The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

mikoyan · August 11, 2011

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

Dude the tu-144 was faster and a bit bigger than the concord; it was very different if you look at them closely. Different wings; with totally different shape engines where not as separated as the concord and it had folding canards; was it better? I don't know; one got the chance to work as it was intended; the other never got to do commercial flights. Both where killed by the fact that airlines wanted cheaper and efficient instead of faster; cool and very expensive. If the tu-144 is just a ripoff of the concord they would not have modified a mig-21 with a single delta wing to test the wing design.

I don't understand why everything made in Russia ends up refereed as cheap copies. As far as I know the only true copy made in russia was the tu-4 and it was not because the engineers could not came up with something different; they where order to copy it; it was a situation of "you copy or else gulag for you" another that I remember is the licensed version of the dc-3.

RIPTIDE · August 12, 2011

the other never got to do commercial flights.

The Tu-144 made many flights carrying passengers, or commercial flights if you like. But there was serious problems with that bird. Too much political BS mired it.

sobek · August 12, 2011

The Tu-144 made many flights carrying passengers, or commercial flights if you like. But there was serious problems with that bird. Too much political BS mired it.

IIRC it was even used as a freight plane long after it was decommissioned for passenger flight.

Maximus_G · August 12, 2011

IIRC it was even used as a freight plane long after it was decommissioned for passenger flight.

Yep, and later it was used by NASA as a testbed aircraft :weight_lift_2:

4c Hajduk Veljko · August 12, 2011

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

Le Tupoljev (Concord) took off several months later after Tu-144.

Besides, your comment has nothing to do with PAK FA.

4c Hajduk Veljko · August 12, 2011

Buran-ski ... Tupolev 160ski ....

Buran took off, flew few circles around the earth low orbit and successfully landed. All remotely controlled. I happen to briefly talk (pure coincidence) to a Russian engineer who claimed that he was directly involved with Buran project. Buran was eventually abandoned for the same reason we are abandoning Space Shuttle program. It took us 30 years and a debt of 14 000 000 000 000 dollars to figure it out ... BTW, Buran did not crash.

As far as Tu-160 goes, I suggest you read the "Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack: The Russian Answer to the B-1". Tu-160 is bigger then B-1, much faster then B1, can carry close to 30% more payload, has more then double the range then B-1 ...

At the end, none of this has anything to do with PAK FA and I don't see why you brought it up?

RvETito · August 12, 2011

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'm positive about TVC actuators of any RD-33 and AL-31 versions with TVC. I don't expect anything different in the T-50, yet. Because the two flying prototypes still fly with the 117S engines (modded AL-31's). They are yet to receive the AL-41.

It's indeed quiet surprising the solution of fuel pressure controlled actuators in the hottest section of the engine but this is how they've made it. It's nothing like VBV's and VSV's which are fuel operated for ages. That nozzle control is designed by Klimov bureau BTW.

sobek · August 12, 2011

Anybody know if the newer russian made TVC systems have solved the problems with the extremely short service life that was present with early types?

aaron886 · August 12, 2011

It's indeed quiet surprising the solution of fuel pressure controlled actuators in the hottest section of the engine but this is how they've made it.

Not really... jet fuel isn't that unstable. By nature of a hydraulic system, it's (probably) constantly cycling through the hot section and back to cooler areas. Fuel is a great coolant. (Similar use in the SR-71, if I remember right.)

PAKFA · August 13, 2011

http://radikal.ru/F/i031.radikal.ru/1108/b9/7e428dafa4bd.jpg.html

http://russianplanes.net/ID51318

Edited August 13, 2011 by PAKFA

4c Hajduk Veljko · August 13, 2011

Anybody has any pictures or info on a new AA long range missile PAK FA will carry? With so much room between engines, PAK FA will be able to carry relatively large missiles.

Flаnker · August 13, 2011

Pilotasso · August 13, 2011

new tailcone. what is it? chute?

power5 · August 13, 2011

Do most soviet planes have chutes? Is that why they all seem to have that huge uhhh, extension between the engines?

Didnt the wide spacing of the F14 engines cause stability problems in the event of an engine failure? Of course todays planes have much more sophisticated flight software.

combatace · August 13, 2011

Do most soviet planes have chutes? Is that why they all seem to have that huge uhhh, extension between the engines?

Didnt the wide spacing of the F14 engines cause stability problems in the event of an engine failure? Of course todays planes have much more sophisticated flight software.

Well, Su-27 and later have widely spaced engines,

Su-27, Su-30, Su-35 has chute and flares in it,

Su-34 has more flares and chaffs, chute in spine.

And yes, almost all Russian (not Soviet) planes have chute, they have icy runways and it better to stop the plane by chute rather than slipping with brakes.