The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

[ФрогФут]

Intake ramps are nothing new... It didnt make MiG-25 stealth. There will be another device inside of the intake dealing with hiding of compressor blades.

In my view it is not intake ramp. Intake ramp should rotate around upper front edge of intake to be able to place compressibility burble on the front edge of intake. This device can only regulate the size of the narrowest intake cross-section, which is usually done by the ramp.

Edited February 8, 2014 by ФрогФут

[Namenlos Ein]

 

 

 

[aaron886]

In my view it is not intake ramp. Intake ramp should rotate around upper front edge of intake to be able to place compressibility burble on the front edge of intake. This device can only regulate the size of the narrowest intake cross-section, which is usually done by the ramp.

 

That's still considered a ramp. The Tomcat had similar configuration, for example. Fixed exterior inlet geometry, but with 3 internal ramps designed to divert/block airflow to prevent compressor stalls or shock impingement.

[ФрогФут]

That's still considered a ramp. The Tomcat had similar configuration, for example. Fixed exterior inlet geometry, but with 3 internal ramps designed to divert/block airflow to prevent compressor stalls or shock impingement.

WUT??

The ramp is very close to the front edge of the intake. Nothing like this is seen on the T-50.

[maturin]

Has this been posted yet? https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d89b9ce721de

 

I'd bet anything that the development of the F35 has only been averagely shitty, and the T-50 looks great because the Russians don't let all the leaks and technical details get out. In the real world, all advanced weapon systems muddle through their own little shitstorms until deployment, at which point they're borderline useless until the Mark II upgrade.

[REPUBLICANO]

Has this been posted yet? https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d89b9ce721de

 

I'd bet anything that the development of the F35 has only been averagely shitty, and the T-50 looks great because the Russians don't let all the leaks and technical details get out. In the real world, all advanced weapon systems muddle through their own little shitstorms until deployment, at which point they're borderline useless until the Mark II upgrade.

 

I think this is a report made with a political goal and with poor information. They use the picture of the flame-out with the 2° prototype. Come on... :lol:

 

The tittle is very impresive with the word "HATE"

Edited February 17, 2014 by REPUBLICANO

[NOLA]

Has this been posted yet? https://medium.com/war-is-boring/d89b9ce721de

 

I'd bet anything that the development of the F35 has only been averagely shitty, and the T-50 looks great because the Russians don't let all the leaks and technical details get out. In the real world, all advanced weapon systems muddle through their own little shitstorms until deployment, at which point they're borderline useless until the Mark II upgrade.

 

Have you read through it? It reeks of sensationalism and the original article that this one is based on is just as bad.

 

There are plenty of *real* issues with T-50 to discuss, not this malarky.

[Weta43]

LOL

The Indian model still exists only on paper. But that hasn’t stopped the Indian air force from voicing.......The airframe is poorly built, with serious implications for the jet’s stealth profile.

[Vekkinho]

^^^^

Well the RuAF models are by that logic also paper models as wahta we're lookin at for tha last 3 years are testbeds.

 

On the other hand I don't think there's RuAF / Indian AF version difference...

[maturin]

There are plenty of *real* issues with T-50 to discuss, not this malarky.

There are? I only post the borderline editorial because I haven't heard anything else.

[REPUBLICANO]

There are? I only post the borderline editorial because I haven't heard anything else.

 

 

there are not. Normally to say "plenty", there are not. The Pak-Fa have few years as Prototype, could be normal find some troubles with these units.

 

Plenty of wishes to put the Pak-Fa at the same situation of the F-35. there are, Yes!! The west propaganda is working on that.

[NOLA]

There are? I only post the borderline editorial because I haven't heard anything else.

 

It wasnt for fun that T-50-1 was grounded over a year. :smilewink:

T-50-3 had an emergency landing some months ago.

T-50-1 (and -2) has been through several sets of horizontal/vertical stabs.

 

there are not. Normally to say "plenty", there are not. The Pak-Fa have few years as Prototype, could be normal find some troubles with these units.

 

Plenty of wishes to put the Pak-Fa at the same situation of the F-35. there are, Yes!! The west propaganda is working on that.

 

I have absolutely zero idea what you just said there.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It wasnt for fun that T-50-1 was grounded over a year. :smilewink:

T-50-3 had an emergency landing some months ago.

T-50-1 (and -2) has been through several sets of horizontal/vertical stabs.

Where did you find this info?

[maturin]

 

I have absolutely zero idea what you just said there.

That's because you are reading the post wrong. It uses a specific grammatical structure where the words 'west' and 'propaganda' are read first, then the surrounding words are read in expanding order, but the meaning is irrelevant.

[NOLA]

Where did you find this info?

 

Well, two of those are easy enough. T-50-1 didn't fly after MAKS 2011 til 10'th September 2012: http://russianplanes.net/id085929

 

As to stabs issues, plenty of photographic evidence there.

 

In regards to T-50-3, there is no photo evidence of course but i alteast three separate sources have confirmed it. All T-50's were grounded following that incident.

 

That's because you are reading the post wrong. It uses a specific grammatical structure where the words 'west' and 'propaganda' are read first, then the surrounding words are read in expanding order, but the meaning is irrelevant.

 

Got it. :thumbup:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well, two of those are easy enough.

There is only two ...

 

T-50-1 didn't fly after MAKS 2011 til 10'th September 2012: http://russianplanes.net/id085929

So if id did not fly then what?

 

As to stabs issues, plenty of photographic evidence there.

What is the evidence about? That the prototype has different stabs?

 

In regards to T-50-3, there is no photo evidence of course but i alteast three separate sources have confirmed it. All T-50's were grounded following that incident.

I have at least 12 (and a half) sources who hasn't confirmed it either. :music_whistling:

[NOLA]

There is only two ...

 

So if id did not fly then what?

 

What is the evidence about? That the prototype has different stabs?

 

I have at least 12 (and a half) sources who hasn't confirmed it either. :music_whistling:

 

Eh, what? I had three things listed, not two. Then what what? :D You are not making any sense as usual.

 

Yes, isn't that evidence enough?

 

Vertical tails, first one is the first picture of it:

 

http://russianplanes.net/images/to62000/061725.jpg

 

+

 

http://russianplanes.net/id70004

 

Feel free to compare other, better pics and find out that those tails does match T-50-1's and not T-50-2's. As to horizontal:

 

 

And why do you think T-50-2 was also grounded for a good while? Same story as with T-50-1:

 

http://russianplanes.net/id114101

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

What a waste of time ... T-50 is under development. Anything on it can change. You can not say that the T-50 is "grounded" at this time in its development. You can say that it is not flying because it is waiting for the things to be installed, modify, build ...

 

It would be stupid to assume that the program runs trouble free. But .... what a waste of time ...

Edited February 20, 2014 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[Weta43]

There are? I only post the borderline editorial because I haven't heard anything else.

Is that the sound of glee in your voice :)

 

As Hajduk says surely the fact that the stabalisers are changed on a prototype is a normal part of the development of a prototype - if you were shure everything were as it will be in the production aircraft, you'd go straight to serial production...

& if you decide that a change should be made to a control surface, wouldn't you fit it to a specific airframe, try it, and if you discover it's an improvement, you'd ground the aircraft with previous versions for conversion ?

 

All seems natural to me...

[sobek]

Posts removed. Time to polish your table manners, gents.

[wilky510]

there are not. Normally to say "plenty", there are not. The Pak-Fa have few years as Prototype, could be normal find some troubles with these units.

 

Plenty of wishes to put the Pak-Fa at the same situation of the F-35. there are, Yes!! The west propaganda is working on that.

And what situation is the F-35 in exactly? Edited February 20, 2014 by wilky510

[Jona33]

And what situation is the F-35 in exactly?

 

Disliked by the daily mail, other than that, not a clue! :music_whistling:

[NOLA]

What a waste of time ... T-50 is under development. Anything on it can change. You can not say that the T-50 is "grounded" at this time in its development. You can say that it is not flying because it is waiting for the things to be installed, modify, build ...

 

It would be stupid to assume that the program runs trouble free. But .... what a waste of time ...

 

Wait a second. I never said that i expected T-50 program to run smooth did i? I said we should ignore simpelton articles based on rumors and stupid "statements" and focus discussion on actual issues that are happening with T-50.

 

I stated things that are known to be wrong, you asked for proof. I posted proof. And now you are complaining that i posted proof and consider it to be bashing of T-50? :doh: If anything, you are a waste of time. Don't ask for proof next time.

 

And i don't know, if main supply dies on one frame and all other frames do not fly due to that; i consider that grounding. You can call it whatever you like.

[Namenlos Ein]

 

 

Т-50-2 fighter aircraft made the flight to Akhtubinsk

 

Moscow, February 21. Today the flight model of the prospective 5th — generation fighter aircraft (PAK-FA, T-50) arrived to the 929th Chkalov State Flight Test Centre’s airfield in Akhtubinsk for State Joint Tests. The aircraft was piloted by the test pilot of the 1st Class Sergey Chernyshev.

 

Currently there are four 5th — generation T-50 fighter aircraft undergoing flight tests in Zhukovsky. Two more planes are involved in ground tests — one as a complex ground stand and the other undergoes static tests.

 

The PAK FA tests program included aero-dynamic features evaluation, tests of stability and controllability and of dynamic strength, function check of on-board equipment and aircraft systems. Optical locator system as well as active electronically scanned array radar was tested on the aircraft with positive results obtained. Air refueling mode was tested. Supermaneuverability tests of the aircraft are under way. Aircraft systems are being tested on the test stands, ground experimental works continue. […]

[BronzeBuddha]

The specifications according to wikipedia seems ridiculous as times, especially the thrust to weight ratio.

 

General characteristics

- Crew: 1

- Length: 19.8 m (65.9 ft)

- Wingspan: 14 m (46.6 ft)

- Height: 6.05 m (19.8 ft)

- Wing area: 78.8 m2 (848.1 ft2)

- Empty weight: 18,000 kg (39,680 lb)

- Loaded weight: 25,000 kg (55,115 lb)

- Max. takeoff weight: 35,000 kg (77,160 lb)

- Powerplant: 2 × Izdeliye 117 (AL-41F1) for initial production, Izdeliye 30 for later production thrust vectoring turbofan

- Dry thrust: 93.2 kN (21,000 lbf) each

- Thrust with afterburner: 147.1 kN (33,067 lbf) each

- Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,711 lb)

 

Performance

- Maximum speed: Mach 2.0-2.3 (2,135-2,440 km/h, 1,327-1,520 mph)

- Cruise speed: Mach 1.3-1.6 (1,380-1,700 km/h, 860-1,060 mph)

- Range: 3,500 km subsonic (2,175 mi)

- Ferry range: 5,500 km with one in-flight refueling (3,417 mi)

- Service ceiling: 20,000 m (65,000 ft)

- Wing loading: 330-470 kg/m2 (67-96 lb/ft2)

- Thrust/weight: 1.19 with 117 engines, 1.41 with Izdeliye 30 engines

- Maximum g-load: 9 g

 

Armament

- Guns: Provision for a cannon (most likely GSh-301).

- Air to air loadout:

- 6× Izdeliye 180 / K-77M or 4× Izdeliye 810

- 2× Izdeliye 760 / K-74M2

- Air to ground loadout:

- 4× Kh-38M or 4× Kh-58USHK

- 8× KAB-250 or 4× KAB-500

- 2× Izdeliye 760 / K-74M2

- Air to sea loadout:

- 4× Kh-35

- 2× Izdeliye 760 / K-74M2

- Hardpoints: Six external hardpoints.[123]

 

Avionics

Sh121 multifunctional integrated radio electronic system (MIRES)

N036 Byelka radar built by Tikhomirov NIIP

- Main X-band N036-1-01 AESA radar with 1526 T/R modules

- 2 Side facing X-band N036B-1-01 AESA radars with 358 T/R modules each, to increase angular coverage

- 2 L-band N036L-1-01 arrays on the Leading-edge extension for IFF functionality

L402 Himalayas ECM suite built by KNIRTI institute

101KS Atoll electro-optical suite

- 101KS-O: Laser-based countermeasures against infrared missiles

- 101KS-V: IRST for airborne targets

- 101KS-U: Ultraviolet warning sensors

- 101KS-N: Targeting pod