The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[Griffin]

I didn't have interest to read it completely but it seems like the deal.

 

Задачей изобретения является достижение оптимального сочетания надежной работы форсажной камеры, величины гидравлических потерь и эффективности снижения уровня инфракрасного излучения в задней полусфере двигателя.

 

The purpose of the invention is to reach the optimal combination in afterburner chamber operation, amount of hydraulic (fluid?) losses and effectiveness in reduction of infrared emissions in the rear hemisphere of the engine.

 

How can they know it's for PAK-FA?

Edited September 8, 2012 by Griffin

[Namenlos Ein]

 

http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/gallery/aircrafts/combat/t-50/t-50-3.wbp — the high resolution photos of Sukhoi T-50-3 aircraft.

[Namenlos Ein]

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/?id=5022

Sukhoi Company adds the 4th PAK FA prototype to flight tests program in Komsomolsk-on-Amur

 

Moscow, December 12 — Today the first flight of the 4th prototype of the fifth generation aviation complex (PAK FA) took place in Sukhoi’s KnAAPO aircraft plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. The plane was piloted by distinguished test pilot of the Russian Federation, the Hero of Russia Sergey Bogdan.

 

The aircraft spent in the air forty minutes and landed on the factory airfield runway. The flight was successful, in full accordance with the flight plan. Stability of the aircraft test was conducted during the flight as well as evaluation of the power plant systems’ performance. The aircraft proved itself well in all phases of the planned flight program. The pilot confirmed reliable operation of all systems and components.

 

The first flight of the PAK FA was held on January 29, 2010 in Komsomolsk-on-Amur. At present, work is underway on the full range of ground and flight tests. Three PAK FA prototypes take part in the test program. At the present time more than 200 flights have been made on the flight test program.

 

 

 

 

[Pilotasso]

Finally, no nose probe.

[Weta43]

053 had/has no nose-probe.

 

There are some photos over on the Russian aviation thread - When you look at this :

the engines look so incongruous that you have to wonder how long till some evolution of this thing end up on the PAK-FA

Edited December 14, 2012 by Weta43

[topol-m]

I'm kinda surprised to see no changes to the underside of the plane. These round shapes are something that should be looked into IMO.

[Weta43]

The only round shapes are in the transition to the engines, which appear to be 'WIP'

 

 

Whips :

[tflash]

I'm kinda surprised to see no changes to the underside of the plane. These round shapes are something that should be looked into IMO.

 

Did you notice the underbelly of the F-35 and B-2 is full of "round shapes" ?

 

Radar reflection can partly be guessed from simplistic geoemetrical forms that you can identify with the naked eye, but much better is computer modelling and actually compute where the reflections go.

 

I suppose they will review the whole engine housing on the PAK-FA prototype in due time.

[Teknetinium]

Did you notice the underbelly of the F-35 and B-2 is full of "round shapes" ?

 

Radar reflection can partly be guessed from simplistic geometrical forms that you can identify with the naked eye, but much better is computer modelling and actually compute where the reflections go.

 

I suppose they will review the whole engine housing on the PAK-FA prototype in due time.

 

Agree B-2 has round shapes as well, Make the aircraft Like F-117 is probably not the most optimal way to go.

Then again, I believe it would not effect aerodynamics that much if they made it whit a angle then radius on engine part, Like on F-22.

I know for sure that the space between the engines do effect the aerodynamic, So cover up that space so it would be like F-22 would definitely effect the aerodynamics

Edited December 15, 2012 by Teknetinium

[marcos]

The more I look at the Su-50 the more the design makes sense. The frontal cross section is actually similar in shape to the B-2 (though obviously a different size). I didn't realise that it already had internal bays but clearly it does and they're working on the jet pipe exits by the looks of things, which was the other area of concern.

 

[Teknetinium]

The more I look at the Su-50 the more the design makes sense. The frontal cross section is actually similar in shape to the B-2 (though obviously a different size). I didn't realise that it already had internal bays but clearly it does and they're working on the jet pipe exits by the looks of things, which was the other area of concern.

 

 

 

If that part was closed witch would give more space internal but would effect aerodynamics in a way I believe Sukhoi don't want. ( I Don't think that change would effect so much on the drag)

Edited December 15, 2012 by Teknetinium

[marcos]

If that part was closed witch would give more space internal would effect aerodynamics in a way I believe Sukhoi don't want. ( I Don't think that change would effect so much on the drag)

It would probably increase radar cross-section (RCS) too.

 

It does provide scope for a larger attached weapons bay should the need arise though.

[NOLA]

I didn't realise that it already had internal bays but clearly it does and they're working on the jet pipe exits by the looks of things, which was the other area of concern.

 

It has four of them.

 

Sukhoi are not idiots. They had their reasons to have a "funnel" ala Su-27/F-14/MiG-29.

[Alfa]

... and they're working on the jet pipe exits by the looks of things, which was the other area of concern.

 

Hmm what makes you think that?

 

If you are refering to the image posted by Weta43, then I think this is just some very early experimenting with thrust vectoring that later lead to the system first installed on the "Su-37" demonstrator.

[GGTharos]

Agree B-2 has round shapes as well, Make the aircraft Like F-117 is probably not the most optimal way to go.

 

That's correct; the F-117 was made that way because of the available computing power for modeling the RCS of the aircraft in those days. The B-2 is second gen stealth where more computing power was available. The F-22 is 3rd gen, where even more computing power, different stealth techniques, and better materials are available, thus reducing stealth coating/filler maintenance etc.

 

Then again, I believe it would not effect aerodynamics that much if they made it whit a angle then radius on engine part, Like on F-22.

I know for sure that the space between the engines do effect the aerodynamic, So cover up that space so it would be like F-22 would definitely effect the aerodynamics

 

It would create a larger frontal cross-section which might increase drag a little. It also increases weight (When you make the aircraft bigger, you add weight usually). The F-22 is a different solution to a particular problem. It may look boxier but it has no aerodynamic issues, which should be obvious from stated unclassified supercruising figures.

[Vekkinho]

^^^^

Yes, FLCS can make my wardrobe fly...

 

Trouble with T-50 (and previous Russian designs) is absence of such system that's reliable enough to be cleared for production so airframe and wing shape is the most important part of designing an aircraft in Russia. Sukhoi and MiG buerau first of all design unstable gliders before they introduce it to it's engines...

 

So closing the space betveen T-50 engines is IMO very unlikely as it would reduce a lot of lift. Not to mention airflow used for engine nacelle cooling...

[ФрогФут]

Trouble with T-50 (and previous Russian designs) is absence of such system that's reliable enough to be cleared for production

???

[Weta43]

If you are refering to the image posted by Weta43, then I think this is just some very early experimenting with thrust vectoring that later lead to the system first installed on the "Su-37" demonstrator.

 

I don't think so - it seems a completely different approach to that used on the Su-37 (or currently on the PAK-FA) and much more of an investigation into the approach used on the F-22

Does this:

 

 

look like a precursor of this:

 

 

or an investigation of this approach ?

Edited December 17, 2012 by Weta43

[combatace]

That image of Su-27 is way old and they tried to test it before they implemented 3D TVC. So when you have 3D TVC why go for 2D.

[GGTharos]

Because your 2D TVC may be more efficient ... who knows? The USAF had loads of access to 3D TVC.

[EtherealN]

Especially if we add system complexity and maintenance to the "efficiency" equation.

 

Sometimes something can be better, but not sufficiently so to be worth the trouble.

[Teknetinium]

That's correct; the F-117 was made that way because of the available computing power for modeling the RCS of the aircraft in those days. The B-2 is second gen stealth where more computing power was available. The F-22 is 3rd gen, where even more computing power, different stealth techniques, and better materials are available, thus reducing stealth coating/filler maintenance etc.

 

 

 

It would create a larger frontal cross-section which might increase drag a little. It also increases weight (When you make the aircraft bigger, you add weight usually). The F-22 is a different solution to a particular problem. It may look boxier but it has no aerodynamic issues, which should be obvious from stated unclassified supercruising figures.

 

Im sure F-22 developers and T-50 have their reasons why the aircrafts look the way they do.

Making a good and reliable engine is the hard work for T-50 since I would believe F-22 engines quite powerful for aircrafts size. Making totally new engine for T-50 is probably in progress, at the moment T-50 is flying on upgraded version of older ones.

 

GG ,In 15 years we might fly DCS F-22 vs T-50 ( If we are not divorced by then:) )

Edited December 18, 2012 by Teknetinium

[F-23A]

The "2d tvc" shown here was primarily intended for IR signature reduction.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Because your 2D TVC may be more efficient ... who knows?

Yeah, you have a very efficient 2D TVC but, the vertical stabilizers have to be bigger (less efficient??) ... who knows?

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[GGTharos]

Planes are made out of trade-offs. What's that 3D TVC trading off? Is it worth it?

 

Yeah, you have a very efficient 2D TVC but, the vertical stabilizers have to be bigger (less efficient??) ... who knows?