Interesting emile but as alwasy the problem with line drawings like that is that anyone with my level of knowledge could put that out but on the other hand its really quite vague too so who knows if this got leaked but I'm more then skeptical.

The thigns that stand out to me is that the airial view compared to head on the wings seem so much large but that could be just the scale of the renderings. Also in comparision to the CGI rendering that was from the powerplant company vertical stabalizers are much larger as well.

The drawings posted recently clearly show influence from both the F-22A and the YF-23.
Curiously, the respective angles of the twin stabilizers/rudders are not parallel to the intake/weapons bay sections.

Originally posted by templar8
The drawings posted recently clearly show influence from both the F-22A and the YF-23.

I think the idea of influence of the F-22A etc is missleading.

Whats the point of the PAK-FA? A2A stealth capability.
As shuch what design rules have to be applied to make it stealthy and aerodynamic?
Well the same rules the F-22 has to follow hence porpose driving design and similar porpose will spawn similar designs. Also the sketchs and the CGI are so vague that its hard to know exactly what this plane will look like from them.

Well, I post these line drawing is not for fun but for find some generality and particularity of them.
If you remember last drawing of Su-50 I posted you will find some generality are:
1) Both of them is designed as wide set engine nacelle for larger inner capability.
2) all-moving tailplan for supermaneuvable and super-controllable
and pariticularity are:
1) minimized all-moving vertical fin on previous one for reducing total area of fin and horizontal stabilizer vs V tail on this one for more minmized area of tail.
2) Biger backward sweep angle of leading edge of main wing on previous one vs sweep angle redued on this one.

summarised:
a) Su-50 will gained more inner capability than F-22 hence will get capasious weapon bay and fuel tank inside.
b) Since wide engine nacelle set means more intergrated of airframe than F-22.
c) All moving taill soever vertical fin or V fin necessarily reduce the RCS and weight compare with so big tail on F-22.

So, even other aspects US may still go ahead of Russia, but the impact Su-50 bring to will being like Su-27 surpassing the F-15 on aerodynamic design. If UASF has no 100% grasp to avoid dogfight, I have to say, F-22 is going to outdate.

I am not coming here to denigrate F-22, but USAF being dangrous, come on, design a new generation replace the Raptor for US air power never go out.

BTW, XueXiao has been determined as a layout of next generation jet fighter instead of Menglong which I originally appreciated. Which only clue we can followed is foreplan will be used with tailplan to both, so traditional concept of stealth may be no longer appropriate. Chinese designers are not so fool to ignoranced advantage of stealth that F-22 taked.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by emile]

It looks like it has a lot of fuselage lifting area which should lead to a long range and high maneuverability.

I am really curious to see how this stacks up to the Raptor.

Hi, mate, if you know what the pod under F-15E's inlet are, and what the function is, you would know MiG-35's. Only difference is which on MiG-35 integrated two to one.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The SU-30 is not the carrier version of the SU 27. the 33 is. the 30 is the strike\multirole\2 seat version.

My bad. My bad a very long time ago.

BTW... does anyone know what the pod on the bottom of the MIG 35 is?

Depends which one you talk about, but probably its OLS. Search it up on Wiki for more information.

PS. the Russkies must be very desprate, they changed the name of the SU 37 from super flanker to "TERMINATOR" lmao!!!!

They never named it that. Super Flanker is the NATO name for it because they can't pronounce the real names. Besides, the Su-35 was the Super Flanker. If they're going to give the Su-37 a new number, why not change its name as well?