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

Knowing some of the chinese online aviation communities, I think the guy might be posting stuff along the line of "more confirmation that su-57 is not true stealth therefore inferior to j-20"
 
donnage99 said:
Knowing some of the chinese online aviation communities, I think the guy might be posting stuff along the line of "more confirmation that su-57 is not true stealth therefore inferior to j-20"
Click to expand...

It depends on what if any commentary was there.

Ultimately it would make sense to focus on some details regardless of whether they knew it was a prototype or not (I think anyone would, if they saw the aircraft in person).
 
donnage99 said:
Knowing some of the chinese online aviation communities, I think the guy might be posting stuff along the line of "more confirmation that su-57 is not true stealth therefore inferior to j-20"
Click to expand...
Isn't that literally what almost everyone on the West's side did at the sight of this image of a prototype?

I find it hypocritical to criticize a large group of people for what just a couple of dudes with a camera have done, while at the same time paying no mind to objectively how the majority on the other side have behaved.

Su-57-Screws.jpg

My point is, no matter which side you're on; we all have to be above this "haha Russian equipment junk" idiocracy if we have not just functional brains but are also as enthusiastic as we claim to be.
 
snne said:
Isn't that literally what almost everyone on the West's side did at the sight of this image of a prototype?

I find it hypocritical to criticize a large group of people for what just a couple of dudes with a camera have done, while at the same time paying no mind to objectively how the majority on the other side have behaved.

View attachment 746815

My point is, no matter which side you're on; we all have to be above this "haha Russian equipment junk" idiocracy if we have not just functional brains but are also as enthusiastic as we claim to be.
Click to expand...
I was addressing the video right above, which is the current material we have of the day. Should I also add a footnote underneath my original comment: "also western media also have in the past erroneously attribute a lack of technological advancement to early prototypes".

I mean why not go all out and keep adding footnote after footnote tracing back to when china was colonized by the west? Would that add a more complete historical timeline of the unfairness from the west to satisfy your grievances?

Unless my comment was "chinese media unfair, western media very fair" I don't see how your knee jerk reaction was anyway warranted.
 
donnage99 said:
"also western media also have in the past erroneously attribute a lack of technological advancement to early prototypes"
Click to expand...

Also the present, unfortunately:

www.flightglobal.com

Su-57 shows off poor build quality in Zhuhai debut

The Sukhoi Su-57 has had an inauspicious start to its Zhuhai air show appearance, with a close-up video revealing questionable build quality.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

An early prototype airframe. Which is by now more than a decade old. And known to lack production LO treatments, among which are flexible seals to cover such things as control surface hinges. And coatings to obscure rivets, that by the way are also well known to feature on the much vaunted Western LO designs. All the while ignoring the excellent fit and finish of the lower wing skin - given the glossy paint, any irregularities would be extremely obvious and magnified in this footage. And to add insult to injury, failing to make the basic distinction between poor build quality and intentional excrescences like air data sensors and IRST.

I genuinely do not get what this is supposed to achieve? It's definitely not diligent, impartial journalism and basically leaves open only two options: a) the author and editors are ignorant in their ostensible area of expertise b) they expect their audience to be ignorant, and contrary to their job description as journalists have zero intention of educating it. I'm not actually sure which of these is worse, to be frank - with all the good will in the world it is hard to find a charitable explanation.
 
Last edited:
All the shots from the factory before the camo paint show a very smooth finish for the production units. This one came before the production units. If I understood correctly the next version will have several improvements.
 
By the way, is there any grounds to the worse fit & finish of Russian/Soviet jets? I've only had the chance to see the Mig-29 in person, but it didn't look appreciably worse than what I've seen of the Eurofighter/Tornado (All right it did look a *bit* worse, especially towards the back, but it wasn't egregious or anything).
Not sure how American designs compare.
 
Have you seen super hornets up close? The last one I saw had a hole on the radar radome, maybe it got hit by lighting at some point. A lot of airplanes also have sealant putty applied to some panels. I do think western manufacturing pays more attention to surface finish that the Russians, on top of that; most Russian airplanes are left out to the elements.
 
www.twz.com

We Finally Get A Clear Look At The Su-57 Felon’s Side Weapons Bays

A clear view of the Su-57’s wing-root bays was seen for the first time after one of the jets arrived by An-124 at Airshow China in Zhuhai. A clear view of the Su-57’s wing-root bays was seen for the first time after one of the jets arrived by An-124 at Airshow China in Zhuhai.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
The MiG-29 is actually very poor in terms of fit and finish, excepting (curiously enough) the radome, which is very good. Conversely, the Flanker family is generally built to a higher standard... apart from the radome, which is very rough (at least pre Su-35)! One remarkable thing about the Flankers is that the forward fuselage is noticeably more irregular than the rear half (say from the wing LE aft). It appears to me that this might be due to a combination of unusually large double curvature skin panels (due to the sheer size of the thing and its blended layout) and a reliance on stressed skin to a greater degree than most other fighter aircraft. If you've seen the photo of that Hawkeye touching down on a carrier deck, it is obvious how such construction could be prone to wrinkling in a high-g airframe.
 
Thanks @snne but the drawing doesn't reflect what we are seeing here. For example the bay door unfold downward.

@flateric : yes, I will eat my hat if that is a missile bay. But that's not what we are seeing yet.

For example there is no apparent mechanism to refrain the door from closing due to the airstream. Two of the frwd latches are affixed to what appears to be a sliding tray but their geometry don't include fasteners that would counteract repetitive loadings from the airstream. I think that's why @paralay choose to make it open upward despite the lack of available volume, as it is evident in the picture.

Also do you guys really think that this opening is at least 0.5m wide (the span of the suspected missile seen in the alleged launch video)?
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Thanks @snne but the drawing doesn't reflect what we are seeing here. For example the bay door unfold downward.

@flateric : yes, I will eat my hat if that is a missile bay. But that's not what we are seeing yet.

For example there is no apparent mechanism to refrain the door from closing due to the airstream. Two of the frwd latches are affixed to what appears to be a sliding tray but their geometry don't include fasteners that would counteract repetitive loadings from the airstream. I think that's why @paralay choose to make it open upward despite the lack of available volume, as it is evident in the picture.

Also do you guys really think that this opening is at least 0.5m wide (the span of the suspected missile seen in the alleged launch video)?
Click to expand...
It's been something like 5 years and you're still on this.
 
It is clear we saw a missile fire from it. At least imo. In the video the missile is skewed outward. Does the exhaust temporarily go into the rear of the bay? Might be a stupid question but that is how it appeared to me.
 
Imagine such simple device as _exhaust deflector_ like those in Raptor side bays.
 

Attachments

  • document.pdf
    8.1 MB · Views: 59
Rather than the underwing bay, my eye's caught by the upper surface and that projecting panel(?) just inboard of that double inlet at the base of the tail. I'd like to see it from another angle to figure out quite what we're looking at, but on the surface it looks sub-optimal for whatever it's supposed to be.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom