Isn't the YF-23 being displayed at a museum?What prevents someone from going there, taking 1000 photos from all angles. And then through software retrieve a perfect 3d model?Instead of building the Tejas, india could have built a copy of the F-23.They could have made it the same way Korea did their F-22 copy.First build a F-23 copy without internal weapons bay. Add fixed hardpoints to the wings. Then later when all the flying problems were sorted out, then they could implement the internal weapons bay.Instead of copying the F-23.India made the bastard son between the shitrage 2000 and the F-18, and made it uglier than ever.They wasted a lot of money.
Wouldn't that get you sued and barred from potential buyers?Lockheed basically made the body kit for the Kf but the iwb was an upcharge.
There're already 3D models.But an aircraft isn't only its external shape.You actually need:>flight control computer (modern aircraft have an "active" aerodynamic)>engine that can be matched with the inlets (probably not problematic because they already can buy decent engines, the SC isn't retained)>materials and manufacturing, the design was made ASSUMING you'd get access to those In general the shape is the easiest part regardless what retards say here.
>>64560775>materials and manufacturing, the design was made ASSUMING you'd get access to thoseMake everything with aluminium.If it is too heavy, then change some parts to carbon fiber.If the part needs to be stronger, then change to titanium.It is easy
>>64560775The engine is the hardest part, because bleeding edge high performance engines are fucking hard. There’s a reason why you can count the number of companies capable of producing them on one hand.And Boom isn’t one of them lmao
>>64560775>can buy decent enginesNot if they steal a fucking design.
>>64560827>steal design>can't actually make iti don't think you understand the problem.
>>64560746It's the bits you can't see that provide the magic, friendo.
>>64560858Oh I understand.Actually being able to make the design involves literal espionage to get the materials and software right, as well as the know-how to procure it and put the whole thing together. So it's not a matter of just going to a museum and taking photos of a plane but it would involve literal espionage to be able to copy it.But EVEN IF they could somehow pull that off (stratospherically huge if) you are still stuck with a model you can't get engines for, because you'd get shut down real fast by export controls. And they simply can't fucking make the engines.Which was my point.
>>64560802They aren't making the engine, just using an uprated F404, the Kalevi or something like that is vaporware.That engine will work just fine even if they design a mediocre inlet.
>>64560746This happens. The Su-57 is already a copy of a failed concept for an F-22/-23 competitor. The FC-31 is a copy of the F-35, and the J-35 is a different copy of the F-35 using the stolen original plans. The Y-20 is a parts-compatible clone of a C-17.The question is, why would anyone copy the YF-23? The ziggers picked a less recognizable airframe and the chinks picked a program winner. The jeets wouldn't directly copy anyone because the whole point of the Tejas is to have a completely domestic design, even if it's really bad. So who's going to be the one digging up an iconic prototype from 30 years ago to copy?
>>64560746You could certainly make a very fetching and expensive novelty YF-23 lawn ornament that way, yes
>copy the shape >exhaust melts because you couldn't recreate the heat resistant material >program delayed for 5 years because you have to build brand new specialized machineries to recreate the wings>your prototype is 5 tons overweighted because you couldn't match the composite materials used >try to fly the prototype >control locks up because you couldn't make good enough actuators>go to war >gets shot down because your domestic radar is shit, your ram is shit and your stealth is shit because you don't have testing facilities and money to test the stealth
>>64561228You forgot:>Have to make it longer to fit your shitty knockoff engines>Have to make it wider to fit an extra shitty knockoff engine to meet your thrust to weight goals
>>64561212Copy the shell.Create something inside that can support the shell.It doesn't seem to be that hard.Computers now are 100000x more advanced than back then.It should be a lot easier to create the stuff, and simulate if it works or not.
it would be equivalent of showing an Igorot a Model T in a museum and expecting them to build a Lambo.
>>64561250Please refer to the two posts above yours, anon already answered for me.
>>64560746>india could have built a copy of the F-23.You are out of your fucking mind thinking that is possible
>>64561228>>64561234You forgot >Make the canopy open forwards because thats the what the design you stole says>the design you stole says to do that because of the VTOL variant Literal cargo-cult shit. No one, not a single chang stopped to say >we dont need to do this
>>64561234>>64561304I think the funniest part is that they had to make it longer for their shitty twin engines but couldn't into the CFD to actually get the aerodynamics right despite the job being made easier for them with the increased fineness ratio. So the niggers at Shenyang did what they knew best and turned it into a thin, flat flanker fuselage that can't have internal carriage of anything other than air to air missiles and definitely raped the fuel tank capacity by 4000 pounds too.Shenyang are such lazy zigger tier niggers it's not even funny. At least Chengdu was getting into DSI tech in the early 2000s without directly going from a stolen handbook.
>>64561420>At least Chengdu was getting into DSI tech in the early 2000s without directly going from a stolen handbook.You mean the J-10 that's a direct copy of the Israeli Lavi? Chinks can't invent anything on their own; if you ever think they did it's just because you're unfamiliar with the original.
>>64561304You are retarded. The canopy changed direction in opening during development, going from rear to forward.Literally, it would take a couple of minutes of research to see this, but you instead were just so retarded that you thought you were the smartest guy in the room about something so obvious. There is more than one reason for the canopy to open forwards rather than backwards. Particularly with the body-shape of the jet. Likely the hinge was just always weak when placed in the rear.
>>64561216Don't forget the MiG-25 which is a copy of some American plane the Soviets saw at an air show.
>>64562314They changed from an aircraft built to look like an F-35, to a literal carbon copy of the F-35. The reason the canopy changed direction is because before they didn't have access to the F-35 design documents and afterward they did.
>>64562489That would be irrelevant because the VTOL stuff was left off and the hinge placement wouldn't be impacted by it. The forward hinge is almost certainly because it is a stronger place for it.
>>64562489>implying they didn't have prior experience with forward-hinged canopies
>>64560746The YF-23 that is displayed in a museum is filled with deliberate design flaws cause they know Chinks would try to copy the design.
>>64562511The VTOL was left off because the F-35 they copied didn't have it.>>64562518>Implying they didn't have possession of the F-35 planshttps://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/shadow-war-chinese-spy
>>64562584>F-35 plansHow do you convert a fatso single engine into a twin engine pancake without making a new plane, lmao dumbfucker
>>64562624See: >>64561234>>64561420You do a shitty job of stretching it to fit your knockoff engines.
>>64562631>WS-13: 4.14m long>F135: 5.6m long (-100), 9.4m long (-600)Once again you're trying to force your fanfics
>>64562660You're that guy that posts the picture of the LS long block next to a complete UZ with its full accessory drive, manifolds, and harness, and claims that it's lighter and smaller in every dimension.
>>64560746Are you fucking retarded? You think knowing the shape of an aircraft is enough to copy it?
>>64562695>irrelevant analogy because he was proven wrong, absolutely wrongYou're not missing the point but the whole sea.You can be anti-CCP without being functionally imbecile.
>>64560785>Make everything with aluminium.>If it is too heavy, then change some parts to carbon fiber.>If the part needs to be stronger, then change to titanium.>It is easyI dont think I have ever seen a better example of Dunning-Kreuger effect than this post.
>>64562696a sizable number of people on /k/ talk about the SU-57 being a "body kit" for a Flanker. Like its just a few bits you bolt onto a car. These people are fucking retarded, and have absolutely no comprehension of how aircraft are designed, built or function
>>64562489which way does this canopy open?and what >zooooooooooooooooooomgggggggg Chang stolen-tech!!!"did this jet copy?whats this a cheap copy of ?
>>64562799its not the dumbest, lowest traffic'd board on the site for no reason
>>64562741The two engines are not being measured in the same state of trim, which is also why the quoted weights of the chink engines are so much lower.>>64562811>The J-35 isn't a copy of the F-35, look at this completely different aircraft!wat
>>64562811>how does it get off the ground>does it get off the ground?>the ground?>Ground?Captain Wi Tu Lo?
>>64562314it's still wrong just like the fool-35. in canopies opening the correct way (from front to back), when you eject the whole canopy comes off without facing wind resistance. instead the wind helps separate it. for some dumb reason, some bongs came up with the idea you need to explode the glass instead of ejecting the canopy, and the pilot has to go through the glass shards. that's why some jets have the stupid detcord lines on top of their canopies. the fool-35 too, has the wrong way opening canopy that can't eject because of the wind, so it also has the stupid through the glass ejection.for culture, the only correct canopy designs are f-16 and f-22. not just because they open the correct way, but also because they don't have the stupid canopy bow in front of the pilot obstructing his vision. bowless canopy was figured out 50 years ago in f-16. why are there still fighters being made with the wrong canopies? i don't want to hear excuses. it's not like the new jets have to fly at mach 3. birds? stop being ridiculous!stop being stupid. stop copying fool-35. start installing a REAL bubble canopies on your planes now!>>64562459>some American plane the Soviets saw at an air showi've read the same story about f-111 and su-24 coming straight from a designer of su-24.
hello nigger, president of the US donald trump here, you are a fucking genius, i need you on board to take america back, please post your social security number so i can put you in charge of the CIA
>>64560746>this isn't your average everyday YF-23 hopium, this is ADVANCED YF-23 hopium>>64563226>the cockpit from the side is the same guyz!!!!The Su-57 has pathetic vertical stabilizers, its engines aren't concealed nighthawk-style, and the the intakes are straight and gay instead of curvy futuristic S-ducts like my favorite Ace-Combat-in-real-life plane. Also the main wings are completely different designs, not even slightly similar, which is why you compared them from the side.
>>64562584Your point is incoherent. What F35 variant ever used a rear opening canopy for them to copy in the first place?
>>64562660It's impossible to fit two WS-19 into an F-35 airframe without increasing the length to make up for an already stubby airframe so your point makes zero sense.
>>64563226Really nothing at all here that is similar. Just standard pancake designs.
>>64563435There wasn't one. That's why their F-35 clone copied from the F-35 plans has an F-35-style forward hinged canopy, and their earlier F-35 lookalike designed before they had the F-35 plans has a typical rear hinged canopy.
>>64560746>the US chose the F-22 over the YF-23>that must mean the F-22 is better>copying the YF-23 would therefore be a waste of resources
>>64561250you're right, they should just open up chatgpt and ask it how to make a yf-23. you're so smart dude.
>>64563742hmm
>>64563882There’s some similarity in the nose shape but beyond that it’s difficult for the airframe to be much more different than it is currently. I know the clickbait slop mills all ran the YF-23 2.0 headline but it’s a completely different concept
>>64560746For fucks sake I am so fucking tired of you retards without the first clue of anything thinking a god damn fucking picture of a plane allows you to magically fucking copy it.The shape of a plane allows your enemy to deduce a lot of stuff. Weight, range, speed, manoeuvrability, observability.Take the YF-23 and YF-22. The 22 is the more manoeuvrable one, the 23 is the stealthier one. I can tell with one look.But that has mostly value for judging how capable the enemies shit is, basically nobody copies anything 1:1 without deeply understanding WHY these design tradeoffs were made.The chinks love to copy proven designs as a starting point to then design their own shit from there, they tend to not like to do from-scratch clean sheet shit when they have zero experience in the field which desu is wise.But a plane? Fuck me. You do thousands of hours of simulation, hundreds of hours verifying in a wind tunnel, you put it on a radar range, no matter if you try to copy it EXACTLY or not. It basically doesn't make any fucking difference if you had that starting point or not because you end up doing all the developmental work on the fucking shape anyways.And the shape of a plane? It's 0.01% of the total developmental work. It's near useless.Ok you 3d scanned the fucker, now what? How do you MAKE that shape? How do you make it PRECISELY? What material is it made out of? How do you MAKE that material? That 50mm tall super slim actuator that magically fits in the slim wing, how do you make it push at 7kN at a rate of 150mm/s with an MTBF of 3 million cycles?How do you grow monocrystalline titanium for turbine blades?What is the exact nickel iron superalloy composition to achieve 1600 degrees inlet temperature?The shape is whatever, who cares.
>>64564358That's why the US "shows" planes as soon as they're done developing it, they'll fly them anyways and people will see them anyways, so the only head start they get is hiding the shape and thus the rough capabilities of the plane during development.And even from that shape you can draw comically bad conclusions.The US thought the MIG-25 is highly manoeuvrable and an air superiority fighter. It isn't and it was an interceptor.They were shocked to find stainless steel and non-flush rivets in low pressure zones cause the Mig-25 is a high and fast interceptor where weight is not that important and temperatures fuck up composites and aluminium so the russians were like "fuck it, stainless" and in predictable straight line flight predictable low pressure zones exist where using flush rivets which are more work to do don't benefit the plane aerodynamically much.Basically, stop fucking thinking. Leave it to people who's head isn't empty.
>>64563382Chat, is this real?!
>>64563882If they really chose the F-22 because of backdoor deals and not because the F-22 was better they deserve to have another countrys jet mog them
>>64562799Ok fine it's DLC not a kit
>>64565209The F-22 was more mature during the flyoffs. It was chosen as it a risk reduction measure.
>>64568166It was also not made by Northrop, and the Air Force hates Northrop.
>>64564358>I can tell with one look.Except no, you can't. In many places the outer surface is radar transparent to some degree, with layered composite structures that absorb / trap the waves. The outer mold line is just the first line of defense.
>>64568206It's obvious the YF-23 made larger compromises in aerodynamics for VLO, while the F-22 makes larger compromises in VLO for manoeuvrability.You obviously are quite dumb.
>>64568169*Hated50% of the workload actually was from MCD too
>>64560746>then through software retrieve a perfect 3d model?What software is that?
>>64561250>Computers now are 100000x more advanced than back then.Citation required.
>>64568223Google for photogrammetry
>>64564358>manoeuverabilityOpinion discarded.
>>64568213The 23's massive AMT and the diamond wing gave it nearly the same high AoA control as the 22 and I've had this discussion with a retard quite recently.The yf-23 is a "naturally" stable plane in high alpha (think 45-60 degrees) near stall. It has excellent control. The only thing the F-22A has over the F-23A is the low speed thrust vectoring, which is completely useless in real situations.
>>64562822pretty sure thats /o/
>>64572697What could've been...
>>64561420It's a literal bodykit bolted on a stolen flanker design. China never designed a fighter from the ground up. All of it were reverse engineered from Russian jets. Their current "stealth" tech is literally based on salvaged parts of the F-117 shot down by the Serbs. The Serbs sold it to China. When the US found it, they BOMBED China's embassy but it was too late. The pieces were smuggled out.
>>64563612They'd have already demonstrated to themselves that they could use an aft-hinged canopy. Your timeline doesn't make any sense.
>>64562314Looks like they gave it a hump behind the canopy - probably for additional fuel because of their shit engines - and that forced them to flip the canopy direction. Honestly, it makes them look worse than a straight copy.
>>64568217Hates. They only got over it because the military loved Grumman.
>>64560785LmaoIsotropic carbon fiber is no lighter than aluminum
>>64561304At least one of them knew, but face culture won't allow them to speak up.
