Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA manouverability versus F-22

T-50 has thinner wings than F-22 and wing profile closer to YF-22 for improved supersonic maneuverability. What one dropped out other picked up...
 
flateric said:
T-50 has thinner wings than F-22 and wing profile closer to YF-22 for improved supersonic maneuverability. What one dropped out other picked up...
Click to expand...

I'm sure LM dropped it for a good reason.
 
You never can say for sure...
 
flateric said:
T-50 has thinner wings than F-22 and wing profile closer to YF-22 for improved supersonic maneuverability. What one dropped out other picked up...
Click to expand...

http://www.fighter-planes.com/f22vsf22y.jpg

I thought F-22 had thinner wings than the YF-22... :eek:
Unless by profile you mean sweep...
 
No, no sweep. Then it was my mistake. At least I've remembered it totally other way round...
 
flateric said:
No, no sweep. Then it was my mistake. At least I've remembered it totally other way round...
Click to expand...

As I recall, sweep is slightly less, and the wing appears thinner. (The aft fuselage is considerably slimmed down vs the YF-22.)
 
sferrin said:
flateric said:
No, no sweep. Then it was my mistake. At least I've remembered it totally other way round...
Click to expand...

As I recall, sweep is slightly less, and the wing appears thinner. (The aft fuselage is considerably slimmed down vs the YF-22.)
Click to expand...

Appears, or is it actually thinner? F-22 airfoil according to aerospaceweb is NACA 64A?05.92 (root) and NACA 64A?04.29 (tip). Can't find what YF-22's are. Sweep is from 48 to 42 degrees. Also definitely don't know what T-50's are either.

Though IIRC, doesn't higher sweep have flatter Cl vs AoA curve?
 
Radical said:
sferrin said:
flateric said:
No, no sweep. Then it was my mistake. At least I've remembered it totally other way round...
Click to expand...

As I recall, sweep is slightly less, and the wing appears thinner. (The aft fuselage is considerably slimmed down vs the YF-22.)
Click to expand...

Appears, or is it actually thinner? F-22 airfoil according to aerospaceweb is NACA 64A?05.92 (root) and NACA 64A?04.29 (tip). Can't find what YF-22's are. Sweep is from 48 to 42 degrees. Also definitely don't know what T-50's are either.

Though IIRC, doesn't higher sweep have flatter Cl vs AoA curve?
Click to expand...

It appears thinner. Consider that between the YF-22 and F-22A they reduced the internal fuel load by something like 5000-7000lbs. (Don't recall off the top of my head if the YF-22's was 23k or 25k.) The F-22A slimmed up a LOT and it wouldn't surprise me if some of it was in the wing. (Just eye-balling it it looks like it was.)
 
Radical said:
On a side note,
flanker said:
... we know the correct wingspan of both aircafts?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Nothing official, 14m is good assumption. I have seen number 13.95m which does sound realistic, but the source is a bit wacky and pretty weird dude. Regarding sweep, that should be easy enough to find out from patents.
 
PAK-FA drawing from patents and F-22 graphic from Lockheed Martin, side by side. Assumed wingspan for F-22 is 13.56 m, T-50 is 13.95 m. Hard to tell which one is thicker from frontal diagram because F-22 wing twist. T-50 does not seem to have this kind of twist.
 

Attachments

  • 24409163 mod.gif
    24409163 mod.gif
    88.8 KB · Views: 390
Radical said:
PAK-FA drawing from patents and F-22 graphic from Lockheed Martin, side by side. Assumed wingspan for F-22 is 13.56 m, T-50 is 13.95 m. Hard to tell which one is thicker from frontal diagram because F-22 wing twist. T-50 does not seem to have this kind of twist.
Click to expand...
I think part of the twist is actually conical camber, and in any case the T-50 does have both as well, just not nearly as pronounced (which might well be down to the higher sweep angle). As for thickness, what's perhaps more important is t/c ratio, which should favour the wing with higher sweep, as its chord will tend to be longer.
 
Can LERX be used to change the center of lift in supersonic flight? That might help since center of lift shift back in supersonic flight.
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/new-g-suit-gives-pak-fa-higher.html

T-50 ceiling likely is 75000 feet with new pressure suits.
 
EricChase88 said:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/new-g-suit-gives-pak-fa-higher.html

T-50 ceiling likely is 75000 feet with new pressure suits.
Click to expand...

Assuming a lot here.
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
EricChase88 said:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/new-g-suit-gives-pak-fa-higher.html

T-50 ceiling likely is 75000 feet with new pressure suits.
Click to expand...

Assuming a lot here.
Click to expand...

There is no reasons why it can't.
 
sferrin said:
EricChase88 said:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/new-g-suit-gives-pak-fa-higher.html

T-50 ceiling likely is 75000 feet with new pressure suits.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was good for a laugh. Read a little closer - the pressure suit is good for that. Which makes sense because it's likely a derivative of the Mig-31s. Means absolutely zip regarding the T-50's altitude capability.
Click to expand...

It can mean T-50 can be MiG-31 successor and match it's height and speed.
 
EricChase88 said:
sferrin said:
EricChase88 said:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/new-g-suit-gives-pak-fa-higher.html

T-50 ceiling likely is 75000 feet with new pressure suits.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was good for a laugh. Read a little closer - the pressure suit is good for that. Which makes sense because it's likely a derivative of the Mig-31s. Means absolutely zip regarding the T-50's altitude capability.
Click to expand...

It can mean T-50 can be MiG-31 successor and match it's height and speed.
Click to expand...

Not with those engines and materials it can't.
 
EricChase88 said:
It can mean T-50 can be MiG-31 successor and match it's height and speed.
Click to expand...

p9EouU3.gif


EricChase88 said:
There is no reasons why it can't.
Click to expand...

326.gif
 
EricChase88 said:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/new-g-suit-gives-pak-fa-higher.html

T-50 ceiling likely is 75000 feet with new pressure suits.
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't likely. You don't design something right at the limit, you usually have a safety factor or buffer built into the design. Most fighters can zoom climb to high altitudes, which is probably why it has that limit. If the T-50 was capable of sustained level flight at 75k ft, the suit probably would have built with a 90k ft. limit.
 
Interesting analysis:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_19_2013_p43-605528.xml
 
Knowledge of aerospace have not stood still since the F-22 design was frozen way back when. Since the PAK-FA is 13 years newer than the F-22, T-50 getting the edge aerodynamically against F-22 shouldn't be surprising unless Sukhoi screwed up badly.
 
And the F-22's design puts more emphasis on stealth combined with super-manoeuvrability, whereas the T-50 seems (from looking at the latest vids posted) orientated towards ultra-manoeuvrability, like the SU-35S.
Q[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]uestion is, is ultra-manoeuvrability really needed, or is a bit less manoeuvrability (but still super-M) in an environment with HOB-missiles and HMC-systems enough? [/font][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] I am aware the F-22 still hasn't gotten a HM(C)S, but let's assume one day it will.

[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]And allways nice to see skilled testpilots perform new and faster ultra-manoeuvres, but I wonder how most frontline fighterpilots (will) cope with the resulting increasing physiological stresses, especially during combat-missions?[/font]
 
Sundog said:
Actually, it isn't likely. You don't design something right at the limit, you usually have a safety factor or buffer built into the design. Most fighters can zoom climb to high altitudes, which is probably why it has that limit. If the T-50 was capable of sustained level flight at 75k ft, the suit probably would have built with a 90k ft. limit.
Click to expand...

There’s a story about a USMC long look exchange pilot who got a RAAF F/A-18A to over 60,000 feet on an engine check flight. And that’s when the engine flamed out…
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Sundog said:
Actually, it isn't likely. You don't design something right at the limit, you usually have a safety factor or buffer built into the design. Most fighters can zoom climb to high altitudes, which is probably why it has that limit. If the T-50 was capable of sustained level flight at 75k ft, the suit probably would have built with a 90k ft. limit.
Click to expand...

There’s a story about a USMC long look exchange pilot who got a RAAF F/A-18A to over 60,000 feet on an engine check flight. And that’s when the engine flamed out…
Click to expand...

Yesh. That's kinda surprising. Granted the F404 isn't a turbojet but I'd have thought it would be better than that.
 
When there was a claim about an all new flight suit needed for the Pakfa, with more pilot protection from G loads in the yaw axis am now really wondering if the Pakfa will have yaw supermaneuver at high speeds, not just for low and slow airshow tricks. Wouldn't the combat value of yaw maneuver at high speed be extremely useful against countering missile threats and bring a new dimension to high speed combat far superior to the F-22? Looking at the T-50s airframe shape, tails and engine nozzles, it was built to super-maneuver in yaw, not just pitch as the F-22. This could be a very significant leap in capability over the f-22.
 
kcran567 said:
When there was a claim about an all new flight suit needed for the Pakfa, with more pilot protection from G loads in the yaw axis am now really wondering if the Pakfa will have yaw supermaneuver at high speeds, not just for low and slow airshow tricks. Wouldn't the combat value of yaw maneuver at high speed be extremely useful against countering missile threats and bring a new dimension to high speed combat far superior to the F-22? Looking at the T-50s airframe shape, tails and engine nozzles, it was built to super-maneuver in yaw, not just pitch as the F-22. This could be a very significant leap in capability over the f-22.
Click to expand...

Violent yaw at high speed is a very good way to get to low speed very quickly via deployment of the world's largest airbrake, your whole aircraft, followed by catastrophic damage, I would imagine.

I don't see it being very useful against an F-22 except in a dogfight.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. Hilarious. I guess it would be a bad idea then to try at high speeds.
 
saintkatanalegacy said:
unless the plane is indestructible...
Click to expand...


Nothing is indestructible...except Chuck Norris! ;D


image_zps5e5d05f2.jpg



Sorry...couldn't help myself. ;D
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
kcran567 said:
When there was a claim about an all new flight suit needed for the Pakfa, with more pilot protection from G loads in the yaw axis am now really wondering if the Pakfa will have yaw supermaneuver at high speeds, not just for low and slow airshow tricks. Wouldn't the combat value of yaw maneuver at high speed be extremely useful against countering missile threats and bring a new dimension to high speed combat far superior to the F-22? Looking at the T-50s airframe shape, tails and engine nozzles, it was built to super-maneuver in yaw, not just pitch as the F-22. This could be a very significant leap in capability over the f-22.
Click to expand...

Violent yaw at high speed is a very good way to get to low speed very quickly via deployment of the world's largest airbrake, your whole aircraft, followed by catastrophic damage, I would imagine.

I don't see it being very useful against an F-22 except in a dogfight.
Click to expand...

There are areas of maneuverability which are not 'super-maneuverability', but which are still unobtained. There are also uses for turns outside of a WVR dogfight...

What about a gentle yawing motion (still enough to require a gee-suit at speed)? It could be used to present the opponent with a lower-rcs angle from the aircraft. A yawing turn would generate considerably less drag than a pitching turn would...
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
kcran567 said:
When there was a claim about an all new flight suit needed for the Pakfa, with more pilot protection from G loads in the yaw axis am now really wondering if the Pakfa will have yaw supermaneuver at high speeds, not just for low and slow airshow tricks. Wouldn't the combat value of yaw maneuver at high speed be extremely useful against countering missile threats and bring a new dimension to high speed combat far superior to the F-22? Looking at the T-50s airframe shape, tails and engine nozzles, it was built to super-maneuver in yaw, not just pitch as the F-22. This could be a very significant leap in capability over the f-22.
Click to expand...

Violent yaw at high speed is a very good way to get to low speed very quickly via deployment of the world's largest airbrake, your whole aircraft, followed by catastrophic damage, I would imagine.

I don't see it being very useful against an F-22 except in a dogfight.
Click to expand...


I agree that using yaw to slow down would be counterproductive and may do the enemy's work for him. Better to reduce power while rapidly pitching up to high AOA. You'll get an even more massive airbrake, the stress is more in line with the vectors the a/c was designed for, and once you release back pressure the nose will want to drop back to where you want t it when you add back in the power. Of course, you'll be in a low energy state, depending on how long you do it, so it's not something you'd want to try every time. We know newer Russian a/c are good at high AoA, and I've seen F/A-18s and F-14s do this as well.


Merlin: What are you doin'? You're slowin' down, you're slowin' down!

Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer Merlin.

Merlin: You're gonna do what? This is it Maverick!

Maverick: I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by.
 
F-14D said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
kcran567 said:
When there was a claim about an all new flight suit needed for the Pakfa, with more pilot protection from G loads in the yaw axis am now really wondering if the Pakfa will have yaw supermaneuver at high speeds, not just for low and slow airshow tricks. Wouldn't the combat value of yaw maneuver at high speed be extremely useful against countering missile threats and bring a new dimension to high speed combat far superior to the F-22? Looking at the T-50s airframe shape, tails and engine nozzles, it was built to super-maneuver in yaw, not just pitch as the F-22. This could be a very significant leap in capability over the f-22.
Click to expand...

Violent yaw at high speed is a very good way to get to low speed very quickly via deployment of the world's largest airbrake, your whole aircraft, followed by catastrophic damage, I would imagine.

I don't see it being very useful against an F-22 except in a dogfight.
Click to expand...


I agree that using yaw to slow down would be counterproductive and may do the enemy's work for him. Better to reduce power while rapidly pitching up to high AOA. You'll get an even more massive airbrake, the stress is more in line with the vectors the a/c was designed for, and once you release back pressure the nose will want to drop back to where you want t it when you add back in the power. Of course, you'll be in a low energy state, depending on how long you do it, so it's not something you'd want to try every time. We know newer Russian a/c are good at high AoA, and I've seen F/A-18s and F-14s do this as well.


Merlin: What are you doin'? You're slowin' down, you're slowin' down!

Maverick: I'm bringing him in closer Merlin.

Merlin: You're gonna do what? This is it Maverick!

Maverick: I'm gonna hit the brakes, he'll fly right by.
Click to expand...

I'm doubting an AIM-9X/ASSRAM/etc. will be affected much by that strategy.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom