Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA manouverability versus F-22

[GTX]

Also, Dr. Carlo Kopp is a reputable source and member of well known groups.

http://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

How do you know? I cant see why not.

I just know. Trust me. (c)

So you have inside information? How can you know they won't make big stealth improvements in the future like in Su-35S? Also, Dr. Carlo Kopp is a reputable source and member of well known groups.

http://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html

Did you just link to APA to prove APA is legitimate based on what they wrote about themselves??

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^Koppception B)

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

Here is something relevant:

http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20%2874%29.jpg

http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20%2858%29.jpg

couldn't find the one with LEVCONs down but I remember it somewhere

 

[LowObservable]

As for changing the T-50's back end: What systems are out there that the T-50 will face that can run it down?


To understand the requirements, read the early history of ATF.

 

[Radical]

I'm curious as to whether the LEVCONs will be useful beyond the low speed and/or high AOA regime. Given their positioning, do they act more like canards or as LEF?

As to what may run down a PAK-FA, if we assume that it's definitive type 30 engines will be similar to the F-22's, the question is then about drag. In that regard, shouldn't the two be pretty similar? They both have pretty much the same volume layout and frontal area.

 

[flateric]

T-50 has much better area distribution thanks to weapon bay placement

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

theoretically, less draggy because of being a bit more flat.

 

[EricChase88]

http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2010/04/27/194329.html

According to this article, T-50 will get stealthy flat nozzle.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2010/04/27/194329.html

According to this article, T-50 will get stealthy flat nozzle.

That's from 2010. Our resident Russian aero-experts at Secret Projects are saying "no flat nozzles". I'm going to go with their estimate, seeing as the development is getting to a more advanced stage.

 

[Radical]

While the separate nacelle type layout may have the potential for better volume distribution and area ruling (think YF-23) than a monolithic fuselage like the F-22, based on what I can observe and to the extent of my understanding, I honestly can't see the T-50 having definitively better area ruling than the F-22. As mentioned before, even though T-50 have separate nacelles, the way it is layed out doesn't have the thin "waist" like seen in YF-23 to reduce volume around the wings, like what AdamF observed. The fuselage cross sectional area is fairly constant from intakes to nozzle, similar to F-22. Add this to how both F-22 and T-50 have very similar wing and tail layout, I think volume distribution and area ruling is pretty comparable for these two fighters. The T-50 does not appear to take full advantage of having separate nacelles for area ruling unlike YF-23, and that may have been a design tradeoff. Aircraft design is full of compromises, and this is true for both PAK-FA and F-22.

The T-50 will be a very fine fighter and quite good looking, but I believe that it will be aerodynamically comparable to the F-22: better in some areas, worse in others.

My 2 cent/.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Unless you want to back that up with detailed cross-sections of the T-50 and YF-23, you are basically claiming you can tell which design conforms best to an ideal Sears-Haack distribution by looking at a photo. Good luck with that.

 

[Radical]

You're right, we can't make solid conclusions unless we have the actual cross section plots. By the same token, we also can't say that T-50 has better volume distribution and conforms better to the ideal Sears-Haack shape than F-22. I am simply stating it's brash to say that T-50 will have better area ruling than F-22 on the basis of separate nacelles and weapon bay placement.

 

[EricChase88]

F-22 will have trouble manuvering. According to this link http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html F-22 can only do 3.7g at 0.9M and 30000ft. The F-15C can sustain more then 4g at same speed and height. See the chart.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

F-22 will have trouble manuvering.

 

[EricChase88]

Also Su-27SK can do 3.7g at same speed and 11000m high and T-50 will be more maneuverable than Su-27.

 

[EricChase88]

F-22 will have trouble manuvering.

*img

I have data from official source to back me. In Red flag 2012 clean Eurofighters can outmaneuver F-22. Also T-50 fuselage is wide and has very large lifting surface. F-22 have less lifting area and higher wing loading, which should count against it one way or another.

F-22 is older design from the 1990s and sacrifice aerodynamics for stealth, which is disadvantage against T-50 in terms of maneuvering.

 

[sferrin]

Oh boy.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

Not sure how'd you come to that conclusion when we have no idea about the T-50's envelope and limits...

Can't even make solid assumptions from the flight demos of a prototype.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I have data from official source to back me. In Red flag 2012 clean Eurofighters can outmaneuver F-22.

So a clean eurofighter outmanuevering an F-22 in an exercise, means the F-22 "has trouble maneuvering?" Wow.

Also T-50 fuselage is wide and has very large lifting surface. F-22 have less lifting area and higher wing loading, which should count against it one way or another.

I thought it was well established that little factors like the F-22s massive thrust, acceleration, and thrust vectoring made the wingloading numbers not so meaningful in terms of agility/manuverability? And the Pak-fa needs new engines in the mean time, so we are looking at a nerfed pak-fa until then. It may be another 10 years before we get close to a "final draft" on the Pak-Fa

F-22 is older design from the 1990s and sacrifice aerodynamics for stealth, which is disadvantage against T-50 in terms of maneuvering.

So the Pak-fa doesn't sacrifice to stay stealthy? Newer does not inherently mean better (especially as you promote 1970s designs as being more capable than the 1990s F-22).

How do all of your assertions fly with the Airpower Australia folks you were advocating last page? Last I checked they said the Raptor is the best evah, and that Eurofighters should be replaced by F-16s. So I'm kind of confused here.

 

[bobbymike]

F-22 will have trouble manuvering.

*img

I have data from official source to back me. In Red flag 2012 clean Eurofighters can outmaneuver F-22. Also T-50 fuselage is wide and has very large lifting surface. F-22 have less lifting area and higher wing loading, which should count against it one way or another.

F-22 is older design from the 1990s and sacrifice aerodynamics for stealth, which is disadvantage against T-50 in terms of maneuvering.

I believe it was Raptor test pilot Major Max Moga who, when asked about F-22 agility vs. every other US fighter, said a lot of things but the one that stuck out in my mind was, "Nothing on earth can turn with the Raptor"

 

[EricChase88]

Not sure how'd you come to that conclusion when we have no idea about the T-50's envelope and limits...

Can't even make solid assumptions from the flight demos of a prototype.

T-50 will have better aerodynamics than Su-35S. Sergei Bodgan said many times T-50 will have lower wing loading and better thrust to weight ratio. That should gives better turning performance. As we see from flight envelope diagrams, even basic Su-27SK match F-22 turn at 0.9M and 30000 ft high. Its reasonable to predict that T-50 will have better maneuver performance.

To quote an engineer at Keypublisher, here are some reason think T-50 will be aerodynamically superior to F-22.

"- Better adherence to Mach-Area ruling.
- Variable contour (moving) LERX/forebody for body lift at higher alpha, which also contributes to a triplane longitudinal control system. It also will contribute to trimming the aircraft for subsonic and supersonic flight without a significant amount of trim drag and without reducing the authority of the primary control surfaces.
- Thinner fuselage making greater contribution to lift.
- The round PAK-FA engine nozzles have better propulsive efficiency than square F-22 nozzles.
- All moving vertical stabilisers.
- 3D Thrust vectoring.
- Wider lateral engine spacing allowing roll augmentation from thrust vectoring.
- Variable geometry intake ramps"

All these are things Sukhoi chose to do to prioritize aerodynamics.

 

[malipa]

I guess we will never know... We don't have the models and we can't test them against each other, neither will they be used against each other. The answer of this question is not really interesting because I guess the answer will not help us with another problem.

 

[Radical]

I was looking over that Keypublishing thread, and the same guy you quoted, Amiga500, said that PAK-FA is a Mach 2.5 airframe and a Mach 2 supercruiser. Didn't flateric say a few months back that max speed of this plane between M2.1 to M2.35?

 

[sferrin]

For the sake of the children, can we please not turn this into Key?

 

[Radical]

For the sake of the children, can we please not turn this into Key?

I'm only expressing my skepticism about EricChase88's quote and Amiga500's claims in general. In any case, T-50, when it gets its definitive engines, will be a fine aircraft aerodynamically.

Don't want to get off topic here, but what's wrong with Keypublishing?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Its full of children arguing


"my plane's better than your plane"
"Your plane sucks! Only my favourite plane has the magic juju beans of Stealth/Supercruise/Agility"
"Your planes are all obsolete cos my country just flew a prototype we know nothing about, but which looks cool"


incessantly.


Using it for a source in a debate is like saying "I heard some kids at the mall say PAK-FA can do Mach 2.5". Not bringing much to the discussion. Flateric on the other hand studied aeronautical engineering, lives in Moscow, and personally knows a bunch of engineers/journalists/authors.


There's enough uninformed discussion there for everyone, no need to replicate it.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

F-22 will have trouble manuvering. According to this link http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html F-22 can only do 3.7g at 0.9M and 30000ft. The F-15C can sustain more then 4g at same speed and height. See the chart.

Sustained turn rate falls out from combination of thrust/weight ratio and drag. Your curves for the F-15 is for clean though, i.e. NO WEAPONS. Not that much of a threat to the F-22 unless you're planning to ram into it.

To say it will "have trouble manouvering" is just plain stupid.

 

[EricChase88]

F-22 will have trouble manuvering. According to this link http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html F-22 can only do 3.7g at 0.9M and 30000ft. The F-15C can sustain more then 4g at same speed and height. See the chart.

Sustained turn rate falls out from combination of thrust/weight ratio and drag. Your curves for the F-15 is for clean though, i.e. NO WEAPONS. Not that much of a threat to the F-22 unless you're planning to ram into it.

To say it will "have trouble manouvering" is just plain stupid.

The Su-27SK chart show the plane carry missiles and match F-22 sustain turn at same speed and higher altitude. Su-27SK have no TVC and less maneuverable than T-50 according to Sukhoi and Sergei Bogdan. So it is most likely T-50 is more maneuverable, looking at numbers and facts.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

And how exactly can you say that something is a fact when there are no figures or charts available to support the claim?

Please do not mix speculation and fact. While it is fun to speculate, keep it informed.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The Su-27SK chart show the plane carry missiles and match F-22 sustain turn at same speed and higher altitude.

Thats pretty amazing considering that the Raptor operates at altitudes with ease that other fighters can barely touch.

F-22 pilot Metz:

he F-22's thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

From your chums at APA:

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

So it is most likely T-50 is more maneuverable, looking at numbers and facts.

T-50 More manueverable than a Flanker? surely. Flanker more maneuverable than an F-22? Nope.

 

[malipa]

I don't think the precise figures and charts are available, especially of the F-22, which the USAF safeguards on the highest level. That's a fact. So it is not only speculation.

 

[Sundog]

Thats pretty amazing considering that the Raptor operates at altitudes with ease that other fighters can barely touch.

Just for your reference, that's mainly because it cruises around 1000mph. The T-50 and J-20 should be capable of such performance as well, since they are designed as supercruisers too.

 

[Radical]

Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to estimate the A-max of the PAK-FA and F-22 and compare them? It likely won't be too accurate or meaningful, but it may give us a rough idea.

EDIT: At first glance, the tandem weapon bay arrangement appear to give PAK-FA lower A-max.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Thats pretty amazing considering that the Raptor operates at altitudes with ease that other fighters can barely touch.

Just for your reference, that's mainly because it cruises around 1000mph. The T-50 and J-20 should be capable of such performance as well, since they are designed as supercruisers too.

Correct. I should have said Previous Fighters IE a Flanker.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Its full of children arguing


"my plane's better than your plane"
"Your plane sucks! Only my favourite plane has the magic juju beans of Stealth/Supercruise/Agility"
"Your planes are all obsolete cos my country just flew a prototype we know nothing about, but which looks cool"


incessantly.


Using it for a source in a debate is like saying "I heard some kids at the mall say PAK-FA can do Mach 2.5". Not bringing much to the discussion. Flateric on the other hand studied aeronautical engineering, lives in Moscow, and personally knows a bunch of engineers/journalists/authors.


There's enough uninformed discussion there for everyone, no need to replicate it.

Don't forget the intense youtube video analysis and comparison

 

[Radical]

I'm curious about how the area encompassed by the intake factors into the area rule. Intakes have adverse affects on airflow and as such I don't think the area they encompass should be entirely subtracted from the cross section area.

 

[flateric]

We expect to see ultimate T-50-2 pilotage at MAKS 2013.
At least it's so according to current plans.

 

[Radical]

We expect to see ultimate T-50-2 pilotage at MAKS 2013.
At least it's so according to current plans.

Full subsonic envelope have been cleared? Interesting to see what it can do.

 

[Radical]

I used cross sections from Paralay to made a rough side-by-side fuselage cross sections of both F-22 and T-50 in the area right after the wing root wich may be A-max. I assumed a wingspan of 14 m for T-50. F-22 fuselage cross section area does turn out to be larger because of weapon bays placement. I didn't factor the wings into this so its possible F-22 might have thinner wing than T-50. Still, This it appears like T-50's tandem weapon bays have much better volume distribution, and lower wave drag.

On a side note,

... we know the correct wingspan of both aircafts?

They've released the wingspan of T-50? I haven't found an official statement of this despite my searches. I just assumed 14 m.