- Joined
- 11 February 2010
- Messages
- 1,558
- Reaction score
- 2,354
Trying to measure length from that drawings. Got 19.4 m length. as for wingspan.. the top aspect image give 14.4 m
does that sounds reasonable ?
does that sounds reasonable ?
stealthflanker said:Trying to measure length from that drawings. Got 19.4 m length. as for wingspan.. the top aspect image give 14.4 m
does that sounds reasonable ?
flanker said:No, something is very wrong with your measurments. I got a length of almost exactly 20m, i havent measured the wingspan but it should be 13.95m. "Old" length is 19.6m.
flanker said:... So, back in 2010, it became clear that a few poorly designed plane. Required operating overload withstand could not cut the rivets on the air intakes, air-to-air heat exchangers for cracked welds, and the fuel in the tank №3 categorically refused consumed completely. To the first safety car came the assigned resource to 300 hours, in August 2011, it delivered on completion (the rest of the gain made in the factory), and started to design the machine of the 2nd stage (by the way, incidentally removed from the keel 50-1 left there wrench key). At the 2nd stage significantly increased the proportion of composites (virtually the entire lining of the RMB has become), but the weight of the airframe due to increased KCC still excessively increased. Then they decided to replace many nodes B95 duralumin and AK-5 on the aluminum-lithium alloy 1461T with a specific weight of almost 20% less. In October 2012, the final decision on the launch of the 2nd stage of production. It was planned 2 cars - T-50-7 and T-50-8. At that time, at different stages of production are 3 cars 1st stage - 4, 5, 6. But just woke up and decided to make a 50-7 statics. And in February, the 13th decided to make the transition model and assign the T-50-6. To avoid confusion, the T-50-6 of the first phase became known as T-6.1.50, and the second phase of the machine - T 2.6.50.
But among the imported parts to the T-50 were American cellular structure of carbon fiber, widely used in the wing and tail. Our military leadership decided that this is unacceptable and has decided to "importozamestit" and instructed CVTs "Technology" from Obninsk develop domestic cellular materials. By the way, all the other composites for the T-50 is also made in Obninsk. Expectedly, obnintsev provaflili all time. As a result, grief Sagittarius (he is now GK Pak, not Davydenko) in May even suggested removal of plumage from T-50-4 and put on 6-2, modified fairing and drive spindles, but a month ago finally came honeycomb.
Another problematic issue was the alloy 1461. Desperate crackled when mechanical working, then there must be said that the assembly we still conducted on technologies 70s, that is, the assembly units in unit kuvaldometr still very popular. A similar treatment alloy does not bore. As a result, it went reconversion of the parts of the 1461 B-95, and sometimes back again in 1461.Chto, of course, led to the indescribable delight everyone, especially prochnistov.
Thus passed in 2013, 2014 and in February 2015 of the fuselage was docked 6-2 ...
Dragon029 said:"Cellular structure of carbon fiber" would equate to materials used to create carbon composites.
dsferrin said:Dragon029 said:"Cellular structure of carbon fiber" would equate to materials used to create carbon composites.
"But among the imported parts to the T-50 were American cellular structure of carbon fiber, widely used in the wing and tail. Our military leadership decided that this is unacceptable "
That could mean almost anything. I'm wondering if Flanker has more specific insight into what's being said there.
Trident said:Pretty sure the term in the original language text is the Russian term for honeycomb core.
Trident said:I read it as meaning that they originally sourced the core from a US company (I seem to recall a reference to a Hexcel material on the T-50, but can't find it right now - that might be it), but decided to replace it with a domestic analogue.
sferrin said:I'm surprised that stuff isn't ITAR controlled.
sferrin said:Trident said:I read it as meaning that they originally sourced the core from a US company (I seem to recall a reference to a Hexcel material on the T-50, but can't find it right now - that might be it), but decided to replace it with a domestic analogue.
Interesting. Hexcel is a local company just down the way. Again, I'm surprised that stuff isn't ITAR controlled.
Originally the prototypes used carbon honeycomb in wings and stabs and that was made and imported from USA. At one point the military decided that to import it was unacceptable and gave the contact to make domestic variant to ONPP "Technology" which already makes all the other composites used in T-50. They blew all the deadlines and hence production of those parts. Finally it appears they have managed to be able to produce them now and hence future prototypes will have the domestic variant.sferrin said:Could you elaborate on the bolded part there? What are they saying? ???
flanker said:Originally the prototypes used carbon honeycomb in wings and stabs and that was made and imported from USA. At one point the military decided that to import it was unacceptable and gave the contact to make domestic variant to ONPP "Technology" which already makes all the other composites used in T-50. They blew all the deadlines and hence production of those parts. Finally it appears they have managed to be able to produce them now and hence future prototypes will have the domestic variant.sferrin said:Could you elaborate on the bolded part there? What are they saying? ???
sferrin said:That makes sense. Given today's climate I'd think that particular export would get axed eventually anyway. I'm frankly astonished Russia is still willing to export RD-180s and fly Western astronauts to the ISS. Strange times.
flanker said:sferrin said:That makes sense. Given today's climate I'd think that particular export would get axed eventually anyway. I'm frankly astonished Russia is still willing to export RD-180s and fly Western astronauts to the ISS. Strange times.
Astonished? They get like 80 million USD per seat and 20 million or so per engine, these two things alone rack up to like almost a billion USD this year alone. It is a good business and pays them in solid USD. They would be retarded to drop their toys and stop wanting this cash shower out of short term political considerations.
RadicalDisconnect said:Allegedly, as of February 2014, the T-50 achieved Mach 1.7 max speed, altitude of 14000 m (46000 ft), and maneuverability surpassing 4th generation fighters. I'd think this is respectable for the program at that timeframe. It also quashes the outlandish speed claims about the T-50, like 500 km/h faster than F-22 and nonsense like that.
bipa said:Hmm... That would be M>2, right...?
I wish I had a supersonic wind tunnel to test the 22 air intakes at that speed.