New MiG-UTS trainer project (2023)

[fightingirish]

Source: https://telegra.ph/MiG-obucheniya-12-26
Thanks mods, for editing this post. These pictures were formerly taken from paralay's forum.

 

[citizensnip]

MiG UTS





Artstation

 

[Scott Kenny]

Those inlet pods look weird. Very much something "bolted onto the outside of the airframe" and not integrated into the shape.

 

[robunos]

Those inlet pods look weird. Very much something "bolted onto the outside of the airframe" and not integrated into the shape.

A similar arrangement to the Temco TT-1 . . .


cheers,
Robin.

 

[World B4]

A similar arrangement to the Temco TT-1

I can’t unsee it now, no doubt soon we’ll see a “super pinto” light attack version. It certainly does seem smart to standardize the jet engines on combat aircraft trainers, and if they can get the Yak-152 into production with a domestic engine, their light trainer fleet will be relatively modern and domestic. Well, as much as a project based on a design jointly developed with China, a design loosely based off a 90s prototype, and a project jointly developed with Italy can be. Still better than the Iranian jet trainer program though, and really flexing on your allys is the glue of diplomatic relations

 

[TinWing]

Those inlet pods look weird. Very much something "bolted onto the outside of the airframe" and not integrated into the shape.

The HAL HJT-36 Sitara has similar intakes and as well as early design studies of the Hawk trainer.

 

[Galaxy]

Those inlet pods look weird. Very much something "bolted onto the outside of the airframe" and not integrated into the shape.

There is a reason for that and many aircraft have a similar a similar design feature such as F-16, M-146, M-345, Yak-130, Jas-39, F-18, ect. It is a channel that diverts turbulent boundary layer airflow from the fuselage away from the intake.

Thank goodness you never become an aircraft designer otherwise you would build something highly inefficient that was prone to engine stalls and possibly catastrophic engine failures.

F-16, F-18, Rafale:

 

[Scott Kenny]

There is a reason for that and many aircraft have a similar a similar design feature such as F-16, M-146, M-345, Yak-130, Jas-39, F-18, ect. It is a channel that diverts turbulent boundary layer airflow from the fuselage away from the intake.

Thank goodness you never become an aircraft designer otherwise you would build something highly inefficient that was prone to engine stalls and possibly catastrophic engine failures.

I am quite aware of the need for boundary layer separation, thank you very much.

And that is NOT what I was complaining about.

Let's go with the P-51 Mustang radiator air inlet for an example. It is raised above the boundary layer. But it is the full width of the fuselage and smoothly integrates into the fuselage.

P-80 inlet. Raised above the boundary layer, yet the outer shell is smoothly integrated into the fuselage and wings.

F-105 inlets: smoothly integrated into the wings.

F-16 inlet. Smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

Rafale inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

Gripen inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

F-22 inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

With this design, the inlets are boxes bolted onto the sides of the fuselage, no attempt to integrate them into the fuselage shape.

 

[riggerrob]

I am quite aware of the need for boundary layer separation, thank you very much.

And that is NOT what I was complaining about.

Let's go with the P-51 Mustang radiator air inlet for an example. It is raised above the boundary layer. But it is the full width of the fuselage and smoothly integrates into the fuselage.

P-80 inlet. Raised above the boundary layer, yet the outer shell is smoothly integrated into the fuselage and wings.

F-105 inlets: smoothly integrated into the wings.

F-16 inlet. Smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

Rafale inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

Gripen inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

F-22 inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

With this design, the inlets are boxes bolted onto the sides of the fuselage, no attempt to integrate them into the fuselage shape.

To further confuse you, Lockheed dispensed with boundary layer splitters/vents on both their CF-104 Starfighter and F-35 Lightning II. Instead they use fixed shock cones to tailor airflow into the fixed inlets.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To further confuse you, Lockheed dispensed with boundary layer splitters/vents on both their CF-104 Starfighter and F-35 Lightning II. Instead they use fixed shock cones to tailor airflow into the fixed inlets.

The F-104 inlet is still raised clear of the boundary layer.

 

[TinWing]

I am quite aware of the need for boundary layer separation, thank you very much.

And that is NOT what I was complaining about.

Let's go with the P-51 Mustang radiator air inlet for an example. It is raised above the boundary layer. But it is the full width of the fuselage and smoothly integrates into the fuselage.

P-80 inlet. Raised above the boundary layer, yet the outer shell is smoothly integrated into the fuselage and wings.

F-105 inlets: smoothly integrated into the wings.

F-16 inlet. Smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

Rafale inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

Gripen inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

F-22 inlets: smoothly integrated into the fuselage once clear of the boundary layer vents.

With this design, the inlets are boxes bolted onto the sides of the fuselage, no attempt to integrate them into the fuselage shape.

The inlets are not a huge concern for a low performance, straight wing, subsonic trainer. The long running HJT-36 retains a similar configuration, albeit with a much lower mass flow turbofan. Oddly enough, for all that's been wrong with the now renamed Yahas, former Sitara, I don't think the inlets were an issue. https://aviationweek.com/defense/li...s-troubled-jet-trainer-gets-facelift-new-name