Poll - What inlet design would you like to see on the NGFA ?

[messiach]

@All
What about dual DSI inlets. Do they have a place? Any place for Dynamic DSI intakes?

 

[SQ8]

Janab, there is a fundamental issue that stops scientific discussion. The requirements have not been defined. What is NGFA? What capabilities does it need? What aerodynamic qualities, flight envelope is needed? What engine shall we assume? Inlet design cannot happen inside a vacuum. I gave my wishlist based on an imaginary concept I hold somewhere in my mind. This is not a concrete discussion.

If one bases it upon the very high level concept drawing shown then this

However, the DSI does remove mechanical complexity but I never really investigated its transonic performance parameters. Frankly as long as the aircraft can accelerate rapidly from M0.7- 1.2 that’s all you need to lob BvR with good kinematic Pk.

Supercruise would be a great to have with just internal but since the aircraft requirements aren’t really clear one cannot say what goes where.

@All
What about dual DSI inlets. Do they have a place? Any place for Dynamic DSI intakes?

Inflating bladders to shape the intake??

 

[messiach]

FC1 DDSI has excellent trans-sonic profile, otherwise it would have been a failure.

If one bases it upon the very high level concept drawing shown then this

However, the DSI does remove mechanical complexity but I never really investigated its transonic performance parameters.

Inflating bladders to shape the intake??

 

[SQ8]

FC1 DDSI has excellent trans-sonic profile, otherwise it would have been a failure.

Just needs to be coupled with a more powerful engine and then it would be a fairly fearsome BvR fighter. The F-16 is one of the best specifically because it can flow hot & cold with ease and regain energy fairly quickly.

Technically so can the Flankers but then they also show up on radar before something like the JF-17 can even squeak.

 

[CriticalThought]

@All
What about dual DSI inlets. Do they have a place? Any place for Dynamic DSI intakes?

I had dynamic DSI in mind, but didn't know if the technology has matured enough because this is a 6th gen concept. If we can have it, then I am all for it.

 

[CriticalThought]

If one bases it upon the very high level concept drawing shown then this

However, the DSI does remove mechanical complexity but I never really investigated its transonic performance parameters. Frankly as long as the aircraft can accelerate rapidly from M0.7- 1.2 that’s all you need to lob BvR with good kinematic Pk.

Supercruise would be a great to have with just internal but since the aircraft requirements aren’t really clear one cannot say what goes where.

Inflating bladders to shape the intake??

Think dynamic DSI with active flow control to control boundary layer before it enters the engine. Active flow control has been used to eliminate control surfaces. It would be a novel application to try and use it for removing the deficiencies of DSI. Maybe, you don't need DDSI to affect a wide range of morphing if you supplant with active flow control? @messiach

 

[The Eagle]

But the problem is, barely anyone here is competent enough to discuss and argue this topic simply due to a lack of understanding, even more without any information on the NGFA's requirements such a discussion even by the better informed members makes only little sense and will end up either in a plain useless poll based on pure aesthetics or personnel favour and in the worst case scenario in the possibility to mock and ridicule certain member's decision again since barely anyone here is competent enough to discuss and argue this topic.

Just my two cents.

NO issue for lack for lack of competence or knowledge by anyone. About mocking; I guarantee a very unpleasant result for the member. This is the beauty of discussion based upon knowledge or fresh research or even by learning right now. It doesn't warrant pure professional people. However, I do agree that its just annoying when someone with no experience keeps enforcing his/her idea and that's where Moderation will come into play. Nothing is useless Deino..... everything has its own benefits and every exercise ends up with experience gain and something new. It's just you or me seeing that useless but not everyone. This is a Forum and let the people have their personal opinion as after all, PAC is not waiting for us to share a design & favourite Inlet for NGF to progress.

 

[Hammad ur Rehman]

Something like Su-57 intake but with DSI & well blended with the body & wider space between the engines with Swan type tail or Su-75 type arrangement.

Must have 1 or 2 fuselage internal weapon bays & side mounted bays for 1-2 AAM missiles each.

 

[Deino]

NO issue for lack for lack of competence or knowledge by anyone. About mocking; I guarantee a very unpleasant result for the member. This is the beauty of discussion based upon knowledge or fresh research or even by learning right now. It doesn't warrant pure professional people. However, I do agree that its just annoying when someone with no experience keeps enforcing his/her idea and that's where Moderation will come into play. Nothing is useless Deino..... everything has its own benefits and every exercise ends up with experience gain and something new. It's just you or me seeing that useless but not everyone. This is a Forum and let the people have their personal opinion as after all, PAC is not waiting for us to share a design & favourite Inlet for NGF to progress.

I hope you did not misunderstand my post and even more it was not my intention to offend someone, my point is only that indeed only few can argue based on technical knowledge and understanding and most of us do this more or less on "learned thru the years" a personnel favour. I know this and with this in mind indeed, "Nothing is useless" ... in fact that's what forums are for.

My point is that a few senior members members and professionals - indeed since they know more - have shown a repeated habit in recent threads to either ignore other members questions, ridicule "stupid" questions and even insult others as being "stupid schoolkids". Yes most of us are "stupid schoolkids", but why are then here? Only to get the feeling of being better, have a deeper understanding and knowledge when they diminish others?

In fact I have no problem to accept any mistake, apologise for any stupidity question and ridiculous claim I made if I get a decent and honest explanation. If then however any critic is only turned down with shorts notes like "anyone else with CAD shall better explain" or "it's so obviously" or ""stupid schoolkid", it leaves the feeling that these members are in no way interested in explaning or discussing, but only to diminish others as stupid.

Again, it maybe be but in fact they never give the opportunity to learn.

As such in regard to this poll I have the strong feeling that exactly these members don't give any explanation why a certain intake design is better for a certain requirement than another one, they only will think how many "stupid schoolkids" commented here, and that's a pity.

 

[The Eagle]

I hope you did not misunderstand my post and even more it was not my intention to offend someone, my point is only that indeed only few can argue based on technical knowledge and understanding and most of us do this more or less on "learned thru the years" a personnel favour. I know this and with this in mind indeed, "Nothing is useless" ... in fact that's what forums are for.

My point is that a few senior members members and professionals - indeed since they know more - have shown a repeated habit in recent threads to either ignore other members questions, ridicule "stupid" questions and even insult others as being "stupid schoolkids". Yes most of us are "stupid schoolkids", but why are then here? Only to get the feeling of being better, have a deeper understanding and knowledge when they diminish others?

In fact I have no problem to accept any mistake, apologise for any stupidity question and ridiculous claim I made if I get a decent and honest explanation. If then however any critic is only turned down with shorts notes like "anyone else with CAD shall better explain" or "it's so obviously" or ""stupid schoolkid", it leaves the feeling that these members are in no way interested in explaning or discussing, but only to diminish others as stupid.

Again, it maybe be but in fact they never give the opportunity to learn.

As such in regard to this poll I have the strong feeling that exactly these members don't give any explanation why a certain intake design is better for a certain requirement than another one, they only will think how many "stupid schoolkids" commented here, and that's a pity.

Let the exercise be concluded or reach to a point where professional or informed member(s) will explain exactly. Sometimes, you need to push kids to do some work instead of spoon fed. There are ways to push their intellect boundaries and there are ways to ask differently. Nobody is calling anyone stupid here and even, I have removed or warned member to not to get into arguments against an opinion of a member for his/her choice of Inlet Design. We will continue with discussion and let the people share their thoughts or participate in the poll accordingly.

 

[Deino]

Let the exercise be concluded or reach to a point where professional or informed member(s) will explain exactly. Sometimes, you need to push kids to do some work instead of spoon fed. There are ways to push their intellect boundaries and there are ways to ask differently. Nobody is calling anyone stupid here and even, I have removed or warned member to not to get into arguments against an opinion of a member for his/her choice of Inlet Design. We will continue with discussion and let the people share their thoughts or participate in the poll accordingly.

Strange, exactly the starter of this thread was the one which refused any explanation of her claimed observations and changes, which only she noticed like a different aspect ratio, different rear fuselage and other details . But after several requests from several members she only replied in the way I mentioned above. Yes, that's surely not worth a warning or any consequences and indeed most of us are "stupid schoolkids" in comparison to her, but exactly since I'm a school teacher it is the same situation: an IMO "stupid schoolkid" with a huge interest asks a certain - maybe indeed stupid - question and is eager to get an explanation to learn ... So do I tell him to leave since he is only a "stupid schoolkid" and tell him to stop asking stupid questions?

 

[Moon]

DSI, definitely. Might be tricky to design, but less difficult to build, plus lower maintenance and more stealth. Not to mention fewer moving parts.
Plus we have a history of building DSI and so do the Chinese.

 

[The Eagle]

Strange, exactly the starter of this thread was the one which refused any explanation of her claimed observations and changes, which only she noticed like a different aspect ratio, different rear fuselage and other details . But after several requests from several members she only replied in the way I mentioned above. Yes, that's surely not worth a warning or any consequences and indeed most of us are "stupid schoolkids" in comparison to her, but exactly since I'm a school teacher it is the same situation: an IMO "stupid schoolkid" with a huge interest asks a certain - maybe indeed stupid - question and is eager to get an explanation to learn ... So do I tell him to leave since he is only a "stupid schoolkid" and tell him to stop asking stupid questions?

Deino! Nobody is bound to reply and nobody is under obligations to explain. You should know that, given our respective fields, there are limitations of one to absorb knowledge. You are a teacher but you aren't an aviation guy. This is an open forum and people will share only as much is needed or deem fit to them. You can't just repeat same stuff over and over. Trust me, not everybody will give any evidence or proof. Either you take it on face value or leave it and move on. If we claim to be a believer by proof, it doesn't makes others stupid or unreliable. Try to understand and leave it here.

Regards,

 

[Goritoes]

OH this is going to be a interesting thread, as I know jack about fighters and design I will be a silent reader

 

[SQ8]

I hope you did not misunderstand my post and even more it was not my intention to offend someone, my point is only that indeed only few can argue based on technical knowledge and understanding and most of us do this more or less on "learned thru the years" a personnel favour. I know this and with this in mind indeed, "Nothing is useless" ... in fact that's what forums are for.

My point is that a few senior members members and professionals - indeed since they know more - have shown a repeated habit in recent threads to either ignore other members questions, ridicule "stupid" questions and even insult others as being "stupid schoolkids". Yes most of us are "stupid schoolkids", but why are then here? Only to get the feeling of being better, have a deeper understanding and knowledge when they diminish others?

In fact I have no problem to accept any mistake, apologise for any stupidity question and ridiculous claim I made if I get a decent and honest explanation. If then however any critic is only turned down with shorts notes like "anyone else with CAD shall better explain" or "it's so obviously" or ""stupid schoolkid", it leaves the feeling that these members are in no way interested in explaning or discussing, but only to diminish others as stupid.

Again, it maybe be but in fact they never give the opportunity to learn.

As such in regard to this poll I have the strong feeling that exactly these members don't give any explanation why a certain intake design is better for a certain requirement than another one, they only will think how many "stupid schoolkids" commented here, and that's a pity.

Just FYi- The title other than moderator, think tank& professional, researcher have no other metric other than the number of posts.

So tomorrow if I create a second account and post nothing but nyan-cat memes 10000 times I will be an “Elite” member. The gold and green colors are meaningless when it comes to expectations on quality of posts or knowledge.
At that point you basically see if the posts makes sense or not because you may be talking to a 15 year old furiously copying from Wikipedia to gain online fame.

If this helps weigh “seniority”.

Think dynamic DSI with active flow control to control boundary layer before it enters the engine. Active flow control has been used to eliminate control surfaces. It would be a novel application to try and use it for removing the deficiencies of DSI. Maybe, you don't need DDSI to affect a wide range of morphing if you supplant with active flow control? @messiach

That would mean additional mechanics and sort of takes away from the idea of simplicity that came with a DSI. Well, nothing is for free so always compromises on something to gain another.