Sukhoi Su-57 / T-50 / PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II [2012-current]

Several online sources now refer to the T-50 as being also the "Su-50". I thought it was a mistake but now I can see that the designation is also in the title of this topic. Has it been made into an official designation? And since when?
 
It is anticipated to be the service designation when it enters service. T-50 is the Sukhoi internal designation only.
 
sferrin said:
Where are all the Su-4xs?
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact that fighters have historically been odd numbers, although that doesn't explain Su-25 or Su-30.
 
They also had Su-20 and Su-22 for export, and all four of these aircraft are oriented towards ground attack which might have been the reason for even numbers; though Su-22 might also just have been to avoid having a MiG-21 and Su-21 side by side.
 
sferrin said:
Where are all the Su-4xs?
Click to expand...
Su-47 given to S-37. Su-49 is a trainer
even numbers traditionally go for export versions
 
flateric said:
even numbers traditionally go for export versions
Click to expand...

... which contradicts the notion that the T-50 (or at least the Russian version) would be the Su-50!
 
Zvezda kit, licensed by Sukhoi, has Su-50 on it along with T-50

number 50 was chosen to mark 5th gen aircraft

7275.gif
 
flateric said:
Zvezda kit, licensed by Sukhoi, has Su-50 on it along with T-50

number 50 was chosen to mark 5th gen aircraft

7275.gif
Click to expand...

Makes more sense than the F-35's. ;D
 
50-2 flew the same day as 50-3 has started taxi trials at LII - 15/06/12
http://russianplanes.net/id79620
 
Finally .... ;)

Фотография самолёта · Сухой · Прототипы Су-57 (Т-50) · 053 (зав.н. Т-50-3) · КБ Сухого, ГСС ✈ russianplanes.net ✈ наша авиация

Фотография самолёта. Разработчик: Сухой, модификация: Прототипы Су-57 (Т-50), бортовой номер: 053, оператор: КБ Сухого, ГСС, место съёмки: Москва - Жуковский (Раменское), фотограф: Pavel Noddlov (c)
russianplanes.net russianplanes.net

Deino
 
http://russianplanes.net/id79836
http://www.take-off.ru/news/117-news01-02-2012/670-t50-3-06-2012
 
"And by the way, let's stop painting the Bort number on the tail, or anything else removable."
 
Well, now that we have lots of high-resolution pictures of the T-50 airframe, what are some educated predictions on its aerodynamic performance? How good is it on the area rule? Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance, how does its aerodynamics compare to the F-22's at various speeds and altitudes? Maybe engineers like Sundog can provide some insight?
 
Radical said:
Well, now that we have lots of high-resolution pictures of the T-50 airframe, what are some educated predictions on its aerodynamic performance? How good is it on the area rule? Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance, how does its aerodynamics compare to the F-22's at various speeds and altitudes? Maybe engineers like Sundog can provide some insight?
Click to expand...

By looking at the patent, the front section of the fuselage is trapezoidal as it blends with the body instead of tapering. They paid great attention to area rule by making the transition of cross sections as "smooth" as possible so it won't be draggy. So the result is a flat plane. The downside, however, is that it can be structurally risky at the rear section.

The "competing design team" claimed that it was too flimsy and will break if it went supersonic. Of course, we know that the claim was blown out of proportion.

As for the max speed, they somehow reduced the requirement.
 
sferrin said:
Radical said:
Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,
Click to expand...

Why would one assume that?
Click to expand...

In order to compare the relative aerodynamic efficiency of the designs (eg. at the same thrust - how much drag do they produce)?

saintkatanalegacy said:
The "competing design team" claimed that it was too flimsy and will break if it went supersonic. Of course, we know that the claim was blown out of proportion.

As for the max speed, they somehow reduced the requirement.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about this claim! Any other additional information? I'm curious about the competing designs...

Such a claim may not be blown out of proportion (just mistranslated). One of the requirements of the PAK-FA was sustained supersonic maneuverability (to aid in kinetically defeating surface to air missiles). So, any structural flaw could lead to fatiguing of the airplane.

The maximum speed requirement was reportedly relaxed in order to meet payload requirements while using existing engines.
 
There was a long winded interview with "competitors". Apparently, according to them, PAK FA has huge buffeting problem making it impossible to break sound barrier and travel above 600 km/h (iirc). That turned out to be nice pile of BS, as T-50-1 broke soundbarrier for first time 10'th March 2011.
 
flanker said:
There was a long winded interview with "competitors". Apparently, according to them, PAK FA has huge buffeting problem making it impossible to break sound barrier and travel above 600 km/h (iirc). That turned out to be nice pile of BS, as T-50-1 broke soundbarrier for first time 10'th March 2011.
Click to expand...

Any pics of competing design(s)?
 
sferrin said:
Radical said:
Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,
Click to expand...

Why would one assume that?
Click to expand...

I'm curious about the aerodynamic performance of the PAK-FA's airframe and shape and how it compares to other aircraft like the F-22. I want to remove other variables such as engine thrust.
 
MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'
 
flateric said:
MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'
Click to expand...

Any estimate for how many years I have to wait until I can prove that with my own eyes?
 
we yet to see 1.42, T-12, T-60S - you continue the list...
 
Real or CGI/PS-ed :-\


Found at the German Flugzeugforum.de
 

Attachments

  • FtLwo.jpg
    FtLwo.jpg
    67 KB · Views: 1,041
The more important question is "is it accurate?"


I thought the weapon bays had 4 hard points each.
 
chuck4 said:
The more important question is "is it accurate?"


I thought the weapon bays had 4 hard points each.
Click to expand...

2 missiles per main bay.

of course, some will argue they could have easily fitted 3. but requirements are requirements
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
Radical said:
Well, now that we have lots of high-resolution pictures of the T-50 airframe, what are some educated predictions on its aerodynamic performance? How good is it on the area rule? Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance, how does its aerodynamics compare to the F-22's at various speeds and altitudes? Maybe engineers like Sundog can provide some insight?
Click to expand...

By looking at the patent, the front section of the fuselage is trapezoidal as it blends with the body instead of tapering. They paid great attention to area rule by making the transition of cross sections as "smooth" as possible so it won't be draggy. So the result is a flat plane. The downside, however, is that it can be structurally risky at the rear section.

The "competing design team" claimed that it was too flimsy and will break if it went supersonic. Of course, we know that the claim was blown out of proportion.

As for the max speed, they somehow reduced the requirement.
Click to expand...

It appears that the T-50 shares a lot of features with the YF-23. Lets see if the T-50 can live up to the YF-23's incredible performance in speed.

Also, judging how wide the T-50 is, it looks like it can generate a whole lot of lift. Really wonder what the turn rate is. It might far exceed the F-22.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom