Russian fighters are notorious for bad relibility. With that said they are rugged, I will always take the US weapon deployment systems over anyone elses.
nice job as always. im very impressed with the new canards. personally since these have been proven better then conventional canards im guessing the next gen fighter will use this design. its sad that you guys couldnt get this to high alpha but. i just had a thought. extremely tail heavy like the real planes. that would force the azz down and nose up more.. and have fun with it. looking forword to more planes soon..... btw why isnt the skycar in with the old plans pack? or is that in the nextone
@hazmatcom1 it costs 2/3 less because generally americans like to do tons of overpriced military programmes so their war industries get good cash,which by the way the solely the taxpayers pay
@frizstyler Just curious... What would you consider an appropriate price to be? My country spends $800 Billion on military projects every year, and I can honestly say that is one of a scant few government programs that I wouldn't mind giving a couple more of my tax dollars to.
@hazmatcom1 You are correct sir. F-22 is a deployed system with all sorts of wonderware inside. The PAK-50 is a lookalike airframe, but the claimed avionics are still vaporware. Comparing a prototype to a fielded plane is meaningless when half the features still need to be developed.
@hazmatcom1 To put the facts out there, the F-22 is more expensive for 2 reasons:
1. The F-22 has very finely-constructed details to absolutely minimise it's radar cross-section.
2. The F-22 had a LOT of R&D involved with it. Because production of the F-22 was shut down, this price has been carried across fewer jets. If the full order had been made, each jet on average (particularly the later-made ones) would be cheaper.
The T-50 isn't even a production fighter yet, it's still a prototype. Look at all the information and videos out there, can you find the weapons bays? Because I can't. It's also not an "F-22 killer" I am so sick of hearing people throw that term around. The Raptor will surprise you there is only so much the Air Force can release and only so much they are willing to show us at airshows. You can't judge a planes performance with an RC variant, they do not behave the same.
@ArtemisAce You need to look harder or look up more information - the PAK FA has 2 inline bomb/missile bays between the engines (2 long bays, one bay behind the other)
and also 2 short-range missile pods at the wing roots - they're long, thin things sticking out from near the front-inner corner of the wings are and go back several metres. Each pod houses 1 short-range dogfighting missile. The F-22 in comparison has similar bays either side the fuselage, taking up fuselage space.
@xero993 I looked it up and saw the two internal bays in between the engines however the "pods" at the wing roots aren't weapons bays. If you look closely at it you can't make out any hinge or opening point. and more proof the thing is still a prototype, it doesn't have a gun. the Raptors weapons bays take up fuselage space but so do the T-50s.
@ArtemisAce The pods have been confirmed as weapons bays, each carrying a single K-74 or similar high off-bore missile - if you look at an unpainted T-50-1, you can see on the outer side of each pod is a door, different in material to the rest of the pod.
Those aren't canards, they are variable angle inlet ramps, similar to leading edge flaps on a wing. The concept is not new either. THe F-15 has a huge variable angle inlet ramp with pitch effects that are factored into the control system.
I'm not clear from the video, does the plane run out of elevator power to get more than 20 deg angle of attack, or does the plane stall or misbehave at that angle? Will it hold a higher alpha with the inlet ramp/canards at zero deflection?
@nmrgrnm As an aeronautical engineer with 20 years experience, I can say that canards are no big deal from a control standpoint. If you think they need fly-by-wire, you might want to go ask the university for your money back on your "stability and control" class. Just look at the majority of Rutan designs, canards without computer control.
I guess what I have to say here is, this plane does not have canards. They are variable angle inlet ramps, similar to leading edge flaps on a wing.
@johng3592 if you're trying to control a fighter plane with only canards as pitch control surface and typically with delta wing you may need flight control computer unless your plane is such nose heavy it is self stable. On the other hand, canards are the best choice for high-alpha designs as you must know (and by the way, i'm not saying they work just for that) because air is always passing through them and they're not interferred by the main wing. Anyway, those are not canards as you say.
@nmrgrnm You make a true statement: "you may need flight control computer unless your plane is such nose heavy it is self stable" But that is true of any airplane, it is not a characteristic of canards. Of course, most famous is the F-16. Conventional layout, but staticaly unstable - requiring a flight computer to maintain stability. There is nothing special about the canard that calls for special consideration beyond locating the CG correctly, like any other plane.
@johng3592 While I'm not denying they're inlet ramps, they do have a dual(triple) function: controlling the supersonic shock wave into the inlet as a ramp does, maintaining laminar flow over the wing (they've been receiving the title of Leading Edge VOrtex CONtrollers) for high-alpha stability and also just plain as a sort of canard (they've been seen pitching up when the aircraft pitches up and moving independently during rolls). But yes, canards aren't the correct term.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am not diggin' the "RC fun by proxy" format that RCPowers has taken. Don't get me wrong, I still think he is one of the most knowledgeable guys in the RC world and has made some of the most informative videos I have found. But I feel like I have been sold down the river. Like someone promised to take me on a great trip to experience things I had never known and as soon as I got in the car, the driver jumps out and tells me how much the trip is going to cost.
@RCSuperPowers from the experience, canards are, in almost any case, a pain in the ass. I'm an aeronautical engineer and almost every plane that has got canards needs lots of fly-by-wire, fancy stuff. For example, the eurofighter has got 11 flight computers to stabilize it. But there are always exceptions like the j-20...
@nmrgrnm The J-20 will be / is fly-by-wire controlled - it isn't all that difficult to program so long as you're using modern sensors (which the Chinese will be able to do easily - their microprocessor industry is even more advanced than Russia's).
@SwineNahNah Not at all - in real life the real thing is quite stable at high alpha because it can adjust it's control surfaces (elevators, ailerons, leading-edge-root-extensions ["canards"], etc much faster and more precisely, whilst having it all micro-managed by fly-by-wire computers.
@SwineNahNah The PAK FA wouldn't - it has very low wing loading and a partial lifting-body design; in real life it is capable of holding high AoA, allowing for very slow landings. For air brakes, the PAK FA simply turns it's vertical stabilisers outwards and for when the runways are icy, or for performing STOL landings, it also has a drogue parachute.
Low cost? Sounds like a discussion of state owned manufacturing vs free enterprise, but there might be more to the story. The model did look like a good flyer, but I am wondering how many flights it took to get it trimmed out.
@altops I don't know why you're typing in caps, but the PAK FA already carries enough internal weapons stores. As it is, it'll be able to carry more than the F-22 (unless you're counting the use of Small Diameter Bombs). In air to air combat it'll carry more munitions than the F-22.
Dont underestimate Russian engineering. And don't forget that Russian planes can be fixed with chisel and hammer if needed. They are simple and very effective. And as you also mentioned in the video much cheaper to manufacture. Cheers
Canards are neat but I find that even though the canards did increase the turn in capability of the plane it also added a bit of unpredictability when doing slow fly, close to the ground maneuvers. On the real plane they are LERX for slow maneuverability routing airflow over the wing. When mixed as a LERX the plane becomes more stable at slow speed. LERX does not work while inverted!!!
2 tips I'd suggest is to throw the centre of gravity even further back, making the plane less stable, but also making it easier to do high alpha.
The second thing is that those canards, at least on the real plane, are also (and if you want to get technical, called:) LEVCONs which are devices used to keep air going into the airtake, and also to allow air to flow more smoothly over the wing, giving you more yaw control. What I suggest as a test is to hook up the canards to a mixer (see my reply)
@xero993 ... hook the canards up to a mixer and have them attached to a toggle switch which throws them *downwards*. When you're pulling up to go high alpha, you have the canards following the elevons, pointing upwards, but then you flick the toggle switch and they point forward / down. While it could require some CG movement, they *could* (RC planes don't always act the same as proper ones though) give you more stability in high alpha.
Not tried canards (yet) but felt like i had to add a shameless plug & give a thanks.
I have only recently got back into rc after several years and honestly, this isnt coming from Dave or Scott BUT, if you are fairly new to r/c (or even if your a hardened veteran looking to scratch build), seriously, get the audio course. Best investment i have made and for $47 you get 4 pdf plans worth more than that as well as a wealth of information that has already saved me more than i could ever afford :)
i think this model would be great at high alpha if it had fronterons like the real thing, those tiny leading edge canards just don't have enough area to have any effect on the large airframe
@MegaTechnomaster Those canards / LEVCONs are about scale with the real thing; maybe 5-10% smaller than on the real thing, but pretty close. That said, this is RC though and they probably would benefit making them bigger or giving them bigger throws.
@xero993 no no like i mean if they installed fronterons as well as leading edge canards then maybe it would help to get the nose up a bit easier, because the while they are scale, not even the real one goes into high alpha without fronterons, that's probably why they're having difficulty getting the nose up. if you look at the photo from 0:00 to 0:10 you'll see what i mean, but yes i do get what you're saying, the model appears very scale
This has been flagged as spam show
THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THE TRUTH ABOUT CHINA, KOREA AND JAPAN THE 3 MOST CRUEL, SELFISH AND UNILATERAL NATIONS. BUY FROM THEM TO MAKE THEM BECOME RICHER AND RICHER (THAT'S THEIR WEAPON) BUT THEY NEVER BUY FROM OTHERS AND DOWNING EVERY OTHER NATIONS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AT THE SAME TIME (BY THEIR UNDERCOVER AGENT WHO GO DO THIS IN EVERY MARKET).THEY ALSO EXPORT SHIT FAKE PRODUCTS
malatia7575 3 weeks ago
one word GUNS
minrafter69 3 weeks ago
sweet plane!
RCDude21 3 weeks ago
oh great look out russia has made entry into the 21 century
airsoftingwithgod 4 weeks ago
Pak Pho? Sounds like delicious Vietnamese noodle soup :)
3FLYTE 1 month ago
Comment removed
3FLYTE 1 month ago
Comment removed
afitz87 1 month ago
will shoot your ass down before your even see my F22
falhawker 1 month ago
Seems to me that the reason the high alpha isn't working is because the way the forward canards are attached to the air foil they pivot at the leading edge of the wing, thus killing the airflow over the top of the wing which causes the stall at slower speeds.
The fix as I see it is to keep them in the same position but have them pivot from the side of the fuselage half way through the edge that is against the fuselage and not on the leading edge of the wing/airfoil surface.
epitaphofnow 1 month ago
Just when I had the LERXs on my PAK FA dialed in I flew it into a 20KVA power line and cut it in half. I did find that I could actually fly the PAK FA just a smidge tail-heavy cause with the LERX's dialed down a 1/4". My PAK FA is almost done.
In the meantime I used the same method of LERX hinging on the PAK FA to simplify the build on my new SU-47 BERKUT canards. WOW. Talk about nimble. The Canards step the BERKUT up a whole new level of agility.
bobdaeronort 1 month ago
i think I know what phase your up to in your business. squeezing for money and doing a half ass job on your videos. -gone
arcanumskin 1 month ago 4
i love how people always compare to the f22... look at the plane... its an f22 with added bells and whistles.. its not "new technology" its old technology with upgrades. its almost like comparing my imac with a pc from 1995. you realize that the f22 is not a new airplane.. its like 15 years old. lol
gowill2 1 month ago
"it's got F22 abilities across the board"
How on earth could you know this?? Never mind, you can't. Only 2 have ever flown and those were prototypes. No on in the west knows what the PAK-FA's capabilities are or how they will match up to the F-22.
Please, stick to RC aircraft, leave defense analysis to the experts.
dogsbd 1 month ago 13
@FlyFrontier259 jerk
Darksidestudios100 1 month ago
@xero993 G'day.., I agree. I have no Idea how one goes about "Sacrificing Gravity"...! It sounds like a pretty neat ritual, I'd like to see it uploaded. The most obscure Aerodynamics I know turns a Broken Boomerang into a Gayandi. Search 'Magical Thinking Part 2. Australian Aboriginal Magic-Spell Enhancers & The Sorcerer's Apprentice.'... Part 3 of the Triptych shows the tethered tumbling Autorotational Aerofoil being flown, via a Headcamera.
WarblesOnALot 1 month ago
Unsubscribing.. No more commentaries.... And i dont want your rc course.
FlyFrontier259 1 month ago 9
go back to basics... thats how got you started! Why are you stuck on jets?
laryctdummy 1 month ago
I have been flying my PacFa T-50 v2 build for about a month now and have had a blast with it. But i think this jet hasn't seen it's full calling with the megajet powerplant this is just a pleasure to fly but leaves you wanting more. So i am building a second airframe that will be powered with 2-70mm EDF's with TV. Great job Scott and thanks for your hard work.
tncatin 1 month ago
Always ignore your comments which are made for improvement...
youronlycow 1 month ago
I don't want to unsubscribe from this channel because I love it but seriously, I don't feel so connected to you all anymore. Have not seen your face in months. Always behind the PC with a damn micrphone...
youronlycow 1 month ago
cna this also be in twin ducted fans??... please make a video with twin ducted... thanks...
HaDaBoiZ 1 month ago
@HaDaBoiZ They're somewhat against the use of ducted fans because they reduce agility / acceleration in exchange for high top-end speed.
xero993 1 month ago
@xero993 so i can use ducted for top end speed with sacrificing gravity?... will these also effect the movement of the plane??...
HaDaBoiZ 1 month ago
@HaDaBoiZ I'm not entirely sure what you meant with sacrificing gravity, but basically they'll make your plane look better, but make it harder to keep it under control at low speeds - if you're sinking too fast and need to get extra thrust to pull up, they won't help as much. RCSuperPowers actually have a video specifically on why they don't use them, but I can't be bothered looking it up.
xero993 1 month ago
Comment removed
HaDaBoiZ 1 month ago
why would you want to put canards on a plane "built for speed?" this would be my choice for a great park flyer because of it's maneuverability, but not for flying over triple digits on a 5s pack.
wildhover 1 month ago
@wildhover It wasn't necessarily built for speed, but it works well at speed whilst also acting like the real thing - they could make a fictional jet that's fast, but this one is (relatively) scale whilst also just plain aerodynamic enough for speed.
xero993 1 month ago
@xero993 I completely agree with you. In The first video I saw with this plane , Scott mentioned that it was their very 1st plane built for speed. Then he mentioned it again here. It's a great looking plane that I would build/design for aerobatics, but Scott's description of it does not fit a speed planes specific functional form. Otherwise, engineers would have put canards on an SR-71 blackbird
wildhover 1 month ago
Russian fighters are notorious for bad relibility. With that said they are rugged, I will always take the US weapon deployment systems over anyone elses.
As far as I am concerned this is acedemic.
jpf091959 1 month ago
That looks so just like something out of Macross. Minus the battleship-scale gun turrets and (probably) Gerwalk mode of course.
KarriKoivusalo 1 month ago
nice job as always. im very impressed with the new canards. personally since these have been proven better then conventional canards im guessing the next gen fighter will use this design. its sad that you guys couldnt get this to high alpha but. i just had a thought. extremely tail heavy like the real planes. that would force the azz down and nose up more.. and have fun with it. looking forword to more planes soon..... btw why isnt the skycar in with the old plans pack? or is that in the nextone
pistolpetepeterson 1 month ago
it costs 2/3s less because there's stuff on the F22 that blows this POS out of the water.
hazmatcom1 1 month ago
@hazmatcom1 it costs 2/3 less because generally americans like to do tons of overpriced military programmes so their war industries get good cash,which by the way the solely the taxpayers pay
frizstyler 1 month ago
@frizstyler Just curious... What would you consider an appropriate price to be? My country spends $800 Billion on military projects every year, and I can honestly say that is one of a scant few government programs that I wouldn't mind giving a couple more of my tax dollars to.
DG121480 1 month ago
@hazmatcom1 You are correct sir. F-22 is a deployed system with all sorts of wonderware inside. The PAK-50 is a lookalike airframe, but the claimed avionics are still vaporware. Comparing a prototype to a fielded plane is meaningless when half the features still need to be developed.
johng3592 1 month ago
@hazmatcom1 To put the facts out there, the F-22 is more expensive for 2 reasons:
1. The F-22 has very finely-constructed details to absolutely minimise it's radar cross-section.
2. The F-22 had a LOT of R&D involved with it. Because production of the F-22 was shut down, this price has been carried across fewer jets. If the full order had been made, each jet on average (particularly the later-made ones) would be cheaper.
xero993 1 month ago
Do you guys have any free pdf for your foam board planes looking to build a couple of these type of jets
BankheadRC 1 month ago
Scott build one of those jet planes from Robotech the Anime Series...Macross...or something see if you can get it to transform also!
Then build me a Borg Cube!!
maxjosephwheeler 1 month ago
The T-50 isn't even a production fighter yet, it's still a prototype. Look at all the information and videos out there, can you find the weapons bays? Because I can't. It's also not an "F-22 killer" I am so sick of hearing people throw that term around. The Raptor will surprise you there is only so much the Air Force can release and only so much they are willing to show us at airshows. You can't judge a planes performance with an RC variant, they do not behave the same.
ArtemisAce 1 month ago
@ArtemisAce You need to look harder or look up more information - the PAK FA has 2 inline bomb/missile bays between the engines (2 long bays, one bay behind the other)
and also 2 short-range missile pods at the wing roots - they're long, thin things sticking out from near the front-inner corner of the wings are and go back several metres. Each pod houses 1 short-range dogfighting missile. The F-22 in comparison has similar bays either side the fuselage, taking up fuselage space.
xero993 1 month ago
@xero993 I looked it up and saw the two internal bays in between the engines however the "pods" at the wing roots aren't weapons bays. If you look closely at it you can't make out any hinge or opening point. and more proof the thing is still a prototype, it doesn't have a gun. the Raptors weapons bays take up fuselage space but so do the T-50s.
ArtemisAce 1 month ago
@ArtemisAce The pods have been confirmed as weapons bays, each carrying a single K-74 or similar high off-bore missile - if you look at an unpainted T-50-1, you can see on the outer side of each pod is a door, different in material to the rest of the pod.
xero993 1 month ago
Those aren't canards, they are variable angle inlet ramps, similar to leading edge flaps on a wing. The concept is not new either. THe F-15 has a huge variable angle inlet ramp with pitch effects that are factored into the control system.
I'm not clear from the video, does the plane run out of elevator power to get more than 20 deg angle of attack, or does the plane stall or misbehave at that angle? Will it hold a higher alpha with the inlet ramp/canards at zero deflection?
johng3592 1 month ago
@nmrgrnm As an aeronautical engineer with 20 years experience, I can say that canards are no big deal from a control standpoint. If you think they need fly-by-wire, you might want to go ask the university for your money back on your "stability and control" class. Just look at the majority of Rutan designs, canards without computer control.
I guess what I have to say here is, this plane does not have canards. They are variable angle inlet ramps, similar to leading edge flaps on a wing.
johng3592 1 month ago
@johng3592 if you're trying to control a fighter plane with only canards as pitch control surface and typically with delta wing you may need flight control computer unless your plane is such nose heavy it is self stable. On the other hand, canards are the best choice for high-alpha designs as you must know (and by the way, i'm not saying they work just for that) because air is always passing through them and they're not interferred by the main wing. Anyway, those are not canards as you say.
nmrgrnm 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nmrgrnm You make a true statement: "you may need flight control computer unless your plane is such nose heavy it is self stable" But that is true of any airplane, it is not a characteristic of canards. Of course, most famous is the F-16. Conventional layout, but staticaly unstable - requiring a flight computer to maintain stability. There is nothing special about the canard that calls for special consideration beyond locating the CG correctly, like any other plane.
johng3592 1 month ago
@nmrgrnm PS- sorry if my original reply came on a little strong
johng3592 1 month ago
@johng3592 While I'm not denying they're inlet ramps, they do have a dual(triple) function: controlling the supersonic shock wave into the inlet as a ramp does, maintaining laminar flow over the wing (they've been receiving the title of Leading Edge VOrtex CONtrollers) for high-alpha stability and also just plain as a sort of canard (they've been seen pitching up when the aircraft pitches up and moving independently during rolls). But yes, canards aren't the correct term.
xero993 1 month ago
I don't know about anyone else, but I am not diggin' the "RC fun by proxy" format that RCPowers has taken. Don't get me wrong, I still think he is one of the most knowledgeable guys in the RC world and has made some of the most informative videos I have found. But I feel like I have been sold down the river. Like someone promised to take me on a great trip to experience things I had never known and as soon as I got in the car, the driver jumps out and tells me how much the trip is going to cost.
roastedghost 1 month ago
@roastedghost most knowledgeable? are you serious? :)
nastycop420 1 month ago
@RCSuperPowers from the experience, canards are, in almost any case, a pain in the ass. I'm an aeronautical engineer and almost every plane that has got canards needs lots of fly-by-wire, fancy stuff. For example, the eurofighter has got 11 flight computers to stabilize it. But there are always exceptions like the j-20...
nmrgrnm 1 month ago
@nmrgrnm The J-20 will be / is fly-by-wire controlled - it isn't all that difficult to program so long as you're using modern sensors (which the Chinese will be able to do easily - their microprocessor industry is even more advanced than Russia's).
xero993 1 month ago
You guys never do any demonstration videos any more
tichywill1000 1 month ago 4
wouldnt it be cool if they had camera and guns....so u have an actual dog fight just by looking at a screan
reborns001 1 month ago
Had a fire bat loved it just under powered.
justfly60482 1 month ago
Beeing a complete noob in aerodynamics I should ask:
Does inability to get high alpha might mean the real thing needs long concrete runways?
SwineNahNah 1 month ago
@SwineNahNah Not at all - in real life the real thing is quite stable at high alpha because it can adjust it's control surfaces (elevators, ailerons, leading-edge-root-extensions ["canards"], etc much faster and more precisely, whilst having it all micro-managed by fly-by-wire computers.
xero993 1 month ago
@xero993
OK, but if it demands quite a high speed anyway while landing.
Hmm, OK, it might be countered by effective airbrakes (and canards definitely help here) and a drag parachute.
SwineNahNah 1 month ago
@SwineNahNah The PAK FA wouldn't - it has very low wing loading and a partial lifting-body design; in real life it is capable of holding high AoA, allowing for very slow landings. For air brakes, the PAK FA simply turns it's vertical stabilisers outwards and for when the runways are icy, or for performing STOL landings, it also has a drogue parachute.
xero993 1 month ago
Low cost? Sounds like a discussion of state owned manufacturing vs free enterprise, but there might be more to the story. The model did look like a good flyer, but I am wondering how many flights it took to get it trimmed out.
Tsavah 1 month ago
PAK-FA COULD HAVE BEEN SLIGHT DESIGNED BIGGER TO ALLOW MORE INTERNAL WEAPONS STORES. Looks like a nice plane .
altops 1 month ago
@altops I don't know why you're typing in caps, but the PAK FA already carries enough internal weapons stores. As it is, it'll be able to carry more than the F-22 (unless you're counting the use of Small Diameter Bombs). In air to air combat it'll carry more munitions than the F-22.
xero993 1 month ago
they needs............... GUNS!!!
nstrike999 1 month ago 25
@nstrike999 in a real stealth jet (like the t-50) the weapons are hidden inside....... -_-
AncNoob 1 month ago
@nstrike999 dont forget missiles :D
3040549 1 month ago
yep russia has it covered low costing, fast yet areodynamic.
this is what we rc guys wanna see. :P an awesome fighter.
BBBQ4 1 month ago
Nice Video... thanks...
Dongato632010 1 month ago
@theonlyorange This is Scott Dave's designer of the RCPowers planes. Rumor is Dave is on a top secret mission for the CIA.
gstrysky 1 month ago 36
Dont underestimate Russian engineering. And don't forget that Russian planes can be fixed with chisel and hammer if needed. They are simple and very effective. And as you also mentioned in the video much cheaper to manufacture. Cheers
OGRMaster 1 month ago
Canards are neat but I find that even though the canards did increase the turn in capability of the plane it also added a bit of unpredictability when doing slow fly, close to the ground maneuvers. On the real plane they are LERX for slow maneuverability routing airflow over the wing. When mixed as a LERX the plane becomes more stable at slow speed. LERX does not work while inverted!!!
gstrysky 1 month ago
this is scott lott he designs the rcpowers airplanes.
i will definetly add a t-50 to the build list to mess aroud with the canards.
Airspaceuser 1 month ago
2 tips I'd suggest is to throw the centre of gravity even further back, making the plane less stable, but also making it easier to do high alpha.
The second thing is that those canards, at least on the real plane, are also (and if you want to get technical, called:) LEVCONs which are devices used to keep air going into the airtake, and also to allow air to flow more smoothly over the wing, giving you more yaw control. What I suggest as a test is to hook up the canards to a mixer (see my reply)
xero993 1 month ago
@xero993 ... hook the canards up to a mixer and have them attached to a toggle switch which throws them *downwards*. When you're pulling up to go high alpha, you have the canards following the elevons, pointing upwards, but then you flick the toggle switch and they point forward / down. While it could require some CG movement, they *could* (RC planes don't always act the same as proper ones though) give you more stability in high alpha.
xero993 1 month ago
we need dave
TheGhillesuitman 1 month ago
Who is this guy?? Where's Dave??
theonlyorange 1 month ago
Last night I believe I had canards for dinner.
I don't know how I got here, though.
MonacoBlast 1 month ago
Yup, the canards helped a lot. It kinda turns the entire plane's surface area like one big elevator wing.
BigbotCollections 1 month ago
Not tried canards (yet) but felt like i had to add a shameless plug & give a thanks.
I have only recently got back into rc after several years and honestly, this isnt coming from Dave or Scott BUT, if you are fairly new to r/c (or even if your a hardened veteran looking to scratch build), seriously, get the audio course. Best investment i have made and for $47 you get 4 pdf plans worth more than that as well as a wealth of information that has already saved me more than i could ever afford :)
promenoshi 1 month ago
that is so cool!!!
BoredNotanymore 1 month ago
What? No sales-pitch?? :O Anyhow! I like this cannard-setup! Indeed... Easier construction..
RoelandDNL 1 month ago
Great plane. I just built your Eurofighter. I have used the microjet v3 motor. Do you think it is a little underpowered or am I not flying it right?
PlatinumGordon 1 month ago
i think this model would be great at high alpha if it had fronterons like the real thing, those tiny leading edge canards just don't have enough area to have any effect on the large airframe
MegaTechnomaster 1 month ago
@MegaTechnomaster Those canards / LEVCONs are about scale with the real thing; maybe 5-10% smaller than on the real thing, but pretty close. That said, this is RC though and they probably would benefit making them bigger or giving them bigger throws.
xero993 1 month ago
@xero993 no no like i mean if they installed fronterons as well as leading edge canards then maybe it would help to get the nose up a bit easier, because the while they are scale, not even the real one goes into high alpha without fronterons, that's probably why they're having difficulty getting the nose up. if you look at the photo from 0:00 to 0:10 you'll see what i mean, but yes i do get what you're saying, the model appears very scale
MegaTechnomaster 1 month ago
Wow that's agile and yeah Russia has some impressive planes for sure
MrROTD 1 month ago
third!!!!
beautifull bird, like always! as we say in france, BRAVO! and thank you!we missed your flights videos, please do like before (less adds)
jacknjck671 1 month ago
Wait. i though the su47 was supposed to be the new super jet on the block?
MasterGravitron 1 month ago
Fuck yeah! Russian aviation rules the world!!
sergnoff94 1 month ago
hello
glitchTF 1 month ago
@glitchTF hi
hallo54521 1 month ago