Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis [2010]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matej said:
Answers are no, no. I am going to make the complex revision of it when some good quality official 3 view will appear. It means source grade at least 4. Where I can see Kens progress?

Oh, and... 8. March is already here :) http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersSF04.htm
Click to expand...

Oki doki, i totally understand your point.

Here ya go:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=204069
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
tbh, I don't think they would want to use radar blockers as that would compromise intake performance since the size of the duct is supersonic compression optimized. Adding one would be very unfavorable for supercruising. but that's just my 2 cents
Click to expand...

Fan blockers don't effect the speed the of the aircraft, as they are in front of the fan where the airflow is subsonic. Perhaps you aren't aware that the purpose of the inlet at supersonic speeds is to slow the airflow down, since current jet engines can't handle supersonic flow. Although the USAF has been conducting research into supersonic flow engines.

As a retrofit, they could possibly slow the plane down, because they would limit the mass flow to the engine, as they do take up area. However, if the inlet is designed for them at the outset, it shouldn't pose too big of a problem and they might also be variable geometry; i.e, they hide the fan face when maximum LO is required, but open up when Max flow is required.

Also, fan blockers can be a plus for performance, since they straighten the airflow out in front of the engine.

Whatever the case, the fan will not be visible from the front as it would make all of the LO shaping on the aircraft largely irrelevant if they didn't.
 
New cockpit pic, from March 8 Aviation Week article (c) Sukhoi
 

Attachments

  • PAK FA cockpit.JPG
    PAK FA cockpit.JPG
    79.4 KB · Views: 55
mr.sukhoi said:
Su-27BM/Su-35S have very similar cockpit
Click to expand...

Fixed. :p

But yeah, that is what sources said before it was shown.
 
Great work Matej, Congratulations! ;)

I have made a graph showing the real wingspan of PAK FA. I hope it's useful!

pakfawingspan.jpg

;)
 
Matej said:
flanker said:
Are you going to update the drawings now that a good front view is available?

PS: Did you see Kens work so far?
Click to expand...

Answers are no, no. I am going to make the complex revision of it when some good quality official 3 view will appear. It means source grade at least 4. Where I can see Kens progress?

Oh, and... 8. March is already here :) http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/fightersSF04.htm
Click to expand...

Wow , great drawing there Matej! :eek:
 
Wil, could you check out two things for me?

1: If there is a difference in pixel height if you measure the other tire?
2: How wide is the just the fuselage. I mean the area from beginning of the slats, to the beggining of slats.

An insider said that a few days ago that wingspan is 14.7 and that length is 19.5. So atleast the wingspan seems to be correct.
 
hmmm... a fan diameter of 0.93m suggests it's possible though ;D

but since you've mention movable fan blocker, I'd agree with that. sorry, I was thinking more of a fixed fan blocker earlier :D
 

Attachments

  • size comparo.jpg
    size comparo.jpg
    353.2 KB · Views: 101
The wingspan looks shorter in comparison to that of the Su-27, both on the recent images and the video from the first flight. I actually believe it's closer to 14 m.
 
I reckon that the angle and shape of the plane per se causes optical illusions regarding its size
 
flanker said:
Wil, could you check out two things for me?

1: If there is a difference in pixel height if you measure the other tire?
2: How wide is the just the fuselage. I mean the area from beginning of the slats, to the beggining of slats.

An insider said that a few days ago that wingspan is 14.7 and that length is 19.5. So atleast the wingspan seems to be correct.
Click to expand...

Hi Flanker!

My apologies for the delay, and my poor English (Tarzan type ! :-X)...

Regarding your first question, the height of the other wheel should be approximately equal, but it is difficult to determine exactly the boundaries of the wheel because there is some fog (near the ground).

And respect the second question, at first glance, the PAK FA appears to be wider than the Su-27, for example, but should be measured. Paralay has some very good diagrams:

http://paralay.com/pakfasu/shema.png

Best wishes!
 
I forgot ...

Another self-explanatory image, with an estimate of the length of the PAK FA (20.40 -20.80 m).

dimensiones3.jpg

Courtesy of the Espacial.org site. Thanks!

;)
 
Measuring half the tire was a neat move. Now if you consider that there is a forward perspective and reference line should be between the two wingtips...
 
Measuring half the tire was a neat move.
Click to expand...

trouble is, that only works *if* the wheels and tyres are indeed
the same on the Flanker and T-50. I think a better reference
would be to use the pilot's helmet. We know that's the same,
and thus the same size....


cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
Measuring half the tire was a neat move.
Click to expand...

trouble is, that only works *if* the wheels and tyres are indeed
the same on the Flanker and T-50. I think a better reference
would be to use the pilot's helmet. We know that's the same,
and thus the same size....


cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't same size. If you have noticed, everyone is measuring the tires as 1050 size, and iirc flanker was 1030. 1050 number comes from an article about the factory that produces the tires for PAK-FA.
 
Hello!

Here is an update of previously published pictures.

pakfawingspan.jpg

pakfalength.jpg

;)
 
I should be clear, my size estimates were done using engine nozzle diameter from the early released pictures.

Using the "measure the tyres" method I get 14.35m - 14.55m span depending which tyre I choose, assuming 1.05m. This shows you how there is a wide degree of inaccuracy in any photo interpretation method.
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
perhaps we could do the upper-half-of-the-tire method? ;)
Click to expand...

You would still need to know which tires to use. I'd go with the helmet or engine nozzels.
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
perhaps we could do the upper-half-of-the-tire method? ;)
Click to expand...

Hi,

If you use the "upper-half-of-the-tire method", the total error (yes, it exists...) in determining the lenght of PAK FA is much greater than if you use as reference distance to the complete diameter (apparent) of the wheel. So it's ideal to use for this purpose the left wheel, as the limits of it are fully visible.

OK? (my english is so bad...) ;)

And here, the PAK FA Picture of the Day,

A PS composition from the Sukhoi video!

Hasta la próxima!
 

Attachments

  • pakfacomposition1.jpg
    pakfacomposition1.jpg
    70.3 KB · Views: 123
Wil, that would make the flanker looks like the b-1 in comparison.
 
I meant the t-50 is unrealistically big in that PS comparison.
 
Using curves to brighten the image, it seems to me that the intake duct appears quite majorly curved. Just to add to the raging debates on Key forums :)
 

Attachments

  • PAKFA-intakes.jpg
    PAKFA-intakes.jpg
    40.6 KB · Views: 109
...
 

Attachments

  • _MG_0057_big.jpg
    _MG_0057_big.jpg
    201.4 KB · Views: 72
Point two:
one of previous discussed was that concave on out-board of inlet.
That concave obviously is for the radian the undercarriage packing up.
I am absolutely sure that wheel just is Flanker's.
 
overscan said:
Using curves to brighten the image, it seems to me that the intake duct appears quite majorly curved. Just to add to the raging debates on Key forums :)
Click to expand...
entertaining thread it is :D

regarding the duct, I have the same feeling though it seems that Sukhoi purposely burned the image(the duct) to drive us to further madness ;)

on an interesting note,
metaphorical clue: the duct could be a snail's shell ;)
 
Also some time ago I wrote that I saw the idea of the movable LERX before (pointing the Mukhamedov design). Well, this is the part two of my post...
 

Attachments

  • LCA-N_1.JPG
    LCA-N_1.JPG
    162.9 KB · Views: 63
  • LCA-N_2.JPG
    LCA-N_2.JPG
    165.5 KB · Views: 49
using a bit of creativity. . .

30 degree rotating semi axis symmetric mid duct for radar blocking and compression ;D

a.k.a. snail shell
 

Attachments

  • PAKFA-intakesF.jpg
    PAKFA-intakesF.jpg
    205.1 KB · Views: 69
saintkatanalegacy said:
using a bit of creativity. . .

30 degree rotating semi axis symmetric mid duct for radar blocking and compression ;D

a.k.a. snail shell
Click to expand...
unbelievable, I was doing the same thing yesterday. ;D Intake has indeed a complex shape, no laugh.
 
donnage99 said:
I meant the t-50 is unrealistically big in that PS comparison.
Click to expand...

Hi!

The scale man-PAK FA is right, just a question of perspective! Please look (from Sukhoi video):



The PAK FA is a large airplane. Think its engines are bulky and more powerful than the Su-30 ...

And finally, a comparison PAK FA-Raptor (we compare the relative size of their wheels):



;)
 

Attachments

  • PDVD_030.jpg
    PDVD_030.jpg
    76.8 KB · Views: 46
  • pakfa_f22comp1.jpg
    pakfa_f22comp1.jpg
    109.3 KB · Views: 49
Why don't we compare the relative size of their huds?
 
donnage99 said:
Why don't we compare the relative size of their huds?
Click to expand...

Because we don't know the sizes of HUD, but we know the tire sizes?
 
flanker said:
Because we don't know the sizes of HUD, but we know the tire sizes?
Click to expand...

Or we think we know the tire sizes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom