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

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Please continue with T-50 discussions here.


Previous topics:
Sukhoi PAK-FA (T-50, I-21)
Sukhoi PAK-FA (T-50, I-21) Part II
Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA first flight - pictures, videos and analysis
Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development

 

[Stargazer]

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?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It is anticipated to be the service designation when it enters service. T-50 is the Sukhoi internal designation only.

 

[sferrin]

Where are all the Su-4xs?

 

[SOC]

Where are all the Su-4xs?

Not to mention the fact that fighters have historically been odd numbers, although that doesn't explain Su-25 or Su-30.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

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.

 

[flateric]

Where are all the Su-4xs?

Su-47 given to S-37. Su-49 is a trainer
even numbers traditionally go for export versions

 

[Stargazer]

even numbers traditionally go for export versions

... which contradicts the notion that the T-50 (or at least the Russian version) would be the Su-50!

 

[flateric]

Zvezda kit, licensed by Sukhoi, has Su-50 on it along with T-50

number 50 was chosen to mark 5th gen aircraft

 

[sferrin]

Zvezda kit, licensed by Sukhoi, has Su-50 on it along with T-50

number 50 was chosen to mark 5th gen aircraft

Makes more sense than the F-35's. ;D

 

[Deino]

Such a long time without any news ?!

Here's finally again T50-3.
http://russianplanes.net/id79569
http://russianplanes.net/id79570
http://russianplanes.net/id79571


Deino

 

[flateric]

50-2 flew the same day as 50-3 has started taxi trials at LII - 15/06/12
http://russianplanes.net/id79620

 

[flanker]

And it still has "51" fins.

 

[Deino]

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

Deino

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

• flare dispensers

• EO at tail

 

[fightingirish]

http://russianplanes.net/id79836
http://www.take-off.ru/news/117-news01-02-2012/670-t50-3-06-2012

 

[LowObservable]

"And by the way, let's stop painting the Bort number on the tail, or anything else removable."

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^or more particularly, transferable

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

via Comet

Static Stress Testing

 

[Deino]

Not sure if already posted but no. 52 has its own tail back again !!! ... together with some calibration markings
http://russianplanes.net/id82183
http://russianplanes.net/id82184


Deino

 

[flateric]

T50-1 back on track (so far taxies). Thanks to Pavel Noddlov
http://russianplanes.net/id85929

 

[Radical]

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?

 

[sferrin]

Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?

 

[flanker]

Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?

117 don't, but do you have any reason for why Phase II wont?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

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?

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.

 

[Avimimus]

Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?

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

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.

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.

 

[flanker]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

Any pics of competing design(s)?

 

[flanker]

Not til you dont dodge my question. ;D And after that, no.

 

[Radical]

Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?

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.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

Any pics of competing design(s)?

The competing design is the "Raptorski". Surprise?

 

[flateric]

MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'

 

[Avimimus]

MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'

Any estimate for how many years I have to wait until I can prove that with my own eyes?

 

[flateric]

we yet to see 1.42, T-12, T-60S - you continue the list...

 

[fightingirish]

Real or CGI/PS-ed :-\


Found at the German Flugzeugforum.de

 

[flanker]

Jesus christ, of course it is CGI and it is old. Really old.

 

[chuck4]

The more important question is "is it accurate?"


I thought the weapon bays had 4 hard points each.

 

[Geo]

MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'

Flateric, did you see the E-721 sketch?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

The more important question is "is it accurate?"


I thought the weapon bays had 4 hard points each.

2 missiles per main bay.

of course, some will argue they could have easily fitted 3. but requirements are requirements

 

[Radical]

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?

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.

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.