The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

oops :D

 

Hihihi....car alarms...:D

Really hope to see the T-50 @ MAKS!

Really hope to see the T-50 @ MAKS!

 

Hey Frazer, en ik verwacht perfecte foto's van je!!!!!!!:)

 

Jammer dat ik er niet bij ben:(

 

Wasserfall

Really hope to see the T-50 @ MAKS!

 

Hey, we should should all meet somewhere in Moscow! Perhaps at Eagle Dynamics room at MAKS. Let's discuss it over at dedicated thread!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2011 by Antartis

What is a TVC?

I assume - looking the pics - the TVC is hydrolics controled. Poor guy if he looses hydraulics then.

Hmmm, looking at the pictures ... Can you point the TVC hydraulic actuators on any of these pictures? Where do you see them?

 

BTW, how's the TVC controlled on F-22? What is going to happen to F-22, F-35, Boeing 787, Il96-300, A-380, E-195 ... when they loose hydraulics? Also, I was on a UNITED flight, from Moscow to New York when we got hit by lightening. We landed safely in Frankfurt. Apparently, there was some kind of a some hydraulics problem.

 

And Sukhoi Su-30MKI is the first (and only?) operational aircraft with 2D TVC system. Thus, Sukhoi has a lots of experience with "hydraulic systems" and TVC.

Thrust vector control? Hopefully they all have redundant backups for their flight critical hydraulic systems.

...it was always an epic fail. Who knows....

 

Really? Such as?

 

Nate

I think that's the main point, really: Who cares if it's hydraulically actuated and the pilot loses hydraulics? He's not losing just TVC in that case.

 

 

Hmmm, looking at the pictures ... Can you point the TVC hydraulic actuators on any of these pictures? Where do you see them?

 

BTW, how's the TVC controlled on F-22? What is going to happen to F-22, F-35, Boeing 787, Il96-300, A-380, E-195 ... when they loose hydraulics?

Really? Such as?

 

I wouldn't say always, but to name an example, the concordski.

@GG: Exactly.

 

but whenever they copy american things like this Raptorski

 

is that a joke?

I wouldn't say always, but to name an example, the concordski.

 

:megalol:

 

yeah, they've built MiG-21 analog and did years of research so that they could "copy" a plane that only looks similar and actually flew later

Tupolev 160ski ....

 

Well to be fair, the B-1 isn't the most serviceable aircraft either. :)

yeah, they've built MiG-21 analog and did years of research so that they could "copy" a plane that only looks similar and actually flew later

 

So? They could have lacked know how to pull it off. So naturally they had years of research to do. Regardless of how much was copied or not, i do not see how your point is an argument against the 144 having been copied.

Really a nice Jet.. but I think they did not have focus on a good overview.. the canopy seems to be quite small and the view around might not be the best.. comparded to F-15, F-16 or F-22:huh:

The engine nozzles are indeed hydraulically operated but they don't use hydraulic oil, they use jet fuel as operating fluid. So no mix with a/c's hydraulics at all.

Really a nice Jet.. but I think they did not have focus on a good overview.. the canopy seems to be quite small and the view around might not be the best.. comparded to F-15, F-16 or F-22:huh:

 

The thing is that this thing will have IR eyes scanning most of the sky for it so I guess no need for looking out.

Buran-ski ...

Why was it fail? And that should probably be Shuttle-ski?:)

@ Hajduk: I am not sure though, but the hanging nozzles of one 50 with engines off indicate the system dependence.

The F-22 is UFO-ish in that matter, they say ...hehe

 

History teaches us, that whenever the russians built their own concepts aka "glugg glugg vodka...you no fly plane..plane flies you comrad...da" they design great planes, but whenever they copy american things like this Raptorski ...it was always an epic fail. Who knows....

 

You obviously dont understand much about what makes internals of aircraft, so you should avoid writing online the first thing that comes to your head like this because you may look silly. Dont take this too personal but re-read you message in someone elses shoes for a while.

 

If anything the PAK FA started off from lessons learned from flanker experience (makes sense with smaller budget) and added a few extra features like RCS reduction measures which look fundamentally different from those on the Raptor.

 

The engine nozzles are indeed hydraulically operated but they don't use hydraulic oil, they use jet fuel as operating fluid. So no mix with a/c's hydraulics at all.

 

Yah there are other fuel actuated systems on engines, but your positive about this? I though TVC could be electrically actuated instead of fuel given its a hot area.

I thought TVC was controlled by the bleeding the exhaust itself.

 

And about AMRAAM-iski, whats common in them except the active homing?

Edited August 11, 2011 by combatace

@ Hajduk: I am not sure though, but the hanging nozzles of one 50 with engines off indicate the system dependence.

The F-22 is UFO-ish in that matter, they say ...hehe

Matt, it doesn't look like you really know what you are talking about. I wonder what is your technical background? I am a Senior Technical Trainer. I train on hydraulic systems on mining machines.

 

History teaches us, that whenever the russians built their own concepts aka "glugg glugg vodka...you no fly plane..plane flies you comrad...da" they design great planes, but whenever they copy american things like this Raptorski ...it was always an epic fail. Who knows....

Again, it is obvious that you have some prejudice views of Russian engineering. Is it your age or is it something else, I don't know. However, while Russian engineering is not perfect, they designed some very successful aircraft and aviation systems.

 

PAK FA is an aircraft that is designed to solve the same problem as what F-22 was designed for. Thus, they have to look very similar, and for a casual observer, they do. However, when you take a deeper look, there are some significant differences between the two approaches.

 

Your "glugg glugg vodka ..." observation is just silly and do not belong to this forum where there are aviation engineers, combat aircraft pilots, commercial pilots, high level technicians that understand how things work on airplanes.

I assume - looking the pics - the TVC is hydrolics controled. Poor guy if he looses hydraulics then.

 

Seriously? It's not like he's uniquely screwed if he loses hydraulic power. Any modern jet fighter is similarly screwed if it loses hydraulic power.

 

To anyone doubting if the petals are hydraulically actuated... of course they are. What other alternative is there? 50 hamster wheels? :doh:

15 would be enough, but it's always good to have redundancy :D

I read a wile back that the tvc on the su-37 where actuated by fuel! I don't know if this is true and the article has been removed. The article also said that if one engine fail the tvc would deactivate; again I can't verify this. Also the tvc from the su-37 is not the same as the su-30 which appeared after the su-35 and su-37.

Some people are saying that the added tail section houses a parachute for anti spin maneuvers; I figure they want to test the aircraft flying characteristics before implementing the tvc control.

Edited August 11, 2011 by mikoyan