Register here

Author Topic: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II  (Read 419729 times)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
« Last Edit: May 22, 2012, 03:14:09 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2012, 03:38:17 am »
Several online sources now refer to the T-50 as being also the "Su-50". I thought it was a mistake but now I can see that the designation is also in the title of this topic. Has it been made into an official designation? And since when?

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2012, 03:47:34 am »
It is anticipated to be the service designation when it enters service. T-50 is the Sukhoi internal designation only.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2012, 06:09:48 am »
Where are all the Su-4xs?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1165
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2012, 06:13:27 pm »
Where are all the Su-4xs?
Not to mention the fact that fighters have historically been odd numbers, although that doesn't explain Su-25 or Su-30.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2012, 06:18:03 pm »
They also had Su-20 and Su-22 for export, and all four of these aircraft are oriented towards ground attack which might have been the reason for even numbers; though Su-22 might also just have been to avoid having a MiG-21 and Su-21 side by side.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2012, 06:19:37 pm »
Where are all the Su-4xs?
Su-47 given to S-37. Su-49 is a trainer
even numbers traditionally go for export versions
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2012, 03:09:09 am »
even numbers traditionally go for export versions

... which contradicts the notion that the T-50 (or at least the Russian version) would be the Su-50!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2012, 03:18:24 am »
Zvezda kit, licensed by Sukhoi, has Su-50 on it along with T-50

number 50 was chosen to mark 5th gen aircraft

« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 03:22:21 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2012, 05:22:05 am »
Zvezda kit, licensed by Sukhoi, has Su-50 on it along with T-50

number 50 was chosen to mark 5th gen aircraft



Makes more sense than the F-35's.  ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2012, 10:43:12 pm »
Such a long time without any news ?!

Here's finally again T50-3.
http://russianplanes.net/id79569
http://russianplanes.net/id79570
http://russianplanes.net/id79571


Deino
« Last Edit: June 17, 2012, 11:19:52 pm by flateric »
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #11 on: June 17, 2012, 11:21:12 pm »
50-2 flew the same day as 50-3 has started taxi trials at LII - 15/06/12
http://russianplanes.net/id79620
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2012, 04:51:25 am »
And it still has "51" fins.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2012, 08:59:43 am »
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2012, 01:57:47 pm »
  • flare dispensers
  • EO at tail
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Online fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2055
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2038
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2012, 01:21:32 pm »
"And by the way, let's stop painting the Bort number on the tail, or anything else removable."

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2012, 03:58:35 am »
^or more particularly, transferable  ;)
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2012, 03:12:45 am »
via Comet

Static Stress Testing
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2012, 08:59:46 am »
Not sure if already posted but no. 52 has its own tail back again !!! ... together with some calibration markings
http://russianplanes.net/id82183
http://russianplanes.net/id82184
 
 
Deino
« Last Edit: July 31, 2012, 01:35:32 pm by flateric »
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2012, 11:39:49 am »
T50-1 back on track (so far taxies). Thanks to Pavel Noddlov
http://russianplanes.net/id85929
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2012, 01:24:14 am »
Well, now that we have lots of high-resolution pictures of the T-50 airframe, what are some educated predictions on its aerodynamic performance? How good is it on the area rule? Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance, how does its aerodynamics compare to the F-22's at various speeds and altitudes? Maybe engineers like Sundog can provide some insight?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2012, 06:04:56 am »
Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2012, 07:24:42 am »
Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?

117 don't, but do you have any reason for why Phase II wont?
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2012, 05:48:23 am »
Well, now that we have lots of high-resolution pictures of the T-50 airframe, what are some educated predictions on its aerodynamic performance? How good is it on the area rule? Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance, how does its aerodynamics compare to the F-22's at various speeds and altitudes? Maybe engineers like Sundog can provide some insight?

By looking at the patent, the front section of the fuselage is trapezoidal as it blends with the body instead of tapering. They paid great attention to area rule by making the transition of cross sections as "smooth" as possible so it won't be draggy. So the result is a flat plane. The downside, however, is that it can be structurally risky at the rear section.

The "competing design team" claimed that it was too flimsy and will break if it went supersonic. Of course, we know that the claim was blown out of proportion.

As for the max speed, they somehow reduced the requirement.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2012, 06:19:57 am »
Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?

In order to compare the relative aerodynamic efficiency of the designs (eg. at the same thrust - how much drag do they produce)?

The "competing design team" claimed that it was too flimsy and will break if it went supersonic. Of course, we know that the claim was blown out of proportion.

As for the max speed, they somehow reduced the requirement.

I hadn't heard about this claim! Any other additional information? I'm curious about the competing designs...

Such a claim may not be blown out of proportion (just mistranslated). One of the requirements of the PAK-FA was sustained supersonic maneuverability (to aid in kinetically defeating surface to air missiles). So, any structural flaw could lead to fatiguing of the airplane.

The maximum speed requirement was reportedly relaxed in order to meet payload requirements while using existing engines.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2012, 06:55:49 am »
There was a long winded interview with "competitors". Apparently, according to them, PAK FA has huge buffeting problem making it impossible to break sound barrier and travel above 600 km/h (iirc). That turned out to be nice pile of BS, as T-50-1 broke soundbarrier for first time 10'th March 2011.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2012, 08:47:23 am »
There was a long winded interview with "competitors". Apparently, according to them, PAK FA has huge buffeting problem making it impossible to break sound barrier and travel above 600 km/h (iirc). That turned out to be nice pile of BS, as T-50-1 broke soundbarrier for first time 10'th March 2011.

Any pics of competing design(s)?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2012, 01:52:06 pm »
Not til you dont dodge my question.  ;D And after that, no.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2012, 08:31:03 pm »
Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance,

Why would one assume that?

I'm curious about the aerodynamic performance of the PAK-FA's airframe and shape and how it compares to other aircraft like the F-22. I want to remove other variables such as engine thrust.

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #30 on: September 18, 2012, 03:01:08 am »
Any pics of competing design(s)?

The competing design is the "Raptorski". Surprise?
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #31 on: September 18, 2012, 03:56:20 am »
MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2012, 04:57:40 am »
MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'

Any estimate for how many years I have to wait until I can prove that with my own eyes?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2012, 05:34:52 am »
we yet to see 1.42, T-12, T-60S - you continue the list...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Online fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2055
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2012, 01:29:48 pm »
Real or CGI/PS-ed  :-\


Found at the German Flugzeugforum.de
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2012, 03:11:46 pm »
Jesus christ, of course it is CGI and it is old. Really old.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2012, 04:55:16 pm »
The more important question is "is it accurate?"


I thought the weapon bays had 4 hard points each.

Offline Geo

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2012, 11:20:54 pm »
MiG E-721 and alternative Sukhoi designs were not 'raptorski's'

Flateric, did you see the E-721 sketch?

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #38 on: September 19, 2012, 02:49:24 am »
The more important question is "is it accurate?"


I thought the weapon bays had 4 hard points each.

2 missiles per main bay.

of course, some will argue they could have easily fitted 3. but requirements are requirements
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #39 on: September 22, 2012, 12:35:06 pm »
Well, now that we have lots of high-resolution pictures of the T-50 airframe, what are some educated predictions on its aerodynamic performance? How good is it on the area rule? Assuming that the T-50 has the hypothetical engines that match the F119's performance, how does its aerodynamics compare to the F-22's at various speeds and altitudes? Maybe engineers like Sundog can provide some insight?

By looking at the patent, the front section of the fuselage is trapezoidal as it blends with the body instead of tapering. They paid great attention to area rule by making the transition of cross sections as "smooth" as possible so it won't be draggy. So the result is a flat plane. The downside, however, is that it can be structurally risky at the rear section.

The "competing design team" claimed that it was too flimsy and will break if it went supersonic. Of course, we know that the claim was blown out of proportion.

As for the max speed, they somehow reduced the requirement.

It appears that the T-50 shares a lot of features with the YF-23. Lets see if the T-50 can live up to the YF-23's incredible performance in speed.

Also, judging how wide the T-50 is, it looks like it can generate a whole lot of lift. Really wonder what the turn rate is. It might far exceed the F-22.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #40 on: September 22, 2012, 01:40:38 pm »
It appears that the T-50 shares a lot of features with the YF-23. Lets see if the T-50 can live up to the YF-23's incredible performance in speed.

1. The YF-23 was WAY cleaner than the T-50.
2. It helps when you have YF119s/YF120s in the back end.


Also, judging how wide the T-50 is, it looks like it can generate a whole lot of lift. Really wonder what the turn rate is. It might far exceed the F-22.

But can it out turn an AIM-9X.  One would guess the answer is somewhere between "no" and "hell no".  [/quote]
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #41 on: September 22, 2012, 02:37:21 pm »
It appears that the T-50 shares a lot of features with the YF-23. Lets see if the T-50 can live up to the YF-23's incredible performance in speed.

1. The YF-23 was WAY cleaner than the T-50.
2. It helps when you have YF119s/YF120s in the back end.

Clean isn't everything. Also, let's leave engines out of this, since I'm talking strictly about the merits of the T-50's aerodynamic shape. It has a similar layout to the YF-23 and that may be an indication that the T-50 conforms to the area rule very well. If we assume that the T-50 is using the hypothetical F119 equivalent that's being developed, it may meet or exceed the F-22's current speed performance. This is just my conjecture. Perhaps an aerospace engineer can provide more insight on this.

Quote
Also, judging how wide the T-50 is, it looks like it can generate a whole lot of lift. Really wonder what the turn rate is. It might far exceed the F-22.

But can it out turn an AIM-9X.  One would guess the answer is somewhere between "no" and "hell no". 

I'm trying to talk about aerodynamic performance of the aircraft shape, not missiles. The Russians also have high off-boresight missiles. In any case, I'm just postulating that the wide fuselage of the T-50 seems to indicate that it generates lots of lift and it may exceed the F-22 in turning performance.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 02:39:57 pm by Radical »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2012, 05:49:10 pm »
The more important question is "is it accurate?"


I thought the weapon bays had 4 hard points each.

2 missiles per main bay.

of course, some will argue they could have easily fitted 3. but requirements are requirements

Well, the new generation of folding fin <700 kgw weapons (ultra long range AAMs, guided bombs, antiship missiles etc...) all seem to mysteriously be the same size as each other and perfectly match the dimensions of each of the four bay doors...

What are the exact requirements? I missed this being published! I personally like Paralay's layout (central 700kg mount, with 350kg mounts on either side - would allow modification to cary a 1500kg munition internally as well).

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2012, 07:34:47 pm »
1. The YF-23 was WAY cleaner than the T-50.
How so? It got rid of two tail surfaces but that's about it, in many other ways there is indeed a resemblance between the two. Moreover, although this is an inaccurate indicator, the T-50 probably has a smaller frontal area thanks to its straight inlet ducts and reduced vertical tail size.

But can it out turn an AIM-9X.  One would guess the answer is somewhere between "no" and "hell no". 
It doesn't need to - it will likely be fitted with DIRCM from the start.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 07:36:19 pm by Trident »

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #44 on: September 22, 2012, 11:00:29 pm »
Couldn't f-22's huge flat bottom also act as an enormous lifting surface at high AOA to help it turn just like the wide fuselage of the t-50?


Seems to me f-22's elevators, being further behing the engines and center of gravity and lift, would also have greater pitch authority. 


Also, one of the advantages of f-22 is not that it's absolute maximum sustained turn rate was higher than anything else.   Instead it could sustain a high turn rate over a greater range of altitudes and airspeeds.   So can the T-50 match f-22's turn rate at speeds and altitudes where f-22 would most prefer?

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2012, 03:52:11 am »
1. The YF-23 was WAY cleaner than the T-50.
How so? It got rid of two tail surfaces but that's about it, in many other ways there is indeed a resemblance between the two. Moreover, although this is an inaccurate indicator, the T-50 probably has a smaller frontal area thanks to its straight inlet ducts and reduced vertical tail size.

Aside from angled vertical tails and two engines there is little resemblance between the two. 
 

But can it out turn an AIM-9X.  One would guess the answer is somewhere between "no" and "hell no". 
It doesn't need to - it will likely be fitted with DIRCM from the start.

ROFL!!!  "We don't need to manuever.  That's what this big wing is for."  What?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 04:02:47 am by PaulMM »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2012, 05:42:23 am »
Aside from angled vertical tails and two engines there is little resemblance between the two.

Context. In terms of being aerodynamically clean (which is the subject we were talking about), the differences aren't particularly big and they could go either way. In detail the resemblance is pretty moderate, but then many people insist that the F-14 is the closest Western counterpart of the Flanker in configuration, when actually (aside from twin widely spaced engines and tails) the F-16 is much closer.

ROFL!!!  "We don't need to manuever.  That's what this big wing is for."  What?


There are obviously uses for agility and high lift other than out-turning AIM-9X missiles. Suffice it to say that both the big wing and DIRCM are there - what exactly motivated these design choices is a question only Sukhoi can answer in detail.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2012, 06:10:02 am »
Aside from angled vertical tails and two engines there is little resemblance between the two.

Context. In terms of being aerodynamically clean (which is the subject we were talking about), the differences aren't particularly big and they could go either way.

They're huge.  There are a lot more areas for potential interference drag on the T-50.  There is a lot less blending between shapes on the T-50 with many abrupt changes of surface direction.  The YF-23 is pretty slick in the latter sense (yes I know that's not all there is to it), and it's smaller to boot.  It's wet area is much smaller than the T-50. 
 
 
 
In detail the resemblance is pretty moderate, but then many people insist that the F-14 is the closest Western counterpart of the Flanker in configuration, when actually (aside from twin widely spaced engines and tails) the F-16 is much closer.

Reading this one can't help but wonder if we're speaking of the same aircraft. 

ROFL!!!  "We don't need to manuever.  That's what this big wing is for."  What?


There are obviously uses for agility and high lift other than out-turning AIM-9X missiles. Suffice it to say that both the big wing and DIRCM are there - what exactly motivated these design choices is a question only Sukhoi can answer in detail.

I've not seen any evidence whatsoever of a DIRCM turret on the T-50.  Could you point it out?
 
 
(and why the hell do the undeletable "" keep sticking themselves at the end of my posts?)
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 04:04:33 am by PaulMM »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2012, 07:20:17 am »
The YF-23 is pretty slick in the latter sense (yes I know that's not all there is to it), and it's smaller to boot.  It's wet area is much smaller than the T-50. 

Huh? The YF-23 was probably larger, certainly in length and most likely also in volume, having to contain inside a smoothly-faired outline longer inlet ducts with much greater vertical and horizontal displacement between intake location and engine compressor face. While the T-50 may have more complex shaping underneath, its topside is arguably cleaner.

I've not seen any evidence whatsoever of a DIRCM turret on the T-50.  Could you point it out?

It's the hemispherical fairing behind the canopy that was originally thought to be a second IRST. Information on the integrated 101KS EO system of the T-50 revealed a few months ago called it a "laser-based optical countermeasures station" or some such clunky literal translation of its native Russian designation. I don't know about you, but that screams DIRCM to me :)

(and why the hell do the undeletable "quote" keep sticking themselves at the end of my posts?)

Yeah, you have to be pretty cunning to get rid of that and I'm not entirely sure how I manage to do it. Rearranging stuff by cutting and pasting seems to help sometimes, as does not trying to mark it for deletion with the mouse but placing the cursor somewhere in the vicinity and then moving it with the arrow keys as necessary. Also, I'm having other issues with formatting posts, breaks and paragraphs are a complete mess on my end. What browser are you on? Opera here.

EDIT: hm, breaks seem to work alright when modifying your post after the fact. Weird.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 07:26:04 am by Trident »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #49 on: September 23, 2012, 07:21:25 am »
Guy's, you're going to have a long argument unless you distinguish:
- turn rate vs. speed (turn circle)
- subsonic vs. super-sonic maneuverability
- sustained maneuverability vs. initial maneuverability
- uncontrolled supermaneuverability (e.g. Cobra) and controlled supermaneuverability (where moment remains manageable and attitude is smoothly controlled through all angles of attack)

From a tactical sense you have to distinguish between attempting to turn inside a missile (aircraft have larger surface areas) and attempting to produce heading changes that force a BVR missile to waste energy by making frequent course corrections.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2012, 09:34:09 am »
Information on the integrated 101KS EO system of the T-50 revealed a few months ago called it a "laser-based optical countermeasures station" or some such clunky literal translation of its native Russian designation. I don't know about you, but that screams DIRCM to me :)
O in designation 101KS-O stays for Oborona (Defense) and its defense function is officially confirmed in UOMZ lefalet
But -  there are some hints that this magic ball do carry *both* functions of IRST _and_ DIRCM
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 09:36:54 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2012, 09:44:45 am »
In the YF-23 vs T-50 debate, you have to consider frontal area and surface area are more of a concern for subsonic performance, not supersonic. For supersonic performance, you're better off looking at the wave drag (Area distribution) and the fineness ratio. Just saying...

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2012, 10:48:36 am »
Edited.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 02:32:08 am by Radical »

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2012, 11:10:55 am »
Guys, it seems to me DIRCM could only work against older infra-red missiles that uses a spinning slotted disc homing system. A pulsing ir source on the target really wouldn't work very well in principle against a imaging IR seeker.


Thoughts?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 12:54:05 pm by chuck4 »

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2012, 02:52:44 pm »
Guys, it seems to me DIRCM could only work against older infra-red missiles that uses a spinning slotted disc homing system. A pulsing ir source on the target really wouldn't work very well in principle against a imaging IR seeker.


Thoughts?
Pulsed IR sources aren't really what is referred to as DIRCM today, they are an obsolete technology that is more commonly called 'IR jammer'. Russia has been fielding this technology for a very long time (check out any military Mi-8 or Mi-24 - chances are it will have an IR jammer, not unlike the analogous 'Disco Ball' on various US helos), so it stretches plausibility somewhat to assume that they would fit a 30 year old technology that isn't even effective any more to their latest fighter design. Chances are extremely high that it is a laser-based system which can overpower even imaging seekers by saturating the detector array, similar to various Western (and at least one other Russian) devices, including the one planned for the F-35.

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2012, 03:05:26 pm »
Information on the integrated 101KS EO system of the T-50 revealed a few months ago called it a "laser-based optical countermeasures station" or some such clunky literal translation of its native Russian designation. I don't know about you, but that screams DIRCM to me :)
O in designation 101KS-O stays for Oborona (Defense) and its defense function is officially confirmed in UOMZ lefalet
But -  there are some hints that this magic ball do carry *both* functions of IRST _and_ DIRCM
I'm not perfectly certain how other DIRCM systems do fine tracking of their targets after coarse acquisition by the MAWS, but perhaps this is a closed-loop system which uses the same optics as the laser beam to keep itself pointed at the missile for greater accuracy?

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #56 on: September 26, 2012, 07:07:26 pm »
I wanted to do a bit of analysis on the design itself. According to Dr. Raymer's aircraft design book, Amax (the cross-sectional area of the aircraft which is largest) has a large contribution to wave drag and reducing this value can result in a less draggy aircraft than simply smoothing out the volume distribution would. For that reason, I decided to try to estimate what Amax might be for the T-50.

Very often it seems that the wing contributes largely to the volume of an aircraft and is therefore where Amax is most likely to be. I figured there were two likely places to start on the wing to determine the location of Amax: the point where the root chord is thickest, and the point where the wingspan is at a maximum. I initially thought that Amax would be somewhere between these two points, but for the T-50 at least, my calculations suggested that it was right at the leading edge of the wingtip. If this is true, then that means that Amax for the T-50 is located about 71% down the length of the aircraft (assuming length is 0% at the tip of the nose and 100% at the tip of the tail sting). This is quite a bit further down than the 50% suggested for the ideal Sears-Haack body shape, but this is expected since the T-50 is likely optimized for speeds a good bit above Mach 1. This high speed efficiency would require the rearward bias of Amax that we see.

I used Matej's 5-view of the T-50 in order to attempt to reconstruct the cross-section at the predicted point of Amax, but I'm not sure how well I did (some critical features were hard to see. It's not his fault; it's just a limitation of 5-views in general). One critical piece of information I was missing was the percent thickness of the wings. For this reason, I made 3 different estimations assuming different degrees of thickness. In one, I assumed the wings were 4% thick (the same as the F-16). For the second, 6% (similar to the F-22). Finally, 8% (a very high thickness for a fighter). Initially, I didn't think thickness would affect Amax very much. It seemed to me that the differences were significant, however.

If the wingspan of the T-50 is 14 meters (another uncertainty; for me at least), I end up with the following calculations for Amax.

4% thick = 8.2 square meters
6% thick = 9.6 square meters
8% thick = 10.9 square meters

The reason I didn't go past the tenths place was due to uncertainty; working with pixels leaves a lot to be desired. For this reason, along with some of the difficulties involved in the determining the geometry of the aircraft, I would only consider these ballpark figures. To be perfectly honest, I don't know what a "normal" value for Amax would likely be. Can anyone else shed light on whether these numbers sound reasonable or not? I might end up doing a similar analysis for the F-22A in order to do a comparison. Perhaps the YF-23 as well.

Criticisms of my technique and suggestions for improvement are welcome. By the way, I did remember to subtract the capture area of the inlets when making these estimates.

EDIT: I just used Paralay's detailed T-50 schematics to do another measurement. This time Amax came out around 5.13 square meters. That's a very large margin of error compared to my initial estimates. However, he conveniently had a cross-section drawn of the part I needed, and it looked better than my own drawing. I'd trust this second measurement over the first bunch (it's also closer to the given Amax for Dr. Raymer's Lightweight Supercruise Fighter concept in the back of his book, which he lists at 1.586 square meters. Keep in mind that his LWSF is significantly smaller than the T-50). The airfoil thickness in his drawing appears to be around 4.6% thick, which is not unreasonable. Just to be thorough, however, I'll do a quick estimate of other airfoil thicknesses (I found it interesting how Amax varied almost linearly with thickness for my initial estimates. That probably wouldn't hold true for exceedingly thick or exceedingly thin airfoils, but it should be a good guideline for simple extrapolation):

If Amax = 5.13 square meters for 4.6% thickness, then:

4% thickness ~ 4.9 square meters
6% thickness ~ 5.7 square meters
8% thickness ~ 6.5 square meters
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 09:15:27 pm by Kryptid »
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline Reaper

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2012, 11:59:55 pm »
Is your calculation part of more calculations? Or another question: what is the benefit of having calculated Amax?

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #58 on: September 27, 2012, 08:49:44 am »
Is your calculation part of more calculations? Or another question: what is the benefit of having calculated Amax?


No other calculations at this point. Trying to get an idea of how draggy it is compared to other aircraft (which, of course, requires Amax figures from other designs to compare it to). I know that's not the only factor that affects drag, but it should at least help bring us one step closer to understanding it. At least, I figured it would be better than simply saying "probably this" and "probably that" and instead actually put some numbers to it. I wanted to do a volume distribution plot for the plane as well, but that takes considerably more time. I may yet get to that, however.

The F-23A diagram posted in another thread on here is very clear and it shouldn't take me too much effort to figure Amax for it as well. I'll try to get around to that soon.

EDIT: I calculated the F-23A's Amax at 6.9 square meters. That's higher than my newest figures for the T-50, but that doesn't necessarily mean the T-50 truly has the lower maximum cross-sectional area. For one, there are uncertainties in the T-50's true cross-sectional shape when using civilian-made diagrams. Measuring the pixels also lowers the certainty. The T-50's true Amax could lie somewhere between my old and new measurements (could be anywhere from 4.9 to 10.9 square meters). My guess is that Amax values between the T-50 and the F-23A are in the same "ballpark". Measuring the YF-23 might be preferable, as I believe it was even better area-ruled than it's proposed production version (the ruling was relaxed for better weapon carriage or something like that for the F-23A). Comparing prototype to prototype would therefore be the better choice.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 09:55:01 pm by Kryptid »
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #60 on: September 30, 2012, 10:46:40 am »
Quick! - send some of those back in time so we don't have to debate about the inlet shape  ;)
 (or the whether it has a Su-27's internal structure for that  matter) 

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2012, 03:25:58 am »
Unfortunately, the external structure of PAK-FA in the early days was misleading in terms of the position of the damn compressor face. Can't tell how high or low it is. Well, at least my model there was "close" enough compared to the drawing ;D
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #62 on: October 17, 2012, 02:44:38 am »
Any confirmation that India is cutting back orders to 144?
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #64 on: October 17, 2012, 04:49:40 pm »
Is your calculation part of more calculations? Or another question: what is the benefit of having calculated Amax?


No other calculations at this point. Trying to get an idea of how draggy it is compared to other aircraft (which, of course, requires Amax figures from other designs to compare it to). I know that's not the only factor that affects drag, but it should at least help bring us one step closer to understanding it. At least, I figured it would be better than simply saying "probably this" and "probably that" and instead actually put some numbers to it. I wanted to do a volume distribution plot for the plane as well, but that takes considerably more time. I may yet get to that, however.

The F-23A diagram posted in another thread on here is very clear and it shouldn't take me too much effort to figure Amax for it as well. I'll try to get around to that soon.

EDIT: I calculated the F-23A's Amax at 6.9 square meters. That's higher than my newest figures for the T-50, but that doesn't necessarily mean the T-50 truly has the lower maximum cross-sectional area. For one, there are uncertainties in the T-50's true cross-sectional shape when using civilian-made diagrams. Measuring the pixels also lowers the certainty. The T-50's true Amax could lie somewhere between my old and new measurements (could be anywhere from 4.9 to 10.9 square meters). My guess is that Amax values between the T-50 and the F-23A are in the same "ballpark". Measuring the YF-23 might be preferable, as I believe it was even better area-ruled than it's proposed production version (the ruling was relaxed for better weapon carriage or something like that for the F-23A). Comparing prototype to prototype would therefore be the better choice.

I think the cross sections of the YF-23 is also available on Scott Lowther's website. The F-23A has higher fineness ratio that the YF-23, although its contour might not be as area-ruled.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 04:57:59 pm by Radical »

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #65 on: November 19, 2012, 03:23:47 am »
Hello!


If we can see the forward section of the Saturn 117 engine...

Which is the length of this engine??

best wishes!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #66 on: November 19, 2012, 04:27:18 am »
classified
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #67 on: November 19, 2012, 07:52:00 am »
Sometime back the Japanese release cgi of an stealth engine they are working on for the Shinshen.  It shows a set of large, very deeply curved stators located in front of the fan rotor face, but still inside the fan casing.  The stator supposedly shields the fan from the radar.    Maybe the Russians plan to use the same strategy.




Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2038
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #68 on: November 19, 2012, 08:07:17 am »
As someone once said to me somewhere when I was taking a gander up the inlet duct, "that's not the engine". Could be the same here.

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 401
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2012, 11:39:37 am »
Sounds interesting!.... care to share? or  :-X  ?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #70 on: November 19, 2012, 01:08:20 pm »
there will be radar blocker, but at least at current stage it looks quite different from solution proposed for ATD-X
(and, actually, final configuration is not chosen yet)
T50-3 doesn't have the 'thing', so Photoshop filters wont't help anyway
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #71 on: November 19, 2012, 01:26:15 pm »
Sometime back the Japanese release cgi of an stealth engine they are working on for the Shinshen.  It shows a set of large, very deeply curved stators located in front of the fan rotor face, but still inside the fan casing.  The stator supposedly shields the fan from the radar.    Maybe the Russians plan to use the same strategy.

Hi!

An idea of Paralay:

http://paralay.com/pakfa/t50%20(21).jpg

 ;)

Magoodotcom

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #72 on: November 19, 2012, 09:40:47 pm »
As someone once said to me somewhere when I was taking a gander up the inlet duct, "that's not the engine". Could be the same here.
Was it a "deee-vice"?  ;)

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2012, 07:32:11 am »
some say it's a device. some say it's a blocker. some say it's the fan blade material that's gonna be made of RAM*
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2012, 09:44:59 am »
some say it's a device. some say it's a blocker. some say it's the fan blade material that's gonna be made of RAM*

How credible is a high stress, moving part being made of RAM?
 
How good is (any) RAM material in hiding itself when it is unsupported by geometry, and being stared at directly by a radar?
 
 


Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #78 on: November 23, 2012, 01:47:43 am »

How credible is a high stress, moving part being made of RAM?
 
How good is (any) RAM material in hiding itself when it is unsupported by geometry, and being stared at directly by a radar?

a. coat the fan blade
b. composite ceramic ram(?)
c. go pseudo-Japanese style(future turbines)
d. all of the above(???)
e. none of the above(device, blocker, OMG fan blade! not stealth aircraft)
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #80 on: December 01, 2012, 02:33:28 am »
In the YF-23 vs T-50 debate, you have to consider frontal area and surface area are more of a concern for subsonic performance, not supersonic. For supersonic performance, you're better off looking at the wave drag (Area distribution) and the fineness ratio. Just saying...

Do we have any cross sectional references on the T-50? From a quick glance, the T-50's similar configuration to the YF-23 seems to indicate that it's better area-ruled than the F-22.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2012, 05:33:12 am by Radical »


Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #82 on: December 05, 2012, 06:52:37 pm »
In my opinion, the Pakfa looks like a much more inherently stable airplane than the f-35 or f-22. It looks as though the Russians wanted to save money and cut design risk by using/relying on the Levcons to pitch the nose upward to get tail lift, much like the f-22/35 use their unstable designs to pitch the nose up, which allows the tail to lift together with the wing.


Were those overworked Levcons to malfunction, the pilot is stuck with a stable and less maneuverable aircraft.


On the f-22/35 the wings and horizontal tail are way back behind the back of the aircraft, and the tail is always providing lift with the main wing. on the Pakfa, the tail is much farther forward on the fuselage, more stable, more conventional.


The Pakfa needs to bump its Levcons for trim to keep that nose pitched up and get tail lift. its much more stable for supercruise, but not as inherently unstable as the f-35/22.




My point is that the Pakfa looks more conventional and stable in its design for the reasons I mention above.

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #83 on: December 05, 2012, 10:57:51 pm »
I don't think we've ever seen the LEVCONs deflect upwards before, which would be required for them to generate a nose-up moment for trim. Doing so would probably not be good for aerodynamics either, since it would result in a good deal of drag due to the separation of the boundary layer just behind the LEVCON. As far as I can tell, their main function is to deflect downwards at high alpha to reduce drag and therefore energy loss in turns.

I think I may do a comparison (based on schematics) to see how the tail volume of the T-50 compares with the F-22. Let's also not forget that an aircraft can be unstable even if the tail volume is small; having the center of gravity behind the center of lift is sufficient (although the center of lift moves back to around 40-45% of the Mean Aerodynamic Chord at supersonic speeds versus 25% at subsonic speeds. Not that it would necessarily have to be unstable at supersonic speeds; I believe the Typhoon is unstable subsonic and stable supersonic).
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #84 on: December 06, 2012, 12:48:03 am »
Kryptid, I have seen a few pictures of the T-50 taking off where the levcons appear to be deflected upwards slightly <5 degrees, check a few of the previously posted pictures out. Again, I'm not sure, was just offering an opinion. I would imagine it could trim either way to prevent excessive nose pitch and controllability at high AoA.


What are you're (and others') thoughts on the fact that Sukhoi (possibly) used this as a lower risk approach rather than making the aircraft much more unstable like the f-22/35? After all, the Russians have used operational canard (Levcon related) aircraft, whereas the USA has never used the canard approach, instead preferring a highly unstable/tail lift design.

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #85 on: December 06, 2012, 01:34:12 am »
The Levcons deflect upwards during take-off. If you've seen the schematics, you might want to rethink about being "less risky" structure wise.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #86 on: December 06, 2012, 08:37:18 am »
Really? Huh. That's quite interesting. I guess the separation drag at the low speeds during take-off must not be too bad. Then again, a mere 5 degrees probably wouldn't cause much such drag anyway.
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #87 on: December 06, 2012, 12:54:12 pm »
What are you're (and others') thoughts on the fact that Sukhoi (possibly) used this as a lower risk approach rather than making the aircraft much more unstable like the f-22/35? After all, the Russians have used operational canard (Levcon related) aircraft, whereas the USA has never used the canard approach, instead preferring a highly unstable/tail lift design.
Canard aircraft can be highly unstable as well - this is not a matter of canard or tailed configuration. Also, it seems counter-intuitive that Sukhoi would ditch what is in effect an established approach by now - a direction no less that they helped pioneer back in the 1970s - for an untried solution (LEVCONs). And if risk reduction was the aim, why then build what is probably the world's first aircraft that is significantly unstable in yaw?
It doesn't compute - there isn't much about the T-50 configuration that could be called conservative, it's right up there with the YF-23 in this regard.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #88 on: December 06, 2012, 07:03:16 pm »
I guess I wanted to know why the main wing and tails aren't farther back on the T-50 like the f-35 and f-22, and we know those two rely on unstable design and tail lift for subsonic/supersonic agility. It looks as if the center of lift and gravity on the t-50 is further forward than on the f-35 for example. The Levcons are a way that Sukhoi avoided making the t-50 design as longitudinally unstable as the f-35 for example. But in YAW, the all-moving and small verticals make Sukhoi appear to be much more unstable than the f-35 or the f-22. I'm puzzled.


My opinion that I offered  was that the T-50 is more longitudinally stable, but the Levcons can be used to trim the nose up, ultimately achieving tail lift like the more unstable f-35/22.

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #89 on: December 06, 2012, 10:07:19 pm »
Here are my estimations of the tail volume coefficients for the F-22 and the T-50.

For further comparison, the production F-23A schematic posted elsewhere on this site mentions its horizontal tail volume coefficient as 0.169 and its vertical tail volume coefficient as 0.087. I also have the horizontal tail volume coefficients for several other aircraft: F-15 (0.5382), F-16 (0.4726), F/A-18 (0.594), F-5 (0.528), F-4 (0.2584), F-104 (0.495), MiG-21 (0.4185), Jaguar (0.5544), MiG-25 (0.4386). It's interesting to note how the F-23A, F-22A and the T-50 have fairly small horizontal tail volume coefficients when compared to other aircraft. Perhaps that's a result of improved computer flight control systems or more advanced airfoils? With the F-22 and T-50, at least the TVC nozzles can add to the pitching authority.

Note: the aircraft are not to scale in the following image.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 10:09:44 pm by Kryptid »
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #90 on: December 11, 2012, 11:50:05 pm »
thanks to grOOmi, we know that T50-4 is in the air
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #91 on: December 12, 2012, 09:54:58 am »
Any news or even images !!!??? Anyway congrats ....  ;)

Deino
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #92 on: December 12, 2012, 11:07:49 am »

photos as usual should proceed security screening...KnAAPO and Sukhoi media staff working better and better, so should expect soon
so far even UAC media service doesn't have 'em
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #93 on: December 12, 2012, 11:35:49 am »
Was this the one that was supposed to have 2-dimensional nozzles, or will we have to wait until the service-ready version is complete?
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #94 on: December 12, 2012, 12:38:56 pm »
I guess I wanted to know why the main wing and tails aren't farther back on the T-50 like the f-35 and f-22, and we know those two rely on unstable design and tail lift for subsonic/supersonic agility. It looks as if the center of lift and gravity on the t-50 is further forward than on the f-35 for example. The Levcons are a way that Sukhoi avoided making the t-50 design as longitudinally unstable as the f-35 for example. But in YAW, the all-moving and small verticals make Sukhoi appear to be much more unstable than the f-35 or the f-22. I'm puzzled.


My opinion that I offered  was that the T-50 is more longitudinally stable, but the Levcons can be used to trim the nose up, ultimately achieving tail lift like the more unstable f-35/22.

I don't know about how unstable the T-50 design is, but judging from the huge control surfaces and wide lifting body, I don't see this plane turning any worse than the F-22. Coupled with its better area ruling (based on its similar configuration to the YF-23), I can see the F-22 struggling if it enters the merge with the T-50
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 10:11:28 am by Radical »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #95 on: December 13, 2012, 01:10:47 am »
Was this the one that was supposed to have 2-dimensional nozzles, or will we have to wait until the service-ready version is complete?
no/most likeley there will be no 2D at all
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #96 on: December 13, 2012, 01:11:23 am »
according to grOOmi, 2nd flight was performed today
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #98 on: December 13, 2012, 07:26:21 am »
Was this the one that was supposed to have 2-dimensional nozzles, or will we have to wait until the service-ready version is complete?
no/most likeley there will be no 2D at all

So, no up-engined aircraft with IR shrouded nozzles and rear-facetting planned as a follow-on in the 2030s-2040s?

Offline sanjeev.k

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 19
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #99 on: December 13, 2012, 08:39:40 am »
Was this the one that was supposed to have 2-dimensional nozzles, or will we have to wait until the service-ready version is complete?
no/most likeley there will be no 2D at all

So, no up-engined aircraft with IR shrouded nozzles and rear-facetting planned as a follow-on in the 2030s-2040s?

I recall Flateric was mentioning about some patent filed (not public as yet) by Pogosyan/Davidenko to do with 'swiveling nozzles'. See his posting no 306 on keypubs-> http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?p=1803234
Swiveling nozzles will apparently do away with the need for flat nozzles.
Its not clear if the said swiveling nozzles will appear on that so-called 'Type-30' variant of the engine which is slated to be fitted on PAK-FA in 2015 timeframe.
I also find it a bit odd that patents for engine nozzles are being filed by Pogosyan and Davidenko. Shouldnt those be filed by Eugene Marchukov/NPO Saturn?
 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #100 on: December 13, 2012, 03:14:04 pm »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #101 on: December 14, 2012, 01:29:17 am »
new additions:

  • 2 side facing cameras behind the cockpit
  • yellow panels on the upper fuselage in front of the engines (?)
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #102 on: December 14, 2012, 06:56:54 am »
Also notice the dorsal ball...

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #103 on: December 16, 2012, 12:42:13 pm »
hello!

images of four prototype of PAK FA...

Best wishes....

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #104 on: December 17, 2012, 12:11:10 am »
Patent:

GLIDER MULTIMODE highly maneuverable aircraft

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/246/2462395.html

Quote
The invention relates to an aircraft heavier than air. Constructive power circuits fuselage includes transverse and longitudinal strength members presented respectively fuselage frames (17-25) and the longitudinal walls (26-29). A set of longitudinal walls (26-29) through the entire medium (3) and tail (5) of the fuselage. Center section (12) arranged in the plane of maximum building heights of the wing and formed frames (17-25). At the bottom of the fuselage made large longitudinal cuts for cargo compartments (10) and (14). Constructive power circuits cutouts includes longitudinal walls 26 are connected with the center-frames (12). The invention is directed to redistribute power components arising from the stress of external loads due to the rational arrangement of the power components of the frame glider. 3 Description: f-ly, 6 ill.
The invention relates to an aircraft heavier than air. Preferred area of ​​application of the invention are multi-mode highly maneuverable aircraft operated both in the pre-and supersonic speeds.
State of the art multi-mode known glider plane, which contains the wing and center section with consoles, combined with middle part of the fuselage, empennage. The fuselage includes the cabin crew compartments to accommodate fuel, equipment, and landing gear. The glider has at least one turbofan engine mounted in nacelles, located in the rear fuselage, with attached to it with an air supply inlet channel him. Frame airframe with longitudinal and transverse members that are bound together with the relevant panels. The wings and the center section made caisson and aft fuselage and the part between the cabin crew and the center section made of semi-monocoque. Said glider disclosed in the utility model RU, 4109, U1, 1997
As disadvantages of the prior art can be specified as follows. In organizing the cutouts in the lower part of the fuselage under the cargo space in the known structure is necessary to strengthen the power cut additional elements, such as beams, which inevitably leads to a significant increase in the weight of the airframe and the deterioration of the performance of the aircraft as a whole.
The problem to be solved by the invention is to provide the necessary strength and rigidity of the frame glider with a small increase in the presence of its mass in the lower part of the fuselage of large cutouts cargo compartments. This delivers technical result consists in the redistribution of power components arising in airframe stress from external loads due to the rational arrangement of the power components of the frame glider.
The inventive in that glider multimode highly maneuverable aircraft comprising a fuselage and wing design and power circuits are formed by longitudinal and transverse load-bearing elements, to which the lining that forms the outer contour of the airplane, with fuselage compartment includes cabin crew compartments placement of fuel, equipment and landing gear, tail, two located in the rear fuselage nacelle for a turbojet engine and docked them air intakes with an air supply channels and wing includes consoles connected with the center, combined with middle part of the fuselage, structural power circuits fuselage is in the longitudinal direction of multi-structure, which is connected with the center, formed by bulkheads and connected by torque and pivot nodes wing panels, structural power circuits wing panels in the longitudinal direction is mnogolonzheronnuyu design in combination with the walls, the outer surface of the airframe formed a power strip , at the bottom of the fuselage made large longitudinal cuts for cargo compartments, structural power circuits which includes longitudinal walls, connected with the frames of center, center is located in the zone of maximum building heights of the wing, and the lower power panel intakes and nacelles are located further away from the neutral line section fuselage, and large longitudinal cuts close to the neutral line of the fuselage.
Power panels can be made, for example, in the form of multi-layer, three-layer in particular, panels made of polymer composite materials.
Power panels can be made of aluminum alloy Wholly.
Power panels can be made of welded titanium alloy.
The invention is illustrated by drawings in which Figure 1 shows a glider aircraft with a multi-mode in the plan in Figure 2 - cross section AA of Figure 1, Figure 3 - section B-B Figure 1, Figure 4 - section BB in Figure 1, Figure 5 - section YY Figure 1, Figure 6 - section D-D Figure 1.
Glider multimode highly maneuverable aircraft (hereinafter - the glider) has a wing consisting of two consoles 1, head of the fuselage 2, the middle part of the fuselage 3, 4 intakes, rear fuselage 5. The head part of the fuselage 2 includes cabin 6, equipment bays 7 and 8 niche nose landing gear. In the middle of the fuselage has three fuel bays 9, cargo compartment 10, cut 11 main landing gear and the center section 12. The aft fuselage fuel bays 5 are 13, the cargo compartment 14, the nacelle 15, tail section 16 equipment.
Constructive power circuits fuselage includes transverse and longitudinal strength members presented respectively fuselage frames 17-25 and 26-29 longitudinal walls. A set of longitudinal walls 26-29 through the entire secondary 3 and 5 tail of the fuselage. Center section 12 arranged in the plane of maximum building heights of the wing (sech. YY) and the resulting frames 17-25. At the bottom of the fuselage made large longitudinal cuts for cargo compartments 10 and 14. Constructive power circuits cutouts includes longitudinal walls 26 are connected with the center-frames 12.
4 intakes and nacelle 15, in terms of design and power circuits formed frames 17-25 and lower power panel 30.
Constructive power circuits consoles one wing includes longitudinal and transverse load-bearing elements. Longitudinal strength members consoles 1 shows spars 31, 32, 34, 35, 38 and 39 with torque units 40 one console connection with the center 12 and the walls 36, 37, 41 with hinge 42 nodes connect with the center console 1 12. Center-frames 12, which means the torque units 40 are connected consoles spars 1, made by force. Transverse force set console 1 is a set of ribs 43.
The main force factors, based on which, the necessary strength and rigidity to the fuselage, it is bending in the longitudinal plane of the airplane (relative to the axis Z) from inertial and air forces and pressures that come with the horizontal tail, the transverse bending of the load coming from the console one wing and torsion.
1 shows a projection of scheduled airframe multimode highly maneuverable aircraft. The lift wing panels 1 is transmitted through hinge assemblies 42 and 40 on the torque units fuselage frames 17-25. This group frames lift passes from the wing to the fuselage longitudinal walls 26-29. A set of longitudinal walls 26-29, passing through the entire secondary 3 and 5 tail of the fuselage to reduce the gradient of increase of the bending moment (Figure 5) in cross-section fuselage and provide a lower level of normal stresses in the zones close to the plane of symmetry frames aircraft that in turn, reduces the weight of the fuselage frames and deformation in the transverse direction.
In addition, to increase the stiffness of the airframe of the transverse bending cargo compartments 10, 14 are separated by the center section 12 (see Figure 2). Power center-frames 12, organized in a plane of maximum building heights of the wing (sech. YY), perceive the bending moment on the wing by the torque units 40. Thereby reducing the amount of strain in the transverse direction - in - in the sections on the cargo bay (sech. B-B, B-B, D-E).
The outer surface of the airframe formed a power strip to perceive all kinds of stress - normal and tangential. Power panels can be made, for example, in the form of multi-layer, three-layer in particular, panels made of polymer composites or metal: Wholly of aluminum alloy welding of titanium alloy. Power panels are connected with longitudinal walls 26-29 and 17-25 fuselage frames and frame rails 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39 and the walls 36, 37, 41 consoles one wing.
The normal stresses of lateral bending in the longitudinal plane fuselage aircraft perceived upper and lower power panel fuselage, with a cut-out cargo bay doors located near the neutral axis (Z)-sectional plane than the lower power panel 30 pods 15 and air intake 4 (Fig. 3). In accordance with (1) - definition of normal stresses in the section in bending - the value of the normal stress in the lower power panel inlets 4 and nacelle 15 is higher than in the area of ​​cut-out cargo bay doors.
 
where
M z - bending moment in the section of the fuselage;
J z - moment of inertia of the fuselage axis Z (neutral line);
y - distance from the neutral section line to the point of the cross section, which defines the voltage.
Thus, the main part of the fuselage bending loads from the bottom of the perceived lower power panel 30 inlets 4 and nacelle 15.
Of multi-fuselage provides the perception of torque on the fuselage. Torque coming from the rear fuselage (differential deflection GO, variations in, etc.), is perceived by closed loops 1 , 2 , , n (see Figure 6) and is transmitted to the rear of center rib 23. Said frame 23 transfers torque to the group of closed loops 1 , 2 , , m (see Figure 5). The large number of closed loops in the fuselage section of the fuselage provides high torsional rigidity and does not require major cuts in the cargo compartment under the organization of special force elements - beams. In addition, significantly increases the combat survivability of the aircraft, as the case of damage of any closed circuit in accordance with (2) the flow of tangential force is redistributed to other circuits.     
 
where
M cr - torque at the section of fuselage;
M kpi - torque of the i-th section of the fuselage.
The normal stresses of bending moment arising consoles 1, seen in the main belt spars 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39 and partially power panels. Voltage from one wing torsion consoles perceived power panels and rib belts 43.

Claim
1. Glider multimode highly maneuverable aircraft comprising a fuselage and wing design and power circuits are formed by longitudinal and transverse load-bearing elements, to which the lining that forms the outer contour of the airplane, with fuselage compartment includes the cockpit, cut to accommodate the fuel, equipment and landing gear, tail, two located in the rear fuselage nacelle for a turbojet engine with attached thereto air intakes with an air supply channels and wing includes consoles connected with the center, combined with middle part of the fuselage, wherein the power circuit design and fuselage is longitudinally towards the construction of multi-connected to the center-formed frames and connected through a hinge moment and nodes with wing panels, structural power circuits wing panels in the longitudinal direction is mnogolonzheronnuyu design in combination with the walls, the outer surface of the airframe formed a power strip at the bottom of fuselage made large longitudinal cuts for cargo doors, design and power circuits which includes longitudinal walls, connected with the frames of center, center is located in the zone of maximum building heights of the wing, and the lower power panel intakes and nacelles are located further away from the neutral line of the fuselage cross-section, and large longitudinal cuts close to the neutral line of the fuselage.
2. Glider according to claim 1, characterized in that the power panel in the form of multi-layer, three-layer in particular, panels made of polymer composite materials.
3. Glider according to claim 1, characterized in that the power panel Wholly made of aluminum alloy.
4. Glider according to claim 1, characterized in that the power panels are welded titanium alloy.


[Added pics & translation to original post - Admin]
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 12:49:12 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #105 on: December 17, 2012, 12:28:32 am »

Details of the T-50 intake design (link posted earlier by SaintKatanaLegacy)



http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/246/2460892.html


Quote
(54) METHOD FOR CONTROLLING hypersonic inlet

(57) Abstract:
The invention relates to aviation technology, namely the air intakes of power plants supersonic aircraft. In the management of a supersonic inlet throat area and change the position of shock waves through the simultaneous rotation of the front panel and adjustable rear adjustable panel. Pivot adjustable front panel coincides with the line of intersection of the first and second stages of a swept wedges, not perpendicular to the incoming stream. The axis of rotation of the rear panel is adjustable in the back area of ​​the trailing edge of the panel and adjustable focus conditions for the existence of the point of intersection with the axis of rotation of the front panel adjustable. When you rotate the front and rear panels of the controlled side edges move relative profiled flanks channel without forming gaps between them. The invention improves the gas-dynamic characteristics of the air intake, as well as to reduce its radar signature. 3 Description: f-ly, 8 ill.
The invention relates to aviation technology, namely the air intakes of power plants supersonic aircraft. Preferred area of ​​application of the invention are turbojet aircraft with a maximum of up to Mach 3.
Creating a low-profile in the LC-range aircraft (LA) means that the shape of all the elements help to reduce the effective area of ​​cross section (RCS) of aircraft. This applies to the login form, engine air intake. In order to achieve the desired result all edges intake should be swept and parallel to some elements of aircraft (the edges of the wing, tail, etc.). The implementation of such intake has high intrinsic characteristics in all operating range, is impossible without regulation.
Adjustable, typically performed by braking surface air intake (for example, a wedge or cone). At supersonic speeds, changing angle of the surface of the brake leads to change of stagnation in the inlet, and the change in the area of ​​his throat. Together, the effect of this regulation provides a high performance air intake in the entire range of the aircraft on which it is installed.
There is a method of regulation of the supersonic plane (two-dimensional) air inlet, the surface of which is represented by a multi-stage braking nestrelovidnym wedge (Reme NH "Aerodynamics intakes of supersonic aircraft." Ed. TsAGI, Zhukovsky, 2002, 178 p.). In a decision intake control is carried out with respect to the rotary axes of the respective panels. The panels are located in the channel one by one. The front panel contains a step wedge brake, except the first. Its axis coincides with the line of intersection of the first and second stage of the wedge. The rear panel is part of the channel and has a complex shape. Rear axle passes over its rear edge. Lack of edge and sweep step wedge brake allows parallel to the axis of rotation of panels perpendicular to the incoming stream. Disadvantage of control plane intake in relation to the air intake with swept edges is not feasible to control the axes perpendicular to the direction of flow, as all elements are swept inlet mouth.
As a prototype of the invention, a method of regulation adopted supersonic air intake, which is carried out change in the area and the position of the throat shocks (RU 2343297 C1). In a decision is implemented spatial deceleration of the flow by using a V-shaped wedge (ie two adjacent swept wedges oriented to each other from the front at an obtuse angle). The air intake is made with giving sweep all edges entrance. Intake control is performed by two pairs of rotating relative to the corresponding axes of panels. The front panel of each of the pairs are part of the braking surfaces. The rear panels are part of the channel. In the management of each pair of panels between their adjacent end faces of a transverse crack, and between them the sides of a longitudinal slit along the seams as the side walls and along the seams together. This solution has the following disadvantages:
- A way to control the air intake does not provide the necessary throat area at subsonic and low supersonic flight speeds, as amplitude of moving panels is low. Otherwise, there is said longitudinal slit unacceptable proportions. This means that the air intake does not provide the job in all turbojet operational speed range and is not a multi-mode;
- Technically complex implementation method for controlling air intake.
The technical result for aim of the invention is to provide a possibility of changing the angle of the steps of one of the arrow-shaped wedges braking and minimal air intake passage area (throat) with no education in its channel unwanted longitudinal slots and seizure of mobile elements. Such a regulation would, in turn, ensure stable operation of the engine in all modes of the aircraft up to Mach number of M = 3.0 with full pressure recovery coefficient at the inlet to the engine, with at least a model for regulated plane intake and total non-uniform flow below the maximum permissible value ("Aerodynamics, stability and control of supersonic aircraft", ed. G.S.Byushgensa. - Moscow: Nauka. Francis, London, 1998). Thus due to the parallelogram shaped inlet to the front view and giving all its edges is achieved by reducing the sweep of radar visibility of the object on which it is installed. The greatest effect of reducing the radar signature will be achieved when the edge of the air intake in some parts of the object parallel to the (front or rear edge of the wings, tail, etc.).
This technical result is achieved by a method for control of a supersonic air intake, which is carried out change in the area and the position of the throat shocks, changes in the area of ​​the throat and the position of shocks by simultaneously turning adjustable front panel, the rotation axis coincides with the line of intersection of the first and second stage one of the arrow-shaped wedges that is not perpendicular to the oncoming flow, and an adjustable rear panel, the axis of rotation of which is located in the area of ​​the rear edge of the rear panel, controlled and directed from the condition of having a point of intersection with the axis of rotation of the front panel, adjustable, thus when you turn the front and rear panels of the controlled lateral edges are moved relative profiled flanks channel without forming gaps between them.
Also, when you turn the front and rear panels of controlled orientation transverse slit between the top view does not change, and its position coincides with the line passing through the point of intersection of the axes of the front and rear adjustable panels, while the gap is close to rectangular shape with any possible position adjustable panels.
Also, when you turn the front and rear panels of controlled panel shutters rotate relative to the axis of its rotation and oriented in such a way that a common point of intersection between the axis of rotation and an adjustable rear panel.
Also, when you turn the front and rear panels of regulated changes position kinematically related rotary wing covering the transverse slot on the unregulated airbrake in the throat.
The invention is illustrated by drawings in which Figure 1 shows a variable supersonic air intake - view from below, in Figure 2 - adjustable supersonic air intake - side view Figure 3 - adjustable supersonic air intake - front view in Figure 4 - section A-A Figure 1, Figure 5 - Diagram of braking in a supersonic adjustable vents on the current flight mode, Figure 6 - a top view of a supersonic air intake and its control panel, Figure 7 - a side view of a supersonic air intake panel and its regulation; Figure 8 - section B-B in Figure 6.
Supersonic adjustable air intake includes the following:
1 - edge of the wedge brake 7,
2 - fixed edge of the wedge brake 22,
3, 4 - the edge of shell,
5 - channel inlet,
6 - a cylindrical section,
7 - wedge brake comprising an adjustable front panel 11,
8 - zone valves feeding possible location,
9 - pivot adjustable front panel 11,
10 - pivot adjustable rear panel 12,
11 - Adjustable front panel to maximize the throat (throat to minimum shown by the dotted line)
12 - Adjustable rear panel at maximum throat (throat to minimum shown by the dotted line)
13 - adjustable front panel 11 to the minimum position, the throat,
14 - Adjustable rear panel 12 is in the position of the minimum throat
15 - cross the gap between the front and rear panels of the regulated drain boundary layer
16 - line break between the first and second stages of the wedge brake comprising front adjustable panel
17 - line break between the first and second stages of the fixed wedge brake 22,
18 - line break between the second and third stages of the wedge brake comprising front adjustable panel
19 - cutting the dihedral angle formed by the jacket,
20 - rounding off the entrance to the place of articulation of the wedge brake comprising an adjustable front panel, and the shell,
21 - cutting the dihedral angle between the fixed airbrake 22 and sidewall,
22 - fixed wedge braking
23 - fold, subject to the additional transverse slit in the throat on a stationary wedge brake 22,
24 - supersonic diffuser (braking)
25 - subsonic diffuser
26 - oblique shock from the first stages of swept wedges
27 - oblique shock from the second stage swept wedges
28 - oblique shock from the third stage swept wedges
29 - NO direct shock wave,
30 - Bypass area of ​​oblique and normal shock wave to increase the range of air flow through the air intake, which is provided by its stable performance,
31 - the first stage of the wedge containing the adjustable front panel 11,
32, 33, 34 - the axis of rotation shutter 45,
35 - The intersection of the axes of rotation of the shutter 43 and the axis of the rear adjustable panel 12
36 - The intersection of the axes of rotation of the front and rear adjustable panels 11 and 12,
37 - the line along which is oriented transverse gap between the regulated panels 11 and 12,
38 - Drive back attachment points adjustable panel 12
39 - discharge openings in the rear adjustable panel 12
40 - pivot doors 23,
41 - on the back of tight CLADDING adjustable panel 12,
42 - control mechanism side swivel flap 23,
43 - traction drive adjustable front panel 11,
44 - loop channel
45 - blind,
46 - control gear compartment adjustable rear panel 12,
47 - profiled sides of the channel 5.
The main elements of the air intake can be identified 24 supersonic diffuser throat, subsonic diffuser 25, front 11 and rear 12 panels adjustable, pivoting around an axis, respectively 9 and 10.
Login form a front air intake - a parallelogram or a special case - a rectangle with arbitrary ratio of its height and the length of the corresponding side. You can do the trimming, such as 19 and 21, or round the corners, such as 20, enter the air intake, with the exception of the angle formed swept wedges. The edges of the inlet to lie in a plane oriented to the flow direction at an acute angle. Thus, all inputs are edge sweep.
Supersonic diffuser 24 is a flow deceleration system, consisting of a pair of swept wedges 7 and 22, forming a dihedral angle and the shell (3, 4 - the edge of shell). Arrow-shaped wedges of 7 and 22 have at least one stage, the number of steps in these wedges can be different. As an example, in Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4 show the air intake, which has an arrow-shaped wedge on one three stages, and the second - two. Fractures of the corresponding levels 16, 17, 18, swept wedges 7 and 22 intersect at a point on the line of intersection of the surfaces at the corresponding levels of wedges forming a dihedral angle. Sweep angles at each of the stages swept wedges may differ from the corresponding edge sweep angle of the wedge, as well as each other. The corners of the solution steps swept wedges are defined in the construction of the braking system of the conditions for the creation of each pair of corresponding levels wedges single oblique shock given intensity, ie uses the principles of gas-dynamic design (Shchepanovskaya VA Gutov BI "Gasdynamic designing supersonic air intakes." Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1993). On some levels swept wedges can be made perforation.
Sides as well as arrow-shaped wedges of 7 and 22, forms a dihedral angle. A characteristic feature of this orientation is the shell in which it further slows the flow, ie shell is not focused on the current lines for shocks of swept wedges. Undercut shell may be variable. In the dihedral angle formed by the jacket, the organization cutout of inlet air intake, and in the cowling can accommodate holes of arbitrary shape.
In the subsonic diffuser 25, there may be air valves feeding 8, providing access external flow air over the air intake in the subsonic diffuser 25. Leaf feeding 8 contribute to the characteristics of the air intake at low speeds (takeoff and flight conditions at high angles of attack).
Way to regulate air intake above is as follows. Front adjustable panel 11 comprising a step of swept wedges 7, except the first, rotates about the axis 9, located at the intersection of the first and second stage of the wedge 7. Response adjustable rear panel 12 is part of the subsonic diffuser 25 and is rotated around the axis of the spatial arrangement of 10. If the axis of the front nine adjustable panel set one, then a choice of orientation axis 10 adjustable rear panel, passing over its trailing edge, is determined from the intersection of the rear axle 10 panels with adjustable axis 9 adjustable front panel 11.
In regulating the air intake between the front 11 and rear 12 panels can be formed adjustable transverse slit 15 for draining the boundary layer. For the chosen way of defining the axes controlled panels transverse gap between them has a shape close to rectangular.
Front adjustable plate 11 is connected to the rear panel 12 by an adjustable rod 43.
In regulating the air intake front 11 and rear 12 panels adjustable, turning at the same time change their position in accordance with a given law. When turning the panels 11 and 12 changes throat area inlet, angle moving stages swept wedge 7, the size of the transverse slot 15 between the drain panels 11 and 12, with the side edges of the panels 11 and 12 are moved relative profiled flanks channel 47 without formation of cracks.
On a fixed wedge 22 sweepback in the throat can accommodate additional transverse slit drain boundary layer, closed flap 23. Flap control mechanism can be synchronized with the control panels 11, 12. For example, can be used kinematic mechanism 42 connecting rods and rocking through the rotary flap and adjustable front axle 9 panels 11.
These transverse cracks and perforations on the wedges help to improve the characteristics of the air intake at supersonic speeds.
On the rear panel 12 are adjustable discharge openings 39 to equalize the pressure in the channel and in the cavity above the adjustable rear panel 12. The cavity of the regulated panels 11, 12 is divided into two halves by a shutter 45, performed on a folder of partitions, and serves to separate the air from different pressure, which was in nadpanelnoe space through the perforation, cross the gap 15 between the drain adjustable panels and discharge openings 39. Shutter 45 is a hinged two flat panel - upper and lower. The top panel is hinged on the construction of 46 control gear compartment adjustable rear panel, bottom - hinged at the rear adjustable panel. To ensure the efficiency of kinematic shutter 45 of its axis of rotation 32, 33, 34 are oriented in space in such a way that they have a single point of intersection 35, which lies on the axis of rotation 10 adjustable rear panel 12.
Method of controlling intake with swept edges as follows.
At subsonic flight adjustable panels 11 and 12, the air intake is at maximum throat (retracted position, the main line in the figures), providing an area in which the channel no supersonic velocity.
At supersonic flight efficiency propulsion aircraft linked to the performance in the inlet flow deceleration. Supersonic flow in the inlet is inhibited in shock waves 26, 27, 28, resulting in the flow of wedges of the braking system. With the increase in supersonic flight speed adjustable panels 11 and 12 simultaneously deviate from the position corresponding to subsonic flight. Synchronicity deflection panels 11, 12 is provided by a mechanical connection between the front and rear adjustable panels 11, 12 with the rod 43. Thus, the mechanism by turning the adjustable rear panel 12, to be driven simultaneously adjustable front panel 11. When turning the adjustable front panel 11 in the direction of increasing angles of the intensity levels of the wedge flow deceleration in the shock of these steps. In this case, the back panel 12, turning reduces the area of ​​the throat inlet. Increasing the intensity of inhibition and reduction in area throat positively affect the performance air intake.
Deceleration of the flow to subsonic speed by a normal shock wave 29, which is located at the entrance to the air intake. Finally slowed to subsonic flow subsonic diffuser 25 and the motor.
Stable operation of the air intake on all flight and engine operation is ensured by the presence of air bypass 30 in oblique shocks, and Drainage of the boundary layer in the form of perforations on the steps of the wedges of the braking system and the transverse slot 15 between the front 11 and rear 12 adjustable panels.
Transverse slit 15 is formed at the position of the controlled panels 11 and 12, other than to clean. In the retracted position, the panels 11 and 12, the gap 15 is missing. This was achieved by selecting the orientation of the axes of rotation 9 and 10 adjustable panels in space in such a way that they have a point of intersection 36.
Draining of the boundary layer is possible and additionally through additional transverse slot located near the throat on a stationary wedge brake 22 (with fixed steps), and an adjustable flap 23.
Additional lateral gap opened in the main supersonic flight conditions at the position of the controlled panels 11 and 12, other than to clean. When retracted position adjustable panels 11 and 12 of the additional transverse slit closed doors 23.
Panels simultaneously with the release of the shutter starts to open 45, separating the air that enters the space above the rear adjustable panel 12 through the discharge opening 39, and the air that enters the space above the front panel adjustable through perforations 11 and 15 cross the gap between regulated drain panels 11 and 12.
The proposed control method provides a high internal gas dynamic characteristics inlet configuration that simultaneously reduces its radar signature by a parallelogram shape from the front entrance and the presence of a sweep of all input edges and steps airbrake. Select the orientation of the mentioned parts that form, to orientate their design to the direction of X-ray laser irradiation so as to deviate from this trend reflected the design of the radio, and to exclude the presence of corner reflectors.

Claim
1. Method of control of a supersonic air intake, which is carried out change in the area and the position of the throat shocks, characterized in that the change in the area of ​​the throat and the position of shocks by simultaneously turning adjustable front panel, the rotation axis coincides with the line of intersection of the first and second stage of one of the arrow-shaped wedges that is not perpendicular to the oncoming flow, and an adjustable rear panel, the axis of rotation of which is located in the area of ​​the rear edge of the rear panel, controlled and directed from the condition of having a point of intersection with the axis of rotation of the front panel, adjustable, thus when you turn the front and rear panels of adjustable lateral edges move relative profiled flanks channel without forming gaps between them.
2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that when you turn the front and rear panels of controlled orientation transverse slit between the top view does not change, and its position coincides with the line passing through the point of intersection of the axes of the front and rear adjustable panels, with the gap has a shape similar to a square in every possible position adjustable panels.
3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that when you turn the front and rear panels of controlled panel shutters rotate relative to the axis of its rotation and oriented in such a way that a common point of intersection between the axis of rotation and an adjustable rear panel.
4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that when you turn the front and rear panels of regulated changes position kinematically related rotary wing covering the transverse slot on the unregulated airbrake in the throat.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 01:12:49 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #106 on: December 17, 2012, 12:38:58 am »
Fixed-wing antenna array (link posted earlier by SaintKatanaLegacy)

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/243/2439758.html

Quote
The invention relates to antenna technology, in particular to a phased array antenna are located on board aircraft. The technical result is a reduction in the influence of microwave devices placed on the strength characteristics of the aircraft, reducing thermal loads on the active microwave devices, improved shielding compartments thrust wing leading edge, increasing reliability and improving the characteristics of the emission array. Aviation-array contains n emitters, mounted on the front of the nose of an airplane wing, covered with removable cowl and active microwave devices, inputs and outputs are connected to the respective emitters, and the outputs to the inputs of inputs-outputs of the summation. The radiators are installed in the movable part of the wing leading edge is perpendicular to the transverse axis front edge, active microwave devices and circuits are placed in a fixed sum wing root in the compartments between the power and the transverse dielectric diaphragms connected to the cooling circuit plane. In the airborne antenna array transducers can be located in the left-and right-moving parts of the wing leading edge, and active microwave devices and circuits in the fixed sum the left and right wing root. Wing compartments that contain active microwave devices and circuits summation, covered with removable absorbing materials. 3 Description: f-ly, 1 ill. 
The invention relates to antenna technology, in particular to a phased array antenna are located on board aircraft.
Known "Airborne scanning antenna system with inter-element insulators» (US 4186400, publ. 29/01/1980) established under the wing fairing, which includes arrays based emitters Uda-Yagi along the wing leading edge. The emitters are placed in the horizontal and vertical planes. The disadvantages of such an antenna system is cumbersome design radiators and the complexity of their location, the need for additional resources for mounting the elements of radiators on the fairing and in the space under the cowl.
Also known "Airborne scanning antenna system based on a linear array of emitters such as Yagi» (US 4336543, publ. 06/22/1982) established under the wing fairing and containing a linear array antenna consisting of emitters such as Yagi-Uda, located in a horizontal plane. The disadvantages of such an antenna system is the large dimensions, the need for the design of the fairing set shear walls for mounting the radiators, which can degrade the radiation antenna array.
In addition, the well-known "linear array antenna with adjustable radiation suppressor E-plane» (US 5151707, publ. 29/09/1992) installed under the fairing of an airplane wing, consisting of printed radiators, placed on a flat dielectric, which are located along the leading edge of the wing, and mounted on a metal screen, and the back of the screen to suppress the rear light is bent and attached to the front of the nose of an airplane wing. The disadvantages of such an antenna system is the large dimensions, mounting complexity of radiators on the screen inside the fairing.
Is close to the technical nature of a "modular array» (US 4749997, publ. 07/06/1988) conformally mounted on the aircraft and including n sublattices. Each sublattice is composed of n (4) horizontal polarization radiators placed under the cowl and installed parallel to the wing leading edge and before the conducting screen, n (4) active microwave devices, the I / O through the transformers are connected impedance transducers, as well as the scheme summation. Active devices installed at the rear side of the conductive screen, and cut slits in the screen through which the emitters are connected to active devices, placed on the back of the conductive screen (the front of the leading edge of the wing). Also on the back side of the front of the set of summing circuit to which the cables are connected by microwave active devices.
To provide the necessary direction antenna array under the fairing also installed dielectric tube, located along the length of the antenna array along the windshield and fixed dividers that separate one from the other sublattice, and certain parts of the tube are covered with a conductive layer. Fairing each sublattice leans hinged to allow access to the rear of the front of the nose wing.
The disadvantages of such an antenna array is low strength properties due to lack of integrity of the fairing and the multitude of through-holes in the front of the nose wing. With active microwave devices on the back of the front of the wing leading edge to them are increased requirements for climatic influences. Dividers that separate modules array, degrade the properties of the radiation antenna array.
The technical result of the proposed antenna array is to reduce the influence of microwave devices placed on the strength characteristics of the aircraft, reducing the thermal loads on the active microwave devices, improved shielding compartments thrust wing leading edge, increase reliability and improve the performance of radiation antenna array by placing the blocks in the left and right side wing and connecting them to the cooling circuit plane.
Summary of the utility of the model is that the aviation-array contains n emitters, mounted on the front of the nose of an airplane wing, covered with removable cowl and active microwave devices, inputs and outputs are connected to the respective transmitters and outputs Inputs with input-output circuits summation.
Novel features of the claimed technical solution is that the radiators are installed in the mobile part of the wing leading edge perpendicular to the transverse axis of the front edge of it, active microwave devices and circuits are placed in a fixed sum wing root in the compartments between the force and the transverse dielectric diaphragms connected to the cooling circuit plane. In a statement airborne antenna array transducers can be located in the left-and right-moving parts of the wing leading edge, active microwave devices and circuits in the fixed sum the left and right wing root, and wing sections that contain the active microwave devices and circuits summation, covered with removable absorbing material.
The drawing shows a variant of the proposed placement of equipment airborne antenna array in a fixed wing root and the movable part of the wing leading edge.
Aviation-array consists of one of the radiating system, made ​​of two separate radiators are installed on three panels made ​​of durable and lightweight metal. The whole structure of the system is filled with radio waves radiating penokompaundom having a low dielectric constant (  less than 1.1) and imparting additional strength and design elektrogermetichnost. Radiating system 1 mounted on the front of the wing leading edge 4 and closes removable radio waves fairing 5, which is a part of the wing leading edge. The entire length of the fairing is installed parallel to the radiator diaphragm dielectric material fairing, providing its mechanical strength.
Active microwave devices (such as two-way modules) 6, adding unit 7, unit distribution and phasing of 8 are located in the wing root compartments. Disassembly and assembly of the equipment in the mobile part of the wing leading edge and the fixed equipment in the root of the wing fairing provides readout radiotransparent 5, as well as access through manholes 9.
Accommodation active microwave devices 6 and 7 in Holmgreen compartments fixed wing reduces thermal load on the blocks airborne antenna array, which in turn increases the reliability of its use of forced cooling. The use of whole fairing with a transverse aperture throughout its length can improve the strength characteristics of the wing leading edge and the emission characteristics of the antenna array.
Closed compartment thrust wing leading edge radar absorbing materials can escape these sections and blocks of microwave radiation for smooth low-frequency control devices. Placing emitters perpendicular transverse axis of the wing leading edge and securing them with metal panels can get a vertically polarized radiation airborne antenna array and install it in thin socks and small wings. Placing the antenna array in the right and left sides of the wing significantly improves its performance.
Thus, the proposed aviation-array process is simple allocation scheme on site, thereby achieving compactness, simplicity and reliability of the design and improvement of its radio characteristics.

Claim
1. Aviatic array containing n emitters, mounted on the front wall of the nose of an airplane wing, covered with removable cowl and active microwave devices, inputs and outputs are connected to the respective transmitters and outputs Inputs - with input-output summation scheme, wherein the transducers mounted in the movable part of the wing leading edge perpendicular to the transverse axis of the anterior edge, active microwave devices and circuits are placed in a fixed sum wing root in the compartments between the force and the transverse diaphragms connected to the cooling circuit plane.
2. Aviation-array antenna of claim 1, wherein the emitters are located in the left-and right-moving parts of the nose wing.
3. Aviation-array antenna according to claim 1, characterized in that the active microwave devices and circuits are located in the fixed sum the left and right wing root.
4. Aviation-array antenna of claim 1, wherein the wing sections that contain the active microwave devices and circuits summation closed absorbing materials.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2012, 01:12:35 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #107 on: December 17, 2012, 12:43:40 am »
Aircraft integral aerodynamic layout

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/244/2440916.html



Quote
The invention relates to a multi-mode aircraft. Aircraft integral aerodynamic layout comprises a fuselage (1) with flow (2), wing, bracket (3) is smoothly conjugate to the fuselage (1), all-moving horizontal tail (4), all-moving vertical tail (5). The middle part of the fuselage is made flattened and formed longitudinally on a set of airfoils. Engines are located in nacelles (6), separated from each other horizontally, and the motor axis oriented at an acute angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft on the flight direction. Influx (2) includes guided rotary part (8). The invention aims to reduce the radar cross section, increasing maneuverability at high angles of attack and aerodynamic efficiency at supersonic. Description: 9 f-ly, 4 ill.
The invention relates to a multi-mode aircraft operated at supersonic and subsonic flight, in a wide range of altitudes. Preferred area of ​​application of the invention - multimode SUPER airplanes cruise at supersonic speeds and low level radar signature.
Creating aircraft capable to perform tasks in a wide range of altitudes and flight speeds, have the capacity and super maneuverability, while having a low radar signature wavelengths is a difficult technical challenge.
For aerodynamic design of the airplane special requirements to maximize aerodynamic efficiency (lift and reduce drag force) at subsonic and supersonic flight speeds, ensuring controllability at ultra-low speeds. To the external form of the airframe special requirements to reduce radar visibility. All of these requirements are contradictory, and an airplane that meets such demands, is a compromise.
Known aircraft, adopted as the closest analogue, which combines features of multi-mode supersonic aircraft possessing super-maneuverability and low radar signature. Known aircraft made by the normal balancing scheme with tselnopovorotnym horizontal tail surface, providing control of the plane in the longitudinal channel (pitch) in all flight regimes. In addition to control of the aircraft in the longitudinal channel all-moving horizontal tail is used to control the aircraft in roll by differential mode rejection at supersonic flight.
Trapezoidal wing has a negative sweep of the trailing edge, which allows for the high values ​​of the lengths of the chords in the root part to reduce the relative thickness of the wing in the area at high absolute thickness of the wing. This solution is aimed at the same time to reduce the wave drag at transonic and supersonic flight speeds, as well as to increase the supply of fuel in the wing tanks.
The mechanization of the wing leading edge is presented adaptive turning toe, used to increase the value of aerodynamic control in subsonic cruise, to improve the flow of the wing at high angles of attack, and to improve the maneuverability characteristics.
The mechanization of the trailing edge of the wing is represented by:
flaps that are used to control lift at takeoff and landing, as well as to control the aircraft in roll in the modes of trans-and supersonic flight;
ailerons, used to control the aircraft in roll at takeoff and landing.
Two consoles vertical tail, consisting of keels and rudders, provide stability and control in the traveling channel and the air brake. Management in the traveling channel provides common-mode rejection rudders and air braking - differential rudder deflection. Plane chords consoles vertical tail turned down from the vertical at an acute angle, thereby reducing the radar signature aircraft lateral hemisphere.
Engine air intakes are located on the sides of the fuselage. Inlet to the oblique plane in two dimensions, which allows for a steady stream of air entering the engines in all flight conditions, including at high angles of attack.
Aircraft engines are located in the tail section, next to each other that the location of air intakes on the sides of the fuselage allows for curved air intake ducts. This solution is used to reduce radar signature engine, and as a result, the aircraft as a whole in the forward hemisphere, due to screening of the engine compressor design air intake ducts. Deflected in the vertical planes wing "plane" jet nozzles allow for thrust vector control, which, in turn, allows for the possibility of control of the aircraft in the pitch channel for low-speed flight regimes, and provides supply diving moment at supercritical angles of attack with tselnopovorotnym horizontal tail surface. Such a solution provides a feature super maneuverability (Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor: Stealth Fighter. Jay Miller. 2005).
As disadvantages of the aircraft, you can specify the following:
- The inability to control roll and yaw channels when flying at low speeds, because the engines are located close to each other, which is not sufficient to create a control point;
- The engines next to each other making it impossible location in the fuselage cargo compartments;
- Curved shape of air intake ducts requires increasing their length, and thus the mass of the airplane;
- The inability to ensure the "gathering," an aircraft with supercritical angles of attack on system failure exhaust nozzle control motors;
- The use of fixed keels with rudders requires an increase of the required area of ​​the vertical tail for directional stability at supersonic flight conditions, which leads to an increase in the mass of feathers, and, consequently, the aircraft as a whole, as well as an increase in drag.
The technical result for aim of the invention is to create an aircraft that has a low radar signature, super-maneuverability at high angles of attack, high aerodynamic efficiency at supersonic speeds and at the same time, maintain the high aerodynamic efficiency at subsonic, the possibility of placing in the inner compartments of bulky cargo .
The inventive in that plane integral aerodynamic layout containing the fuselage, wing, the console is smoothly conjugate to the fuselage, horizontal and vertical tail, twin powerplant, the fuselage is equipped with the influx, located at the entrance to the engine intakes and include managed superstructure, the middle part of the fuselage is made flattened and formed longitudinally on a set of aerodynamic shapes, engine nacelles are spaced apart horizontally, and the motor axis oriented at an acute angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft on the flight direction.
In addition, the vertical tail tselnopovorotnym satisfied with the possibility of common mode and differential deflection.
In addition, all-moving vertical stabilizers mounted on pylons located on the side of tail boom fuselage, while on the front of the pylons are blowing the engine compartment air intakes and air conditioning heat exchangers.
In addition, the horizontal tail tselnopovorotnym satisfied with the ability to reject common-mode and differential.
In addition, the jet engine nozzle configured to reject common-mode and differential.
In addition, the inlet to the engine located on each side of the forward fuselage behind the cockpit, with the lower edge of the inlet to the engine located below the fuselage.
In addition, the inlet to the engine is made in two oblique planes - with respect to the longitudinal vertical plane and transverse planes.
In addition, the plane chords consoles all-moving vertical tail deflected from the vertical plane at an acute angle.
In addition, the front edges of the turning part influx, wing panels and horizontal tail are made parallel to each other.
In addition, the rear edge of the wing and horizontal tail are made parallel to each other.
The invention is illustrated by drawings in which Figure 1 shows a plane integral aerodynamic layout - top view Figure 2 - aircraft integral aerodynamic layout - side view in Figure 3 - the aircraft integral aerodynamic layout - front view in Figure 4 - View A Figure 2.
Drawings on the positions designated:
1 - the fuselage,
2 - influx fuselage
3 - wing,
4 - Console tselnopovorotnogo vertical tail (CSSC)
5 - Console tselnopovorotnogo horizontal tail (TSPVO)
6 - nacelle engines
7 - engine air intakes,
8 - driven rotary influx of the fuselage,
9 - rotary wing socks,
10 - ailerons,
11 - flaps,
12-pylon CPVO,
13 - blow the engine compartment air intakes and air conditioning heat exchangers,
14 - rotating jet engines
15 - sections of jet engines rotary nozzles,
16 - axis of rotation of the rotary nozzle engines
17 - the plane of rotation of the rotary engine nozzles.
Aircraft integral aerodynamic layout is a monoplane, made by the normal balancing scheme, and contains fuselage 1 with flow 2, wing arm 3 is smoothly conjugate to the fuselage 1, the all-moving horizontal tail (hereinafter - CSSC) 4, all-moving vertical stabilizers (hereinafter - TSPVO ), 5 twin powerplant, the engines of which are located in nacelles 6. 6 engine nacelles are spaced apart from each other horizontally, and the motor axis oriented at an acute angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft in the flight direction.
The influx of two fuselage 1 is located above the air inlets 7 motors and includes managed revolving portion 8. Swivel 8 influx two leading edges are flattened middle of the fuselage 1.
Console 3 wings, blending with the fuselage 1, equipped with mechanization leading and trailing edges, which includes turning socks 9, ailerons and flaps 10 11.
CSSC 4 installed on the sides of the fuselage tail boom 1. TSPVO 5 installed on pylons 12, mounted on the side of tail boom fuselage 1. At the front of the pylons 12 are 13 air intakes and engine compartment heat exchanger blowing air conditioning system. Setting TSPVO 5 pylon 12 increases the shoulder supports TSPVO axis 5, which, in turn, reduces reactive loads on the power components frame airframe and therefore lose weight. The increase in the shoulder supports TSPVO 5 due to the fact that the upper bearing is located inside the pylon 12, which, in fact, increased the shoulder supports (distance between supports). In addition, 12 are pylon fairing hydraulic TSPVO CSSC 5 and 4, which allows by moving hydraulic beyond the fuselage 1 increase cargo capacity between the pods 6.
Inlet to 7 motors located on each side of the forward fuselage 1, with the cabin crew, under the rotating parts 2 and 8 influx made beveled in two planes - with respect to the longitudinal vertical plane and transverse planes, with the lower edge of the inlet to the engine is below 7 fuselage 1 .
Engines equipped with rotating axisymmetric jet nozzle 14, which is a turn in planes oriented at an angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft. Rocket engine nozzle 14 configured to reject common-mode and differential for control of the aircraft by moving the thrust vector. Scheme targeting rotary jet nozzles 14 shown in Figure 4, which displays: 15 slices of jet nozzles 14 rotary engines, the axis of rotation 16 jet nozzles 14 rotary engines and the plane of rotation of 17 rotary jet nozzles 14 engines.
The aircraft has a low radar signature wavelengths, and by providing super maneuverability - perform tasks in a wide range of altitudes and flight speeds.
Increase aerodynamic efficiency at subsonic flight speeds achieved by the formation of the middle part of the surface of the fuselage 1 (except for the nose and tail parts) for the longitudinal (in longitudinal section) set of aerodynamic profiles and use the rotary parts 8 influx 2, which allows you to include one in the fuselage create lift.
The high level of aerodynamic efficiency at subsonic flight speeds achieved by the use of the wing with 3 consoles trapezoidal shape in plan with a great sweep of the leading edge, a large contraction, with the larger length of the root of the chord and a low value end of the chord length. Such a set of solutions allows for large values ​​of the absolute height of the wing, especially in the root, to realize the small values ​​of the relative thickness of the wing, which reduces the value of the drag force of growth occurring in the transonic and supersonic speeds.
CSSC 4 provides the ability to control the aircraft in the longitudinal channel with common-mode rejection and cross-channel with differential deviation of trans-and supersonic speeds.
TSPVO 5 offers stability and control in the traveling channel at all flight speeds and provides the function of the air brake. Stability at supersonic flight speeds in low areas of the required static deflection is provided by consoles TSPVO 5 entirely. In the event of disturbance of the atmosphere or in a gust of wind carried the traveling channel common-mode rejection consoles TSPVO 5 towards countering disturbances. This solution allows to reduce the area of ​​feathers, reducing thus the weight and resistance of feathers and flight in general. Management in the traveling channel is carried out in-phase rejection TSPVO 5, and air braking - for differential rejection TSPVO 5.
High lift system is used to provide control lift and roll. Rotary wing sock 9 is used to increase the critical angle of attack and ensure bumpless flow wing to fly "on the envelope polar" on takeoff, landing, maneuvering and cruising subsonic flight. Ailerons 10 are designed to control the aircraft in roll at a differential deviation at takeoff and landing. Flaps 11 are intended to control the increment of lift when common-mode rejection down on takeoff and landing, for roll control for differential rejection.
Rotating part 8 influx two fuselage 1 with downward deviation reduces the area of ​​the planned projection of the fuselage in front of the center of mass of one plane, which contributes to the creation of excess time on a dive during the flight at angles of attack of about 90 degrees. Thus, in the event of failure of the control system of jet nozzles 14 provides a migration path to flight mode at supercritical angles of attack to fly at low angles of attack without the control of the aircraft by A thrust engines. Simultaneously rotating part 8 influx 2 is the front edge of mechanized influx two fuselage 1. If you deviate Swivel 8 2 down on the influx of cruise phase it performs functions like turning a sock 9 wing.
The use of side air intakes located under the rotating part of the influx of 8 2, ensures stable operation of the engine in all modes of the airplane, in all positions by aligning the incoming flow at high angles of attack and slip.
The engines in isolated nacelles 6 allows you to place between a compartment for bulky cargo. Turn around time for parrying if one of the engines of their axes are oriented at an acute angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft so that the thrust of the engine took to the center of mass plane. This arrangement of motors, together with the use of rotary jet nozzles 14, which is a turn in a plane inclined at an acute angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft allows the control of the aircraft with thrust vectoring engines - in the longitudinal, transverse and travel channels. Management in the longitudinal channel with common-mode rejection is turning jet nozzles 14, creating a pitching moment about the center of mass of the aircraft. Control of the aircraft in the lateral channel is by differential deflection of jet nozzles 14, creating at the same time rolling moment and yawing moment, with rolling moment countered deviation aerodynamic controls (ailerons and flaps 10 11). Control of the aircraft in the transverse channel the deviation in the differential rotary jet nozzles 14, creating a rolling moment about the center of mass of the aircraft.
Reduction of radar cross section aircraft achieved through a combination of design and technological activities, which include, in particular, is shaping contours of the airframe, which includes:
- Parallel to the front edge of the rotary 8 influx 2, 3 consoles wing and horizontal tail 4, parallel to the rear edges of the console 3 wing and horizontal tail 4, which allows us to localize the peaks reflected from the bearing surfaces airframe electromagnetic waves and thus reduce the overall level of radar visibility of the aircraft in the azimuth plane;
- Orientation of the tangent to the contour of the fuselage cross-section, including the cockpit, at an angle to the vertical plane (the plane of symmetry of the airplane), which contributes to the reflection of electromagnetic waves incident on the airframe from side angles, the upper and lower hemisphere, thus reducing overall radar signature aircraft lateral hemisphere;
- Skewness inlet to the engine in two planes - vertical relative to the longitudinal and transverse planes airplane can reflect electromagnetic waves arriving at the inlet to the vehicle from the front and side angles, away from the radiation source, thereby reducing the overall radar signature aircraft in these angles .

Claim
1. Aircraft integral aerodynamic layout containing the fuselage, wing, gently console which involve the fuselage, horizontal and vertical stabilizers, twin-engine propulsion, wherein the fuselage is equipped with the influx, located at the entrance to the engine air intake and including controlled rotary part, middle part of the fuselage is made flattened and formed longitudinally on a set of airfoils, engine nacelles are spaced apart from each other horizontally, and the motor axis oriented at an acute angle to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft on the flight direction.
2. The aircraft of claim 1, characterized in that the vertical stabilizer with the ability to complete tselnopovorotnym common mode and differential deflection.
3. The aircraft of claim 2, wherein the all-moving vertical stabilizers mounted on pylons located on the side of tail boom fuselage, while on the front of the pylons are blowing the engine compartment air intakes and air conditioning heat exchangers.
4. The aircraft of claim 1, characterized in that the horizontal stabilizer with the ability to complete tselnopovorotnym common mode and differential deflection.
5. The aircraft of claim 1, characterized in that the jet engine nozzle configured to reject common-mode and differential.
6. The aircraft of claim 1, characterized in that the inlet to the engine located on each side of the forward fuselage for the cabin crew, the lower edge of the inlet to the engine located below the fuselage.
7. The aircraft of claim 1, characterized in that the inlet to the engine is made in two oblique planes - with respect to the longitudinal vertical plane and transverse planes.
8. The aircraft of claim 1, wherein the plane chords consoles all-moving vertical tail deflected from the vertical plane at an acute angle.
9. The aircraft of claim 1, characterized in that the front edges of the turning part influx, wing panels and horizontal tail are made parallel to each other.
10. The aircraft according to claim 1, characterized in that the rear edge of the wing and horizontal tail are made parallel to each other.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #108 on: December 17, 2012, 12:54:15 am »
multi-mode highly maneuverable aircraft INTEGRATED aerodynamic design

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/240/2400402.html

Quote
The aircraft has a fuselage, in which the average of (2) involves gently swept wing panels (3), the head (1) and tail (6), where the all-moving vertical stabilizers (4) and all-moving horizontal tail (5). At the head of (1) the fuselage is light (10). The fuselage has increased the width of the cross section and is made up of the airfoil height allows you to place the main cargo compartment in the fuselage between the air intakes. The invention is directed to an even distribution of air and increase the load bearing properties of the fuselage. 10 ill.
The invention relates to a multi-mode aircraft operated at supersonic and subsonic flight in a wide range of altitudes. Preferred area of ​​application of the invention are multi-mode SUPER airplanes cruise at supersonic speeds and low level of visibility in the radar (radar) range.
Known in the art aircraft integral aerodynamic layout containing a single lifting fuselage, where the middle part of the fuselage smoothly interfaced with swept wing panels, the head of the fuselage and the tail (RU 2140376 C1).
As disadvantages of the aircraft should indicate the following. In a plane distribution of goods on the external load does not achieve a small degree of radar visibility and high aerodynamic characteristics at supersonic flight conditions.
Due to the complex technical solutions applied in this arrangement, and, above all, an integrated aerodynamic configuration of the fuselage, the aircraft has a high value of the aerodynamic efficiency at subsonic flight conditions.
The technical result for aim of the invention is to create a small plane had RL degree visibility, super-maneuverability at high angles of attack, high aerodynamic efficiency at supersonic speeds and at the same time, maintain the high aerodynamic efficiency at subsonic regimes.
This technical result is achieved by a multi-mode highly maneuverable aircraft integral aerodynamic layout containing the fuselage, the middle part of which involves gently swept wing panels, the head of the fuselage and tail, all-moving vertical and all-moving horizontal tail, located in the rear fuselage, the average integrated with the fuselage center section of the wing and made flattened in a vertical direction, and its outer surface in the longitudinal direction formed by a set of aerodynamic profiles with high building heights, providing accommodation within the fuselage built cargo compartments, the upper surface of the fuselage to pair with the outer surface of the lamp and the expanding in the area from light to the rear fuselage with decreasing curvature.
The invention is illustrated by drawings in which Figure 1 shows a plane at the plan view, Figure 2 - cross section AA of Figure 1, Figure 3 - section B-B Figure 1, Figure 4 - section B In Figure 2, Figure 5 - section D-D 2; Figure 6 - Rotation of least resistance (the body Siirsa-Haack) Figure 7 - seats fuselage cross-section, Figure 8 - transverse section 7; Figure 9 - schedule fuselage cross-section, Figure 10 - bigger portion of the graph of the cross-sections of the fuselage behind the canopy.
The aircraft comprises a fuselage, in which the middle part two seamlessly interfaced with swept wing panels 3, the head part 1 fuselage and tail section 6. The aft fuselage six all-moving vertical 4 and all-moving horizontal tail 5. At the head of one fuselage is light 10.
In terms of aerodynamic design aircraft has the following features: a wide lifting fuselage and smoothed graph cross-sectional areas at the site of the aircraft cockpit.
The fuselage has increased the width of the cross section (Fig. 1, 2) and is made up of airfoil 11, 12, 13 (3, 4, 5), the height of which can accommodate the main cargo compartment 9 in the fuselage of the aircraft (Figure 2, 3) between the air inlets 8 and provides the necessary headroom to accommodate the side cargo doors 7 (2, 4).
In addition to space for cargo, due to the flattened layout is uniform distribution of air over the surface of the load and increase the airframe fuselage lift properties in terms of creating lift, which preserves the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft as a whole with a smaller wing area,
In addition, such a flattening of the fuselage reduces the effective area of ​​the radar in the most likely areas of exposure: side and front projection plane.
Graphics Alpha cross-sectional areas at the site of an airplane cockpit can improve the aerodynamic performance of aircraft by reducing drag.
Besides the general theoretical outline on aerodynamics of the aircraft and drag affects the relative position and inter-linkages between aircraft parts. To estimate the drag on the mutual influence (interference), typically used in the design space (Figure 6), which is as follows: in order to reduce the resistance, the diagram of 14 cross-sectional areas S j of all elements of the plane along the length of the aircraft must comply with orthographic drawing equivalent body rotation of least resistance (cigar-shaped body of high aspect ratio, the so-called body Siirsa-Haack).
The prior art in the design of aircraft used scheme linking light and fuselage, shown in Figure 8 (A - a common scheme), which is characterized by the fact that the cross-sectional area is reduced by the portion of the light to the rear. Schedule of areas for the scheme has a pronounced deviation from the body Siirsa-Haack in the light (Figure 9 and Figure 10, section A).
To improve aerodynamics a scheme linking, which consists in the fact that the upper surface 15 of the fuselage is expanding in the area from the lamp 10 to the fuselage tail section 6, offsetting reduction in the area of ​​cross-sections (Figure 8, B - invented scheme), resulting in smoother "failure "on the graph area of ​​the pilot lamp, characteristic of traditional aircraft integral aerodynamic layout. The curve on the graph area is close to the optimal shape, which indicates an improvement of aerodynamic characteristics (Figure 10, section B) by reducing drag.

Claim
Multimode highly maneuverable aircraft integral aerodynamic layout containing the fuselage, the middle part of which involves gently swept wing panels, the head of the fuselage and tail, all-moving vertical and all-moving horizontal tail located at the rear of the fuselage, wherein the middle part of the fuselage is integrated with the center section of the wing and made flattened in a vertical direction, and its outer surface in the longitudinal direction formed by a set of aerodynamic profiles with high building heights, providing accommodation within the fuselage built cargo compartments, the upper surface of the fuselage to pair with outside light and expanding the area from light to the rear fuselage with decreasing curvature.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #109 on: December 17, 2012, 12:54:48 am »
last 2
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #110 on: December 17, 2012, 01:36:00 am »
Information Control System aircraft

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/239/2392586.html

Quote
The invention relates to the field of Aerospace Instrumentation, namely the command and status indication of the aircraft (LA). Technical result - enhanced functionality. To achieve this result, information and control system aircraft contains information-control field, on-board digital computer system, input-output unit, and exchange control, block the formation of flight and navigation options, database flight mission. Additionally, the system contains a power hub signal generation unit and integration for the display and reception of control actions, the control and monitoring obschesamoletnogo equipment, electronic control unit resistance, low-altitude flight software block, block group providing air navigation, the control account in the means of objective control and a control regimes. 3 Description: f-ly, 1 ill.
The invention relates to the field of aviation, namely the command and displays.
Known sighting and navigation equipment complex multifunctional aircraft (RF Patent 2282156), which contains interconnected input-output channel on-board data exchange an indicative information management system pilot, an indicative information management system of the operator, complex navigation and piloting of the complex surveillance and attack tools management system by means of resistance, on-board computer system, including interconnection of input-output on line computer information sharing computational logic modules, integrated database, navigation and formation flight parameters, formation attack and navigation options, forming the display information, input-output and control information exchange the other input-output is the input-output onboard computer system. In addition, the complex is equipped with the introduction of the onboard computer system computational logic modules mutual correction of navigation and impact parameters, mutual fusion navigation and impact parameters, the formation of the state of the aircraft available options, simultaneous co-ordinated use of countermeasures, input-output related to each other and computationally logic modules integrated database, navigation and formation flight parameters, input-output and control information exchange, form of attack and flight parameters and the formation of the information displayed on line computer information exchange.
Known sighting and navigation system multifunctional aircraft carrier-based and land-based (RF Patent 2276328), which contains the input-output interconnection via information exchange set multifunction indicators, head-up displays, television camera zakabinnogo review, of the operational management, a set of surveillance and attack tools with navigation and navigation tools, portable media source data management system by means of resistance, the computer system, including interconnection of input-output on line computer information sharing computational logic modules, integrated database, navigation and formation flight parameters, formation attack and navigation options, forming information is displayed, input-output and control information exchange, input-output of the last of which is an input-output computer system. The complex is also equipped with the introduction of the computer system computational logic modules virtual machine control, inertial-satellite mode of formation of the relative coordinates of aircraft position, exhibitions at the exchange rate on the mobile and fluctuating basis, the optimal use of resources, interconnected with each other and with computational logic modules combined base data, navigation and formation flight parameters, the formation of attack and flight parameters for the formation of information displayed, input-output and control information exchange on line computer information exchange.
The closest analogue is information and control complex aircraft (LA) (RF Patent 2232376), which includes interconnected input-output data exchange via information-control field, on-board digital computer system comprising interacting on computer information exchange channel input-output unit and exchange control, block the formation of flight and navigation options, database flight mission.
As disadvantages of the closest analogue, you can specify the following:
- The complex consists of functionally complete systems rather autonomously solve all the problems of the information for its sensors to output control information system to display signals in the control system of the aircraft and weapons. As a result, each of the information system has its own algorithms solving the problem, not taking into account information from other systems, an autonomous channel output to the display, its controls. Integrated use of information from other systems, with the exception of the problem of targeting one of the other, and the correction of satellite navigation systems (GPS) and radar (SAR), is practically implemented;
- The lack of information available on analog lines, so that blocks of ECC have limited information;
- The lack of display screen embedded processor designed for solving computational problems in addition to the formation of the display makes the complex actually nerabotospobnym failure VSK.
Object of the invention is to expand the functionality of the information management system, as a consequence, increase its effectiveness when used for multipurpose aircraft. Functionality information management system expanded by adding the following:
- Management obschesamoletnym equipment;
- Control of the systems of the CCD, CCA and SS, TSA;
- Comprehensive solution electronic warfare;
- Automatic and automatic control modes CCD systems, the CCA and the SS.
The problem is solved by the fact that information and control system of the aircraft, containing interconnected input-output channel for information exchange information-control field, on-board digital computer system comprising interacting on computer information exchange channel input-output unit, and exchange control, block the formation of flight- navigation parameters, database, flight plan is provided with a hub-unit signals and the introduction of the on-board digital computing system forming unit and integration of data for display and reception of control actions, monitoring and control unit obschesamoletnogo equipment, electronic control unit resistance, unit providing low-level flight, unit group provide piloting, recording control unit of the means of objective control, power management modes.
The system may further comprise an interconnected input-output channel information sharing external storage device.
The system may further comprise an interconnected input-output channel of information exchange unit conversion of television signals.
The system may further include the introduction of the onboard digital computer systems control unit of the aircraft.
The invention is explained by the drawing, which shows a block diagram of an information management system.
The proposed information management system (IMS) includes the following:
1. BPTS - unit conversion of television signals
2. DDT - an external storage device
3. IFM - information-control field,
4. BCS - block Hub signals
5. BTSVS - onboard digital computer system,
6. KIO - traffic channel,
7. VVUO - input-output unit, and exchange control,
8. FVIDIPUV - block the formation and integration of data for display and reception of control actions
9. Mowings - control and monitoring obschesamoletnogo equipment
10. FPNP - block the formation flight control and navigation options
11. SEC - control electronic warfare,
12. BDP3 - database of flight task
13. OMVP - unit providing a low-altitude flight,
14. OGSv - unit group provide piloting,
15. ULA - control aircraft,
16. UZSOK - control of the means of recording objective control
17. OBPiUO - block providing deployment and control arms,
18. BUR - control regimes
19. VKIO - computing traffic channel.
Unit conversion of television signals (BPTS) 1 is a device for receiving, switching, conversion and distribution in information-control field (IFM) 3 TV signals (images), arriving at its inputs, as in analog and digital form from BTSVS 5, CCD systems and TSA. BPTS 1 is connected to the output from KIO 6 FTI 3 and input / output 5 (BTSVS).
External storage device (TSD) 2 is a device that provides input information via removable media from the ground-based training, storage and issuing it to the onboard digital computer system (BTSVS) 5, documenting the results of IMS for subsequent rapid analysis. OVC 2 connected to CRO six input / output with BTSVS 5.
Information-control field (IPM) is a set of three board-indicator-controlled aircraft, which include, for example, multi-function displays (MFD), including those with built-in display processor (display-processor is a processor that can not only form an image, but also to solve computational problems), Multi-function IR-LEDs (IFPI), collimating light aircraft (KAI), the remote control and display. IPM 3 is connected to the input to the CRO 6 BPTS 1 and I / O with BTSVS 5 and BCS 4.
Hub unit signals (BCS) 4 is a device designed to receive analog signals GOST 18977-79 from the systems of the aircraft, teams of government, converting them to a digital format, as well as the reception of signals in digital form and the issuance of an analog form on the valve. BCS 4 is connected to CRO 6 inputs / outputs with BTSVS 5 and ICZM.
Interconnectivity within the MIS is an information exchange via 6 (CRO). 1.4 blocks connected with their I / O to the CRO 6, which is also connected to input / output BTSVS 5.
In this case, input / output BTSVS 5 is in / out is part of the BTSVS 5 Block IO and control exchange (VVUO) 7, and the other input / output VVUO 7 is connected to the internal computing traffic channels 19 (VKIO), which also connected I / O computational logic blocks 8-18, comprising the BTSVS 5, and which is used for data exchange between these blocks.
Channels 6 and CRO VKIO 19 are known lines of communication and information exchange, such as the serial code to a parallel code, multiplex and others.
VVUO unit 7 is known coupler calculator with links, to receive, control and delivery of information.
8-18 units in the form of computational logic modules that are placed on single calculator.
The processing unit and data integration for the display and reception of control actions (FVIDIPUV) 8 produces forming and delivery on VKIO VVUO 19 through 7 in FTI KIO 3 to 6 to display information from the systems on-board equipment (CCD), obschesamoletnogo equipment (CCA) and the power unit (SU) (CCD, CCA and SU are not shown in the figure), and the reception, processing and distribution in other computational logic modules (such as FPNP 10 mowings 9 ULA 15, BUR, 18, etc.) parameters of the control actions pilot.
Sequence controller obschesamoletnogo equipment (hay crops) 9 analyzes the state of the systems of the CCA and SS, as well as automatic and automated management of these systems.
Block the formation of flight and navigation parameters (FPNP) 10 calculates the parameters of the state of the aircraft, including its coordinates and orientation parameters of movement, building flight paths.
The control unit electronic warfare (SEC) 11 provides for automatic or automated command and control of the means electronic countermeasures (ECM), electronic intelligence (RTR), electro-optical countermeasures (EIA) and ejection device (HC), automatic decoys (ALC), radar (RLS) in the provision of personal, individual and group mutual defense aircraft, including the failure of the equipment, and errors in the actions of the crew (REP, RTR, ALC, the radar in the figure not shown).
Database block flight mission (BDPZ) 12 provides access to the flight plan data (PD), data at the request of the PP units that use them, ensuring synchronization of read-write data PZ, PZ data changes: adding, deleting, editing, Integrity Control PP.
Unit providing a low-altitude flight (OMVP) 13 ensures that the low-altitude flight task mode (MVP) for digital map (MSC) where the signals for automatic control VKIO VVUO 19 through 7 in the automatic control system (ACS) (not shown in the figure) on the CRO 6.
Unit group provide piloting (OGSv) 14 provides an implementation group piloting mode using information systems on board the aircraft to determine the relative position of aircraft.
The control unit aircraft (ULA) 15 provides for the formation parameters for manual and automatic control of director aircraft and engine thrust on information from the computational logic modules such as FPNP 10 OMVP 13, 17 and other OBPiUO VKIO to 19 and from ACS, a system of restrictive signal (SOS), Air Data System (SHS) (not shown in the figure) on the CRO 6.
The control unit of the means of recording objective control 16 (UZSOK) provides delivery to external recording facility (not shown in the figure) of the exchange parameters of computational logic modules and external systems CRO 6.
Block software deployment and management of weapons (OBPiUO) 17 provides a solution to the problem of military use of air weapons (TSA, the figure not shown) with the intellectual support crew, management regimes and the reconfiguration of operational use.
Block mode control (BUR) 18 controls the operation of the agreed systems of the aircraft avionics and computational logic modules BTSVS 5.
ISC works as follows.
Measured data from the CCD systems (flight-navigation, speed-air options, goals, and their characteristics, the state weapons control, and information received from the means of communication, etc.), CCA (voltage tire pressure in the cabin, the parameters of the state of the chassis, etc.) and SU (engine speed, fuel, etc.) in digital form comes through CRO 6, block 7 in VVUO VKIO Highway 19, then to the input of 8-18. Measured data from the CCD systems, CCA and control systems in analog form goes to the BCS 4 and through CRO 6, block 7 in VVUO VKIO Highway 19, where the inputs of the blocks 8-18.
To the input of BPTS 1 to 6 comes KIO television information in digital form from the CCD systems, TSA and BTSVS 5. Command of BTSVS 5 coming on CRO 6 BPTS 1 performs the following image processing: combining multiple images, clipping on a given format, the increase - and for CRO 6 shows the input of ICZM.
In unit 2 is set OVC removable media, after which the teams from BDPZ 12 information on CRO six BDPZ to the input 12. BDPZ 12 to issue its request for VKIO 19 to the inputs of other blocks BTSVS 5. If necessary, power BTSVS 5 can change the information and transmit power BDPZ 12 to refine the data stored there. And in-flight writes to the OVC 2 to 6 KIO different information on BTSVS five blocks used for analysis after the flight.
CDI unit 3 receives the input information on CRO six BTSVS of 5, 4 and BCS systems, CCD, CCA and HSA and takes over the controls embedded commands from the pilot and transmits them to the input of the CRO 6 BTSVS 5 and CCD systems, CCA and TSA. In the standard configuration (no fault blocks MIS) 3 FTI works with information coming from BTSVS 5. A built-in display processor allows in case of failure BTSVS 5 to give the information directly from the CCD systems, CCA and TSA, to solve problems of the display and, in part, control lines CRO 6, to the extent necessary to meet the challenges of the return and landing of aircraft. Also, this feature reduces the load CRO 6, allowing to transmit only the parametric information and commands to format the image, instead of passing a very large number of commands to drawing primitives (line, square, circle, etc.) and the characteristics of their display (color, fill, location etc.)
BCS unit 4 receives the input of information in analog form from the systems of the CCD, the CCA and the SU, ASP solutions for the problems of control and display and passes it on CRO six blocks to the inputs 5 and BTSVS FTI 4. In BTSVS 5 occurs processing of this information and the formation of the control actions transmitted by the input of the CRO six BCS 4, to convert them to analog.
All of the measured data on the orientation and spatial position of the aircraft, its position relative to other objects and surface flows through KIO VVUO 6 in block 7, where in VKIO line 19 to the input of FPNP 10. Information about the desired flight parameters (route, navigation points, given the course, etc.) enters the FPNP 10 through 19 of VKIO BDPZ 12. With built-in algorithms, with the features of serviceability and reliability of information systems FPNP 10 performs complex processing of flight and navigation information and provides it to the inputs VKIO 19 units 8, 9 and 11-18 and by 7 to VVUO CRO six other systems, such as radar, infrared detection system, flight control and navigation equipment and others.
FVIDIPUV unit 8 receives the input data for display on the aircraft systems, power BPTS 1, BCS 4, transmitted through KIO VVUO 6 through 7, and 9-18 units at VKIO 19. Shaping the packets according to the current operating mode and display FVIDIPUV 8 gives them VKIO 19 entry VVUO 7 for extradition on CRO 6 FTI 3. FTI is seen only three parametric information, and control the configuration of FTI 3. All tasks associated with drawing characters are settled in FTI 3 independently. Also taking into account the information received from OBPiUO 17 and IFM 3 FVIDIPUV 8 generates control exposure for BPTS 1. In providing responses to the command pilot FVIDIPUV 8 receives from FTI three control actions, which handles bound to the current state of IFM 3 and input to the other blocks.
Block mowings 9 receives the input by 19 VKIO information about the state of the CCD, CCA and Su from BCS 4 and directly from the systems KIO VVUO 6 through 7, and the parameters of the orientation and location of the aircraft FPNP 10. Given the pilot's coming from FTI KIO 3 to 6 via VVUO 7 and CCD regimes that BUR 18, Block 9 mowings are quantified and reported by 19 VKIO information about the state of the CCA and the SU to the input FVIDIPUV 8 and team management systems CCA and SS entry BCS 4 and CCA systems and control systems for the KIO VVUO 6 through 7.
UEP block 11 receives the input by 19 VKIO information of the direct or potential threat to the aircraft of the RAP, RTR, MEI state HC, ALC, TSA and teams from the commander of the group through VVUO 7 to CRO 6, the position of the aircraft and automatically FPNP 10 or automated Command pilot coming to the entrance by VKIO 19 of FVIDIPUV 8, generates control exposure to VKIO 19 for radar systems, RTR, rap, HC, ALC and APA through VVUO 7 to CRO 6.
OMVP block 13 receives the input by 19 VKIO information about the parameters of orientation and location of the aircraft from FPNP 10, about the current management of the aircraft from the unit ULA 15, given characteristics of the route, and, if available, digital terrain maps (MSC) from BDPZ 12. Given the terrain at a given point of the entire region, OMVP 13 generates control parameters plane to ensure a low-altitude flight, and passes them on VKIO 19 ULA 15, and on display in FVIDIPUV 8.
OGSv block 14 receives the input by 19 VKIO information about the parameters of orientation and location of the aircraft from FPNP 10, about the current flight control from ULA Block 15, on the route given characteristics and parameters of the FGP BDPZ 12 and group combat employment of OBPiUO 17, command information from the complex communications (KSS, the figure is not shown), the location of other aircraft relative to this from RSBN (not shown in the figure) on the KIO VVUO 6 through 19. Based on the information received OGSv 14 generates and transmits to the input VKIO 19 ULA 15 control actions for the aircraft and pilot information for the input FVIDIPUV 8, group combat employment entry OBPiUO 17 and into interacting through LA VVUO 7 to 6 with KIO KCC.
ULA unit 15 receives the input by 19 VKIO information about the parameters of orientation and location of the aircraft from FPNP 10, of the given characteristics of the route from BDPZ 12, the relative positions of the interacting objects from OGSv 14 and the current value of the control parameters in ACS VVUO 7 to CRO 6. Based on this information, based on data from the 15 and OMVP regimes from BUR 18 generates signals for automatic, manual and director of a flight control for the task and avoid a collision with the ground, interacting LA or shrapnel. The control parameters are passed by VKIO 19 on entry and through VVUO 7 to 6 on the CRO input ACS.
UZSOK block 16 receives the input parameters for VKIO 19 interconnect sharing of computational logic blocks BTSVS 5 and CCD systems, the CCA and the SU, TSA through VVUO 7 to CRO 6. Interconnect options exchange on computational logic blocks BTSVS 5 may come as a piecemeal list and already formed into sets. Of the men separately parameters on computational logic blocks BTSVS 5 and CCD systems, the CCA and the SU, TSA UZSOK 16 sets of forms that are queued up and passes on VKIO VVUO 19 through 7 to 6 on the KIO loggers.
OBPiUO block 17 receives the input by 19 VKIO information about the parameters of orientation and location of the aircraft from FPNP 10, given characteristics of combat use of BDPZ 12, the restrictions imposed on the operational use of UEP OMVP 11 and 13, on the parameters of control of the aircraft 15 and ULA VVUO through 7 to CRO 6, the actions of a group of aircraft in the CMP and the availability and status of the TSA and TSA weapon control systems (SRS, the figure is not shown). Automatically, automated or manually by the pilot, received from FVIDIPUV 8, taking into account the mode of targeting BUR 18 forms for TSA and the team on operational use and gives out 19 through VKIO VVUO 7 to 6 in the KIO TSA, MSA, radar, optical location station (OLS, the figure not shown) and complex communication.
BUR block accepts a 19 VKIO on information from the navigation mode FPNP 10, on a given route from BDPZ 12, of compressing the chassis of the mowing of 9 modes of combat use of OBPiUO 17, requests to perform a low-altitude flight from OMVP 13 and produces shaped mode work to all interested consumers, such as FVIDIPUV 8 FPNP 10, SEC 11, OGSv 14 OBPiUO 17 and others.

Claim
1. Information and control system of the aircraft, containing interconnected input-output data exchange via information-control field, on-board digital computer system comprising interacting on computer information exchange channel input-output unit, and exchange control, block the formation of flight and navigation options, database flight task, characterized in that it is provided with a block hub signals and the introduction of the on-board digital computing system forming unit and integration for the display and reception of control actions, monitoring and control unit obschesamoletnogo equipment, electronic control unit resistance, providing a low-altitude flight unit, unit group provide piloting, recording control unit of the means of objective control, power management modes.
2. The system according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises interconnected input-output channel of information exchange external storage device.
3. The system according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises interconnected input-output channel of information exchange unit conversion of television signals.
4. The system according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises the introduction of the onboard digital computer systems control unit of the aircraft.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #111 on: December 17, 2012, 01:45:22 am »
This patent by "NPP "Polet" relates to a datalink system that may be T-50 related.

http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/243/2439461.html

Quote
The invention relates to the field of aircraft instrumentation and can be used by enterprises of aviation and defense industry, leading the development of weapon control systems "SUV." Technical result - more efficient fighting groups of fighters. To achieve this result, the system comprising: a multifunctional on-board radar, optical-electronic system of a target, a set of on-board guidance equipment, on-board navigation equipment kit with sensors flight information, the computer system, a set of indicators of the sighting, navigation and flight information, tactical situation indicator, board set Telemetry communication equipment, including transceiver, software device frequency hopping transceiver, encoder, decoder radio, remote control with two turn knob, signal converters to digital form, the remote target distribution (targeting) with the input button and cancel from digital to analogue converter, air terminal automation system integrated communications, navigation and communication. 1 Description: f-ly, 6 ill.
The invention relates to aircraft equipment, more specifically - for equipment designed for combat use of weapons fighter. It can be used by enterprises of aviation and defense industry, leading the development of weapon control systems "SUV."
Known fighter armament control system designed to ensure the effective destruction of air and ground targets by accurately reaching the areas of attack fighters, the mutual exchange of information, centralized data collection of air and ground conditions, and the subsequent data processing tasks target distribution (targeting) on the aircraft commander general order of battle. (Patent 2024818, F41G 3/22, publ. 12/15/1994 was)
The structure of the modern "SUV" fighter, regardless of their functional and structural integration of equipment and methods of connection (direct connection to each other on a local multiplex communication lines or through a common data bus Aeroplane backbone "MSHD" Automation of aircraft systems) include:
- Set onboard guidance equipment, telemetry associated with the same equipment as intended, placed on the command posts of land and air (aircraft type "AWACS") automated control systems (guidance);
- Airborne radar "radar", designed to detect air and ground targets at distances within the radio visibility of the station;
- Airborne optronic, particularly television a target system designed to detect air targets within the optical visibility (after the exit to the area of ​​its location by using the above apparatus) and to enable automatic and semi-automatic accompaniment based on the measurement of its origin and motion parameters using gauges that make up the reticle systems;
- Set onboard navigation equipment with sensors flight information, designed for its use of sight, as well as for navigation (for example, after the enemy's attack, on a mission to return to the airfield and land);
- Computer (information and analysis), real-time system that contains multiple digital computers - "CVM" and analog calculators, for processing information from these sensors and meters, with the objective of aiming to solve the problem of navigation and other computing activities relating to the preparation, use of weapons and control the results of this application, including training flights;
- On-board set of indicators, intended to demonstrate the pilot the necessary information on the results of these reticle systems, guidance and navigation equipment, as well as to present the results of a computer system, implemented by the relevant flight, in particular the results of the solution of the sighting;
- On-board set of equipment Telemetry (telephone and telecode) links for information support of the fighter by receiving data from ground-based control center (air) of the automated control systems (guidance) and for communication with the fighters, equipped with similar equipment, as they interact in the group (s) with registration and storage.
Information and logical pairing and schematic association mentioned onboard measuring and actuators form a multi-mode technical system functionally does one thing - combat efficiency fighter weapon, and this determined the prevailing name of the system. For all subsequent issues of domestic and foreign fighters listed above composition of the "SUV" is a model, identifying with the "crew" "onboard intelligence" fighter (Figure 1).
This composition of the proposed technical solution is defined as a prototype.
One drawback of the weapons control system fighter at this stage is the low efficiency of the radio data because of the low rate of transmission / reception of information in telemetry communication channels fighter, low immunity and concealment of information, resulting from the narrow-band communication system radio telemetry signals and the slow frequency hopping, and accepted principles of organization and to build links between the aircraft and with frequency and time division subscribers (aircrew) in the data network. This allows conventional enemy with modern means to detect said signals and principles of radio, put the radio traffic noise in aircraft and communication networks, under certain conditions to achieve full "suppression" of communication. The said weapon control system of fighters in the interaction group / groups of 12 aircraft (16) aircraft (flying fighter units to one combat mission in the selected order of battle, such as 3 (4) Group 4 planes in each group) delay <T> information conveyed in the amount of 1024 bits in each fighter commander general order of battle, before the decision to attack targets of 10-12 seconds of turn on this mode of communication to the sequence diagram (Figure 2), which is now unacceptably high in continuous improvement of conventional enemy jamming.
These drawbacks are eliminated the proposed technical solution. The present invention is a radical increase in the efficiency of the fighting, when implemented by a group of fighters for the mutual exchange of information and automatically transfer orders to attack specific set of parallel high-speed, anti-jamming communications channels that reduce the delay time before a decision on the team plane relative to a prototype is not less than 6 times, winning for immunity with respect of current narrowband communication systems of at least 40 dB and at least 6 dB below the applicable communications with pseudorandom frequency hopping. Unlike the prototype, using for the organization of information exchange in the group of fighters shared channel radio telemetry communication, access to which is to share the information carried by the team commander of the group, using a hard time sharing the work and the principle of "challenge-response" in the past adopted a hierarchical structure subordination rank by limiting the crew to adapt to the conditions of bond sudden change of operational-tactical situation, the proposed solution provides the possibility of parallel and independently in several channels radio telemetry communication, based on a combination of methods time, frequency and code division multiplexing, which allows to organize information interaction of fighters in combat formation of 12 (16) planes and more by assigning to each fighter's own channel on the flow of information and receiving information in a parallel channel attached to the transmission of other fighter group. The total information capacity telemetry channels implemented on the technical solution, greatly exceeds the capacity of radio telemetry channel prototype that can dramatically increase the efficiency of information exchange between the fighters. Delivery time information that the networks communication depends on the amount of data and the speed and methods of transmission of radio signals in a communication channel, the proposed technical solution is abbreviated due to a significantly higher rate of radio signals in a communication channel, and through the implementation of synchronous methods separation of radio signals and transmit them to a parallel m-basic channels selected (from a total of n-base channels that make up the technical resources of the device, n = 512) is specifically required for the transmission of data and networking radio telemetry communication between the aircraft and the aircraft with the command terrestrial (air) of the automated control systems (guidance). Thus, controlled technical resource aviation terminal onboard a set of equipment radiotelemetricheseoy connection allows you to plan during preflight preparation and organization of the radio networks and the delivery time information in them. Thus, the rate of update <t> (which in practice is the time delay of information before making a decision on the attack on the team plane) the exchange of information in volume from 128 to 2048 bits in order of battle of fighters in the 12 (16) planes of the proposed technical solution is 0.5-2.5 s (Fig. 3). In practice, the amount of data in networks Telemetry communication between the aircraft is less than 1024 bits, and the time delay information, respectively, less than 1-2 with a network overview of the operational-tactical situation with m <12 (16) of basic channels. Use at this implemented in the aviation terminal, radio with programmable rapid rearrangement of their options, including radio frequency radiation, and the time structure of the signal radiation, improves, compared to the prototype figures immunity and secrecy of communication.
The technical result is achieved by a well-known fighter armament control system, including multi-functional on-board radar and optical-electronic, such as TV a target system board set guidance equipment, on-board navigation equipment kit with sensors flight information, a set of indicators of the sighting, navigation and piloting information and computer system of the aforementioned devices and on-board communications equipment including radio telemetry, including transceiver connected entrance through the encoder and the decoder output through radio to a computer system and the other two inputs coupled with the signal converter to digital, software device frequency hopping transceiver connected to the output of its two-way radio and the inputs to the two transducers signals to digital form and to a computer system, a control panel with two turn knob to set the modes of communication and radio telemetry rank fighter in the group interaction, the remote target allocation to the enter button and cancel transmitted by radio telemetry links, and Key Pad these tasks, the light tactical situation to play the exchange of information and tasks, and the control panels are equipped with transducers and target distribution of their output signals to digital form, and the tactical situation display digital to analogue converter and all three devices connected to the computer system, further introduced to improve the speed, noise immunity and secrecy channel radio telemetry communication (enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the weapons control fighter in the automatic mode "automatic" exchange of air and ground situation with co-fighter aircraft and control stations equipped with similar equipment) Aviation terminal of integrated communications, navigation and communication "OSNOD" attached to their entry to the program of the onboard radio telemetry communications equipment set to receive on the local line (network) connection multiplex signals (commands) terminal, and the output / inputs - to a computer system to transmit / receive on local lines (circuits) signals multiplexed communication interactions with their own avionics "SUV" fighter or, when integrated into the fire control system "SUV" fighter of all consoles, devices, display and record the information field controls single cabin aircraft equipment "EKBO" and the use of common airborne field bus data "MSHD" connected with their I / O to the total airborne backbone data bus controlled by a computer system (organized in the main data bus all the procedures of information exchange their own electronic equipment "SUV" fighter ), the signals (commands) received from the information management field single cabin aircraft equipment "EKBO" fighter.
The use of radio telemetry equipment in the context of aviation terminal to aircraft and facilities for various applications and different locations (home) to create flexible (adjustable) networks unified communications, navigation and communication "OSNOD." This is due to the distinctive full names of the proposed technical solutions: air terminal "AT" system integrated communications, navigation and communication "OSNOD."
The system of armament control fighter (Figure 4) includes: multi-function on-board radar 1, opto-electronic (in particular television) sighting system 2, set of 3 onboard guidance equipment, set of 4 onboard navigation equipment with sensors flight information, computing System 5 associated with the said equipment; board set indicators 6 sighting, navigation and flight information, connected to a computer system 5 and similarly incorporated into the scheme of the tactical situation indicator 7 "ITO"; transceiver 8 Telemetry system due to "SUV" of other fighters, the connected device 9 software frequency hopping transceiver 8, activating their inputs to a computer system; 5 encoder 10, which connects a computer system with a transmitter unit 5 transceiver 8, decoder 11, a receiver unit connects transceiver 8 computer system 5, remote control 12, connecting the output of its generators turn knob "MODE" and "Who am I" with the analog signals through the signal converter 13 to the computer system and blocks 9 and 8, the same panel included 14 target distribution with the signal converter 15 , and push "GR", "Enter", "CLEAR" and Key Pad containing numbered rows of buttons to select attacked targets and appointed to this fighter, a digital to analog converter 16, the input is connected to the computer system, and the output - with "FTO" 7; air terminal "AT" 17 automated integrated communications, navigation and communication "OSNOD" connected to its input device software 9 sets of equipment onboard radio telemetry communication and exits / - to a computer system "SUV" fighter. Block 17 in Figure 4, circled by the dashed line, forms a distinctive part of the solution.
Block diagram of aviation terminal "AT" is shown in Figure 5.
In essence aviation terminal "AT" is a data processing unit (17-1) with a transceiver (17-2), structurally and functionally executed as part of a set of equipment Telemetry communication endowed own address to identify it in the avionics "SUV" fighter and interacts with its I / O protocol information logical pairing. The processing unit (17-1) is connected to the computer system "SUV" through the local multiplex data bus, or general aviation-multiplex data bus backbone and includes a computer module formation and processing of messages (17-1.1 - terminal processor) connected through a device encryption (17-1.2) from the computer module formation and processing channels (17-1.3 - channel processor) and a device for converting speech (17-1.4) and the storage device time (17-1.5) connected to the data link processor, which, in its turn communicates with the device formation and signal processing (17-1.6 - Signal Processor). Transceiver (17-2) is related to data processing unit (17-1), and can receive signals from a radio channel for transmission to the data processing unit (17-1) and the transfer of signals from the data processing unit to the radio, it includes a device synthesizers (17-2.1), which forms a reception (17-2.2) and transferred (17-2.3) device bandwidth required for transmission and reception of radio signals received through the antenna switch (17-2.4), associated with radio . Aviation terminal provides simultaneous and independent operation of aircraft in several communication networks (IP):
- Online review of operational-tactical situation (IS GR);
- In the network management task force (IC GR);
- In the network management by a joint team (EC DG);
- In the network interaction with control point (IP PU).
Thus, the significant difference of the proposed technical solution is to ensure that the introduction of information networks aviation terminal "AT" in the mode "SUV" fighter drastically increases the speed, noise immunity and secrecy Auto (automated) radio telemetry communication network data planes with the command terrestrial (air) of the automated control systems (guidance), and between aircraft and achieved high (almost without delay in time) operating income data "Crew" fighters performing combat operations in the group, providing saluting and execution of orders to attack the enemy before the contingent opposing measures .
6 is to be specific, similar to the prototype presented the option to generate information on the "FTO" in the situation where the division of the four fighters attacked the enemy, including four actually detected targets.
A sign of the target image on the screen, "ITO" 7, if it is found using the "radar", 1 is a triangle. If you find a target using optical-electronic sighting system 2 - triangle, not closed at the bottom. If the goal is defined by ground automated control system "Nasu", but have not yet found any airborne sighting system, it is a sign of the absence of the triangle (Figure 6). For their fighters similarly put a mark in the form of a ring. Variable along the horizontal bar, adjacent to the composite image to the specified purpose basis of her identification, a conventionally adopted scale indicates the amount of the target speed, vertical - the height of its location in space, and turn the entire image around the point of intersection of lines indicates the relative rate target. Similar rate and the prime denotes the height of his fighters. The received image scale linear values ​​recorded number in the lower left corner of the screen with the attached mapped linear dimensions. For each image of the target figure recorded it ordered in "SUV" fighter number (on the left of the vertical line). To the right of this line can be identified by a number of fighter who is assigned to attack this target.
Similarly, numbered and their fighters. Below the line in a circle, representing the position of the fighter, for which on his "ITO" 7 is formed as described picture, indicated by the number of fighter aircraft, operated by the group commander. Recorded using a scale of linear values ​​for the relative displacement of labels on screen "ITO" 7 can read the coordinates of all the displayed objects (their fighters and targets). At the bottom right of the screen vertically repeated numbers marked target attacked by order of their threat to the attacking team if the order seen below. This presentation tactical information is being used in the management of arms fighter prototype.
Turning to the work of aviation terminal is team-building combat aircraft commander established procedures. Team to include "AT" Monitoring equipment comes with a set of radio telemetry communication (or computer system "SUV" fighter on the signal (the team) management coming from the information field "EKBO" in the embodiment of "SUV" fighter with integrated equipment). Same time with the switch "MODE" in the position of "HD" and switch "Who am I" in position "COG" on his plane commander of the remote control 12 to turn the device 9 software configuration mode aviation terminal 17 on the information network in the operational management and tactical fighter group "IP GR" by giving it a set of user's parameters, including:
- Own network address in the information network review operational and tactical situation "IP GR";
- The number of subscribers in the "IP GR";
- The number of groups in the "IP GH";
- Own network address of the fighter in "IP OG";
- The number of their own group in the "IP OG";
- The number of subscribers in their own group;
- Own network address fighter in the group;
- Operating in the "IP GR" ("ON-OFF");
- Operating in the "IP OG" ("ON-OFF");
- Operating in the "IP GR" ("GROUP-PAIR-OFF").
Driven aircraft commander of his decision to transition from the control mode from the command post terrestrial (air) of the automated control system for the management of its teams in the networks of the "OSNOD" reported previously by the conventional system intercommunication. After receiving such a decision, "crews" led their aircraft turn knob to the name "MODES" set in the same position, "DG", and the option "Who am I" - in the position of "VDSCH" (or "WYD", depending on the rank of Fighter) and set the signals to their "AT" on the radio setting, suitable for radio telemetry communication with the commander of the combined group.
Experimental work performed in the information networks of aviation terminal "AT" show that for all the interacting "SUV" is provided by the automatic exchange of information, and to present the final results of the crews in the form in which it is depicted as a possible example 6 is virtually the same time without time lags. In this case, the commander of a general order of battle (or - an autonomous group) directly as a flight commander or his wingman can set targets for the implementation of the objectives assigned to attack by pressing the appropriate buttons on the target distribution 14 in near real time. Mistakes of their commander manipulation can correct by pressing the "RESET", and repeating tasks recruited in a new way. Different positions of the switch "WHO AM I" realized that differences in system setup and processing, and display of various manipulated buttons remote target allocation 14. The aircraft is driven pilot this remote effectively disabled, as this pilot can only get the job. The transfer of all the information in the space is a radio code, the establishment of which is provided by encoder, and the inverse transformation to digital form, characteristic of computing systems "SUV", decoders built into the air terminal and perform the same function as the function encoder / decoder 10, 11 in existing modes of radio telemetry communication prototype.
During group activities in the autonomous position of the group, "COG" establishes the commander, the position of "VDSCH" - leading the pilot of the second pair, the slaves are the two remaining pilot.
If the commander of the first pair at any point with the permission of the superior commander or his own decision to move involves autonomous action, the restructuring of "SUV" of its aircraft and the aircraft his wingman on extremely simplified diagram of information exchange within a couple of fighters he shall transfer switch "MODE "in position" 1 PAIR. " Similarly one can do and the commander of the second pair, which is defined for the same position switch labeled "Pair 2".
When choosing the position of "Sight" switch "MODE" any fighter pilot himself off from the group activities and connected to central control (point of his plane) via ground automated control system. This possibility, however important in this application approved group activities must be provided at least in case of the loss of combat effectiveness of a fighter. Connection to ground automated control system allows this fighter most safely return to their base.
Features of the control and "SUV" fighter aircraft to the terminal "AT" should include the following:
1. Switches "Who am I" and "HD Mode" processed "SUV", which directly or via software device set Telemetry communication issues in the "AT" control commands, including:
- A command to enable (disable) the network "AT" to the exchange of information in the group;
- A number unique fighter in the group, corresponding to the number of its own transmission channel in the network;
- Composition listening channels other fighters in the group.
In this work the subscriber network is invariant to the status of the subscriber ("COG", "VDSCH", "SFH"). Online all work the same and the only differences in the information content codified.
Reposition the switch "MODE", "crew", "SUV" fighter can appropriately change the composition of the listened channels (on the network), and can not change, leaving the possibility of listening to all subscribers of the group, which allows the "crew", working (information) even in a pair of fighter jets, to obtain information from other subscribers of identifying their status in a combat mission, while you may receive any of the other teams (such as collection groups, etc.).
2. Network of interaction with the "IP" in "AT" is operating in parallel with the network, "DG", ie exchange of information with the "IP" can be carried out in parallel with the work of the network "DG."
3. Existing channel near the command connection CF UHF band is proposed to use in parallel with the air terminal "AT" or for group actions "HD" from aircraft "LA" is not equipped Air terminals "AT" or to receive commands pointing to the "Nasu ".
Experimental verification of the technical solutions unit in training flights on aircraft type "SU 27" shows that the use of the claimed weapons control system allows the fighter to get new quality to ensure high operational autonomy of group activities, reducing communication time is 6 times and providing immunity "SUV" on 40 dB above regarding the prototype, with "SUV" with air terminal "AT" in certain conditions can be used to refine the coordinate support staff navigation systems of aircraft and determination (identification) of their aircraft. This technical solution is supposed to be used on almost all types of aircraft and helicopters of the Russian Federation.

Claim
1. Fighter weapon control system, including multi-function on-board radar and optical-electronic, such as a television, a target system board set guidance equipment and on-board navigation equipment kit with sensor flight information, a set of indicators of the sighting, navigation and flight information, and computer-related system with the listed devices and on-board equipment including radio telemetry communication, including a transceiver device connected via the encoder input and output via radio decoder to a computer system and the other two inputs coupled to the transducer signals to digital form, the software device frequency hopping transceiver connected to access to the transceiver and the inputs to the two transducers signals to digital form and to a computer system, a control panel with two turn knob to set the modes of communication and radio telemetry rank fighter in the group interaction, the remote target distribution with the input button and cancel transmitted by radio telemetry communication and Key Pad these tasks, the light tactical situation to play the exchange of information and tasks, and the control panels are equipped with transducers and target distribution of their output signals to digital form, and the tactical situation indicator analogue converter and all three devices connected to the computer system, wherein further comprising air terminal automation system integrated communications, navigation and communication, connected to the input of the onboard software sets of equipment for receiving radio telemetry communication for local multiplex communication line terminal commands and outputs / inputs to a computer system to transmit / receive on the local lines multiplexed communication signal terminal interaction with their own avionics fighters.
2. Fighter armament control system of claim 1, characterized in that the air terminal automation system combined, connect its input / output to the total airborne backbone data bus, controlled by a computer system commands from the control information field single cabin avionics fighters.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #112 on: December 17, 2012, 06:10:59 pm »
Panels Panels
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #113 on: December 19, 2012, 12:33:31 am »
KNAAPO site very slow after high-res T-50-4 pics posted.


Here's what I grabbed (resaved slightly lower quality to allow posting)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 02:08:00 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #114 on: December 19, 2012, 01:46:51 am »
more
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #115 on: December 19, 2012, 01:48:04 am »
more
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 02:07:28 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #116 on: December 19, 2012, 02:28:10 am »
last
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #117 on: December 19, 2012, 05:20:32 am »
They need to paint that sucker dark gray like a Strike Eagle.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #118 on: December 19, 2012, 05:45:04 am »
nope. this season they prefer 'em in dark aubergine (oh, God, please nooooo)
« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 05:47:32 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #119 on: December 19, 2012, 06:05:34 am »
nope. this season they prefer 'em in dark aubergine (oh, God, please nooooo)


This will be my reaction atleast.  :D Whoever that had the bright idea of aubergine color should be sent to Siberia. Seriously.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #120 on: December 24, 2012, 03:09:23 pm »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #121 on: December 24, 2012, 05:44:09 pm »
Is there confirmation the long ventral strakes under the wing roots are missile bays?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #122 on: December 24, 2012, 10:37:43 pm »
it was known from insiders back in late 2009 - even before T-50 external view was declassified on maiden flight
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #123 on: December 27, 2012, 11:26:25 am »
hello friends


In reference to the object that can be seen in these images:


http://imageshack.us/a/img32/5023/blockerpakfa1.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img21/6820/t50323hires3.jpg


an user of KP forum has said that "it is an IGV (Inlet Guide Vane)". It seems to me this device is a combination of IGV and radar blocker.


¿What do you think? Thanks in advance...!

More info in spanish of PAK FA (and photos), here:

http://espacial-org.blogspot.com.ar/search/label/PAK%20FA
« Last Edit: December 27, 2012, 11:31:49 am by Wil »

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #124 on: December 27, 2012, 06:05:28 pm »
My sources tell me the under wing fairings just outboard of the main gear wells contain actuators for leading edge flaps on the wing centre section.  I have seen a sketch showing the actuator and the drive linkage, but I think it was in a Powerpoint, not available on the web.
Bill Walker

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #125 on: December 27, 2012, 06:51:05 pm »
My sources tell me the under wing fairings just outboard of the main gear wells contain actuators for leading edge flaps on the wing centre section.
BS
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #126 on: December 27, 2012, 09:27:12 pm »
My sources tell me the under wing fairings just outboard of the main gear wells contain actuators for leading edge flaps on the wing centre section.  I have seen a sketch showing the actuator and the drive linkage, but I think it was in a Powerpoint, not available on the web.


Unless the actuator consist of a thousand gerbils pulling on a string, I can't imagine why it would need a fairing so long.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2012, 09:41:25 pm by chuck4 »

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #127 on: December 28, 2012, 01:28:10 pm »

Hello Friends!


Five new 2013 calendars of PAK FA, in high resolution, ~7 MB.
Unknown author.


http://espacial-org.blogspot.com.ar/2012/12/mas-calendarios-2013-del-sukhoi-pak-fa.html


Enjoy!  :)

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #128 on: December 29, 2012, 02:41:34 am »
Wasn't that drawing with the actuator & linkage a speculative illustration, made by a member of this forum literally days after the first flight back in 2010? Seems to have taken on a life of its own in the meantime!

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2012, 01:42:40 pm »

Hello!


A nice pic of PAK FA #1, © Pavel Noddlov. Enjoy!

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2012, 04:40:05 pm »
My sources tell me the under wing fairings just outboard of the main gear wells contain actuators for leading edge flaps on the wing centre section.  I have seen a sketch showing the actuator and the drive linkage, but I think it was in a Powerpoint, not available on the web.


Unless the actuator consist of a thousand gerbils pulling on a string, I can't imagine why it would need a fairing so long.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating a theory I heard in a briefing on the aircraft about a year ago.  The actuator is quite large and has a fairly long stroke with a bellcrank mechanism to gear down the stroke (increasing the force), suggesting the LE flaps are used at very high speeds.  Anybody else have a different story?
Bill Walker

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #131 on: December 30, 2012, 09:17:03 pm »
Anybody else have a different story?
Theory is BS and comes from someone who knows absolutely nothing about aircraft construction and modern state of actuators tech. These pods are equipped with clearly visible doors and hold one Izd.760 short-range AAM each.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #132 on: December 30, 2012, 11:16:31 pm »
Take it from me, its definitely an SRAAM weapons bay.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #133 on: January 01, 2013, 06:00:22 pm »
There are patents a few pages back for that if you want references
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #134 on: January 11, 2013, 02:38:39 am »

Hello!


Another great image of PAK FA, August 2012, © Alex Vorivoshin.


best wishes!!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2013, 06:05:55 am »
an user of KP forum has said that "it is an IGV (Inlet Guide Vane)". It seems to me this device is a combination of IGV and radar blocker.
it was discussed dozens. hundreds. zillion times in last two years. it was known FOR AGES HOW radar blocker would look like
THERE IS NO RADAR BLOCKER INSTALLED YET ON ANY OF FLIGHT VEHICLES
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #136 on: January 12, 2013, 03:25:58 pm »
Out of curiosity, wouldn't radar blockers have a negative effect on engine performance due to complications with airflow through such blockers?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #137 on: January 12, 2013, 04:38:59 pm »
there's always a compromise...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #138 on: January 12, 2013, 05:25:41 pm »
Out of curiosity, wouldn't radar blockers have a negative effect on engine performance due to complications with airflow through such blockers?

Complications? No. In fact, they could help by controlling the airflow into the engines. However, they'll add weight and drag/pressure loss. However, the trade-off is what is the weight/flow losses due to the fan blockers versus the weight/flow losses of serpentine ducts that would be the engineering question.

Offline bipa

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #139 on: January 13, 2013, 07:36:57 am »

Agree. It is very difficult to tell and most likely case-dependent: probably there is no ultimate definite truth about blockers vs. serpentine ducts.

Both solutions (blockers and serpentine ducts) are mainly a matter of minimizing thrust/drag penalty (over a certain set of flight regimes), volume and weight, while pursuing a given RCS reduction target (which itself is aimed at certain frequency bands and aspect angles). Other criteria like sturdiness or serviceability may also be of importance.

My (rather uneducated) gut feeling is that serpentine ducts concepts may reach better overall compromises between T/D and RCS, but at higher volume (and possibly weight) toll. OTOH blockers seem like a compact "bolt-on" solution, but it's probably an engineering nightmare to manage their T/D and RCS efficiencies (let alone both together) over a wide range of situations.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #140 on: January 13, 2013, 01:17:10 pm »
I think for compact aircraft like fighters, serpentine ducts, by bending in this way and that inside the fuselage, required more internal room, and imposes constrains on internal layout.   Both of which adds indirectly to structural weight.   So it's not clear to me serpentine duct would be the better solution for all fighter requirements.  I think it depends on the designer's perception of the comparative marginal benefit of last measure of stealth, and the marginal benefit of light and less bulky fuselage structure, which translates to higher agility, acceleration, range, and potentially better aerodynamics.


It seems to me the f-22 and f-35 opted for pursuit of last measure of stealth, j-20 and j-31 took their cue from f-22, the t-50 opted for lighter, simpler and less bulky structure in pursuit of higher range and kenematic performance.

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #141 on: January 13, 2013, 01:42:26 pm »
I think for compact aircraft like fighters, serpentine ducts, by bending in this way and that inside the fuselage, required more internal room, and imposes constrains on internal layout.   Both of which adds indirectly to structural weight.   So it's not clear to me serpentine duct would be the better solution for all fighter requirements.  I think it depends on the designer's perception of the comparative marginal benefit of last measure of stealth, and the marginal benefit of light and less bulky fuselage structure, which translates to higher agility, acceleration, range, and potentially better aerodynamics.


It seems to me the f-22 and f-35 opted for pursuit of last measure of stealth, j-20 and j-31 took their cue from f-22, the t-50 opted for lighter, simpler and less bulky structure in pursuit of higher range and kenematic performance.

At the same time though its very hard to say that the F-22 compromised much agility, acceleration, range, and aerodynamics. It seems to have the best of both worlds...
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #142 on: January 13, 2013, 04:22:46 pm »
I think for compact aircraft like fighters, serpentine ducts, by bending in this way and that inside the fuselage, required more internal room, and imposes constrains on internal layout.   Both of which adds indirectly to structural weight.   So it's not clear to me serpentine duct would be the better solution for all fighter requirements.  I think it depends on the designer's perception of the comparative marginal benefit of last measure of stealth, and the marginal benefit of light and less bulky fuselage structure, which translates to higher agility, acceleration, range, and potentially better aerodynamics.


It seems to me the f-22 and f-35 opted for pursuit of last measure of stealth, j-20 and j-31 took their cue from f-22, the t-50 opted for lighter, simpler and less bulky structure in pursuit of higher range and kenematic performance.

Actually, serpentine ducts can make it easier to package everything within a given volume. For instance, the F-22's serpentine ducts made it easier to incorporate the side weapons bays, minimizing surface area, whereas the T-50 has to use under surface pods, increasing surface area, to incorporate the short range missile bays. As usual, everything is a trade off and both aircraft probably come close to meeting their requirements. Also, the T-50 wouldn't be considered simpler than an F-22 structurally speaking.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #143 on: January 13, 2013, 04:44:38 pm »
I think for compact aircraft like fighters, serpentine ducts, by bending in this way and that inside the fuselage, required more internal room, and imposes constrains on internal layout.   Both of which adds indirectly to structural weight.   So it's not clear to me serpentine duct would be the better solution for all fighter requirements.  I think it depends on the designer's perception of the comparative marginal benefit of last measure of stealth, and the marginal benefit of light and less bulky fuselage structure, which translates to higher agility, acceleration, range, and potentially better aerodynamics.


It seems to me the f-22 and f-35 opted for pursuit of last measure of stealth, j-20 and j-31 took their cue from f-22, the t-50 opted for lighter, simpler and less bulky structure in pursuit of higher range and kenematic performance.

Actually, serpentine ducts can make it easier to package everything within a given volume. For instance, the F-22's serpentine ducts made it easier to incorporate the side weapons bays, minimizing surface area, whereas the T-50 has to use under surface pods, increasing surface area, to incorporate the short range missile bays. As usual, everything is a trade off and both aircraft probably come close to meeting their requirements. Also, the T-50 wouldn't be considered simpler than an F-22 structurally speaking.

As I understand it the undersurface SRAAM pods actually help the shape to get nearer the ideal area rule for minimum drag. I am pretty sure the T-50 config is driven more by supercruise than you might imagine.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #144 on: January 13, 2013, 07:42:31 pm »
As I understand it the undersurface SRAAM pods actually help the shape to get nearer the ideal area rule for minimum drag. I am pretty sure the T-50 config is driven more by supercruise than you might imagine.

Undoubtedly. They wouldn't place them to create more drag. That's simply a matter of you have to place the bays somewhere and you aren't going to place them where they cause more problems. The area rule (wave drag) for all super cruise aircraft is critical, so that will be one of the design drivers.

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #145 on: January 13, 2013, 09:04:49 pm »
I think for compact aircraft like fighters, serpentine ducts, by bending in this way and that inside the fuselage, required more internal room, and imposes constrains on internal layout.   Both of which adds indirectly to structural weight.   So it's not clear to me serpentine duct would be the better solution for all fighter requirements.  I think it depends on the designer's perception of the comparative marginal benefit of last measure of stealth, and the marginal benefit of light and less bulky fuselage structure, which translates to higher agility, acceleration, range, and potentially better aerodynamics.


It seems to me the f-22 and f-35 opted for pursuit of last measure of stealth, j-20 and j-31 took their cue from f-22, the t-50 opted for lighter, simpler and less bulky structure in pursuit of higher range and kenematic performance.

Actually, serpentine ducts can make it easier to package everything within a given volume. For instance, the F-22's serpentine ducts made it easier to incorporate the side weapons bays, minimizing surface area, whereas the T-50 has to use under surface pods, increasing surface area, to incorporate the short range missile bays. As usual, everything is a trade off and both aircraft probably come close to meeting their requirements. Also, the T-50 wouldn't be considered simpler than an F-22 structurally speaking.

As I understand it the undersurface SRAAM pods actually help the shape to get nearer the ideal area rule for minimum drag. I am pretty sure the T-50 config is driven more by supercruise than you might imagine.

I was always under the impression that the T-50 is better area ruled and less draggy than the F-22 considering its similar layout to the YF-23. The fact that the T-50's fuselage is comprised of pods (forward fuselage, engines, SRAAM bays) might make it easier to area rule than a big blocky body like the F-22's. I think I read somewhere that Sukhoi or Putin claimed the T-50 will have greater supercruise and max speed than the F-22.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 03:08:16 pm by Radical »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #146 on: January 14, 2013, 10:55:47 am »
I was always under the impression that the T-50 is better area ruled and less draggy than the F-22 considering its similar layout to the YF-23. The fact that the T-50's fuselage is comprised of pods (forward fuselage, engines, SRAAM bays) might make it easier to area rule a big blocky body like the F-22's. I think I read somewhere that Sukhoi or Putin claimed the T-50 will have greater supercruise and max speed than the F-22.

I seriuosly doubt the T-50 will supercruise much faster than an F-22. Of course, it all gets down to what your definition of supercruise is at this point, as there is a thermodynamic limit and the F-22 is close to it, unless you're going to start building the entire plane out of Titanium, or if you're only supercruising for 20 to 30 minutes, instead of an hour. We would need more information on how they're defining it to know how much truth is in the statement. Also, the top speed statement again comes down to, at what altitude, for how long, and how much faster is faster?
 
Don't get me wrong, of all the 4.5/5th gen fighters, the T-50 is my favorite design, aesthically speaking, after the YF-23, and I'm sure it will be quite a capable aircraft. But some of the claims made by any side are sometimes superfluous with regard to operational capability and how they will actually be used.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #147 on: January 14, 2013, 12:48:34 pm »
Actually, serpentine ducts can make it easier to package everything within a given volume. For instance, the F-22's serpentine ducts made it easier to incorporate the side weapons bays, minimizing surface area, whereas the T-50 has to use under surface pods, increasing surface area, to incorporate the short range missile bays. As usual, everything is a trade off and both aircraft probably come close to meeting their requirements. Also, the T-50 wouldn't be considered simpler than an F-22 structurally speaking.

I think that is backwards.   Serpentine ducts only make it seemingly easier to package things because it forces the fuselage to be appreciably more volumnious to accommodate the ducts.    If volume is really good give a straight ducted design a similarly volumnious fuselage and look how much easier and more efficient still would the packaging be.   T-50 has to have the pods because its  fuselage's otherwise enclosed volume is appreciably smaller.   
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 12:52:38 pm by chuck4 »

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #148 on: January 14, 2013, 01:44:51 pm »
Hello boys...!

...one more, © Dmitry Yakovlev. Nice!




Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #149 on: January 14, 2013, 02:38:09 pm »
14/01/13 (c) Sergey Sanin
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #150 on: January 14, 2013, 03:21:17 pm »
I was always under the impression that the T-50 is better area ruled and less draggy than the F-22 considering its similar layout to the YF-23. The fact that the T-50's fuselage is comprised of pods (forward fuselage, engines, SRAAM bays) might make it easier to area rule a big blocky body like the F-22's. I think I read somewhere that Sukhoi or Putin claimed the T-50 will have greater supercruise and max speed than the F-22.

I seriuosly doubt the T-50 will supercruise much faster than an F-22. Of course, it all gets down to what your definition of supercruise is at this point, as there is a thermodynamic limit and the F-22 is close to it, unless you're going to start building the entire plane out of Titanium, or if you're only supercruising for 20 to 30 minutes, instead of an hour. We would need more information on how they're defining it to know how much truth is in the statement. Also, the top speed statement again comes down to, at what altitude, for how long, and how much faster is faster?
 
Don't get me wrong, of all the 4.5/5th gen fighters, the T-50 is my favorite design, aesthically speaking, after the YF-23, and I'm sure it will be quite a capable aircraft. But some of the claims made by any side are sometimes superfluous with regard to operational capability and how they will actually be used.

True, but the T-50's better area ruling isn't just limited to benefiting supercruise because it can also improve acceleration and other maneuvering performance. In addition, the T-50 has a wide flat fuselage with a flat area between the nacelles to add body lift. It seems like the T-50 with its better lift generation, lower drag and bleed will seriously outclasses the F-22 in maneuvering performance.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #151 on: January 14, 2013, 03:45:58 pm »
Until the Russians come up with something better than the AF-31 or its derivatives, F-22 will have a decided advantage in installed power.   Either F-22 will be able to carry more fuel for greater range, combat persistence, and longer supercruise, or will have better T/W ratio. 
 
Also, F-22 has a big wide flat surface not between its engines, but under its engines.  But more importantly, by pulling its engines close to the centerline, F-22 probably has smaller roll moment of inertia, thus may well have faster roll rate, thus might well be more agile.
 
Furthermore, look at the planform of the F-22.   Even along the length axis, the F-22 seems to have its main concentrations of mass pulled closer to the center of mass than the T-50, while having its elevators further from the center of mass.    So one might guess the F-22 also has lower moment of inertia about the pitch axis as well, while having greater pitch authority from its elevator.   So F-22 might be more agile and responsive in pitch as well.
 
Without real numbers, just guessing from visual inspection, all sorts of outcomes in comparative evaluations are possible.
 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 04:03:30 pm by chuck4 »

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #152 on: January 14, 2013, 04:40:32 pm »
Until the Russians come up with something better than the AF-31 or its derivatives, F-22 will have a decided advantage in installed power.   Either F-22 will be able to carry more fuel for greater range, combat persistence, and longer supercruise, or will have better T/W ratio. 
 
Also, F-22 has a big wide flat surface not between its engines, but under its engines.  But more importantly, by pulling its engines close to the centerline, F-22 probably has smaller roll moment of inertia, thus may well have faster roll rate, thus might well be more agile.
 
Furthermore, look at the planform of the F-22.   Even along the length axis, the F-22 seems to have its main concentrations of mass pulled closer to the center of mass than the T-50, while having its elevators further from the center of mass.    So one might guess the F-22 also has lower moment of inertia about the pitch axis as well, while having greater pitch authority from its elevator.   So F-22 might be more agile and responsive in pitch as well.
 
Without real numbers, just guessing from visual inspection, all sorts of outcomes in comparative evaluations are possible.
 


Chuck, that is a great assessment of the F-22. I never understood why the Russians think that the Centro plane is  a good idea. The F-22 is better in all the ways you described. I'm not being biased, but that is the truth. The mass of the F22 and F-35 is located more centrally which is critical for fighter agility. The F-35s blending gets progressively smaller until you get to the stub wings, which are the thinnest part. on the T-50, its the exact opposite. Large masses outboard of the center-line  That is more akin to the SR-71, having the engines outboard. Great for high speed, but negatively affects agility. Look at video of the A-12. The T-50 actually has a similar all moving tail. And as you mentioned the F-22s flat fuselage is a lifting surface, probably more efficient than the T-50. The F-35 and F-22 fuselage are supercritical airfoil shaped, curving upward along the bottom, the T-50 is just a flat pancake slab. The T-50 also has more wetted area which is less efficient.


The T-50 is interesting, but highly flawed. Has anyone here ever heard the (theory) that many Russian aircraft are purposely downgraded compared the western/US/European aircraft? Some even say many planted tech has led the Russians to go down some wrong design paths in the past. IE- the T-10 SU-27 prototype being based on the Rockwell design because the Russians mistakenly thought the "Gothic" wing shape and the Rockwell was a better design. Some of the tech on the Rockwell design was transferred to help them take the wrong path. Eventually, they had an expensive redesign process which cost them both money and time. Personally, I think the Russians chose the layout of the T-50 as being an next generation of the su-27 family overall design. They were familiar with it, and happy with it, but I still feel it is inferior to the F-35/22 aero shape.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #153 on: January 14, 2013, 10:18:40 pm »
Chuck, that is a great assessment of the F-22. I never understood why the Russians think that the Centro plane is  a good idea.
ask that Grumman guys with F-14
Great for high speed, but negatively affects agility. Look at video of the A-12. The T-50 actually has a similar all moving tail. And as you mentioned the F-22s flat fuselage is a lifting surface, probably more efficient than the T-50
did you calculate lift coefficent via eye? agility? you yet to see what T-50 can do when current envelope restrictions will be dropped. so far, compare footage of Su-35 culbits at last shows to what Raptor can "(and can't) do
Has anyone here ever heard the (theory) that many Russian aircraft are purposely downgraded compared the western/US/European aircraft? Some even say many planted tech has led the Russians to go down some wrong design paths in the past. IE- the T-10 SU-27 prototype being based on the Rockwell design because the Russians mistakenly thought the "Gothic" wing shape and the Rockwell was a better design. Some of the tech on the Rockwell design was transferred to help them take the wrong path. Eventually, they had an expensive redesign process which cost them both money and time.
what an interesting BS
Personally, I think the Russians chose the layout of the T-50 as being an next generation of the su-27 family overall design. They were familiar with it, and happy with it, but I still feel it is inferior to the F-35/22 aero shape.
inferior in terms of what? measured in what? in your 'feelings'?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #154 on: January 14, 2013, 10:19:10 pm »
054 Red is on her way to Moscow (by her own)
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #155 on: January 14, 2013, 10:44:50 pm »
Flateric, I like the T-50 too. But was just trying to compare the design comparison trade-off between the centroplane concept and the flat, reverse airfoil, supercritical lifting fuselage as what is found on the F-22/35 with the mass mostly in the center-line vs. the mass outboard the center-line as in T-50. Just expressing an opinion. If F-14 flat pancake centroplane was so good and efficient on the F-14, how come we did not see its incorporation into the F-22, or any of the current American 5th Gen fighters or Chinese fighters. Only the Russians are using the centroplane as far as i know.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2430
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #156 on: January 14, 2013, 11:00:46 pm »
054 Red is on her way to Moscow (by her own)

Interesting to see that #04 has its number in RED ;)
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #157 on: January 14, 2013, 11:37:28 pm »
kcran567 your observations are very naive and easily turned around.

"The T-50 configuration is clearly superior in agility because the widely spaced engines increase the effectiveness of thrust vectoring. The F-22 and F-35 with their inboard engines can't generate the same roll rates".

In truth, there are pluses and minuses of each layout, but neither layout is clearly superior by eyeballing it. The design driver for inboard engines and boxy fuselage is stealth, not agility. In fact I believe the T-50 configuration is potentially more agile in almost every respect, which would accord with my gut feelings as to the design drivers.


"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #158 on: January 15, 2013, 12:08:53 am »
Traditional measures of manouverability we all know:

-
Wing loading
T/W ratio
Maximum climb rate
Maximum instantaneous turn rate
Specific Excess Power (Ps)
-

Note some more modern definitions of agility:

-
Pitch Agility
Time to pitch to maximum load factor plus time to pitch from maximum to zero load factor (i.e. how fast you can get to maximum pitching)

T90
Time to roll into and capture a 90 degree bank angle change (i.e how fast you can get into a high rate turn)

Torsional agility
turn rate divided by T90

Axial agility
The difference between minimum and maximum Ps available at a given flight condition divided by the time to transition between the two levels.


These newer measures relate to how quickly you can transition from one state to another. The Su-27 had excellent manouverability using traditional measures but compared to the F-16 for instance it was slower to reach maximum roll rate due primarily to the higher aspect ratio wing. Likewise, an excellent T/W ratio with an engine that takes 30 seconds to get to maximum thrust may be less use in combat situations than an engine with a lower T/W ratio which can get to maximum thrust in 10 seconds.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #159 on: January 15, 2013, 12:17:20 am »
kcran567 your observations are very naive and easily turned around.

"The T-50 configuration is clearly superior in agility because the widely spaced engines increase the effectiveness of thrust vectoring. The F-22 and F-35 with their inboard engines can't generate the same roll rates".

In truth, there are pluses and minuses of each layout, but neither layout is clearly superior by eyeballing it. The design driver for inboard engines and boxy fuselage is stealth, not agility. In fact I believe the T-50 configuration is potentially more agile in almost every respect, which would accord with my gut feelings as to the design drivers.
I asked a former GD engineer (aerodynamics) once about the widely spaced engines and TVC.  He said something to the effect of "control along the flight axis (using surfaces) is generally better than control along the aircraft axis (using vectored thrust).  He figured the wide-spaced engines were more about Russians sticking with what they know than about providing control authority. 

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #160 on: January 15, 2013, 04:49:42 am »
kcran567 your observations are very naive and easily turned around.

"The T-50 configuration is clearly superior in agility because the widely spaced engines increase the effectiveness of thrust vectoring. The F-22 and F-35 with their inboard engines can't generate the same roll rates".

In truth, there are pluses and minuses of each layout, but neither layout is clearly superior by eyeballing it. The design driver for inboard engines and boxy fuselage is stealth, not agility. In fact I believe the T-50 configuration is potentially more agile in almost every respect, which would accord with my gut feelings as to the design drivers.

Agreed.

Compared to the F-22's boxy design, the T-50's design of separating the fuselage into pods like the forward fuselage, nacelles, and short range AAM bays allows for a tunnel design that generates a lot more lift since the flat areas connecting these pods act like extensions of the wing. The use of pods also makes it easier to area rule, giving lower drag and better acceleration/maneuver performance. This is pretty similar to the YF-23. It seems like Sukhoi really focused on the kinematic performance of the T-50. I think it's pretty clear that the T-50 has a distinct speed, acceleration, and maneuver advantage over the F-22.

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #161 on: January 15, 2013, 12:12:26 pm »
The Su-27 had excellent manouverability using traditional measures but compared to the F-16 for instance it was slower to reach maximum roll rate due primarily to the higher aspect ratio wing.
What do you base that on (not trying to argue, I'm genuinely interested)? The two don't seem to be different enough in terms of aspect ratio to account for the difference in agility about the roll axis, my money is on the engine configuration being the main reason, the powerplant/s is/are the biggest mass concentrations in an aircraft after all. I once made an estimate of the impact on moment of inertia from engine offset from the centreline (very crude, scribbled onto the margin of a sheet during a boring avionics lecture) - it was pretty strong! It also indicated that TVC for roll probably cannot fully compensate (weaker dependence of its effect on offset distance), so the T-50 probably has differential TV due to its widely spaced engines, NOT - as is frequently suggested - the other way round.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #162 on: January 15, 2013, 04:53:55 pm »
He figured the wide-spaced engines were more about Russians sticking with what they know than about providing control authority.

If I recall correctly the widely spaced engines (appearing in the 1980s) were analysed as significantly increasing durability. In fact, aircraft might be able to continue fighting (e.g. with Helmet Mounted Sight and off-boresight missiles) once a missile had destroyed one of the engines. The twin engine requirement also reportedly stemmed from reliability and survivability issues.

So, would it be correct to say that the engine spacing is part of the survivability requirement (and a provides a nicely uninterrupted weapon's bay), rather than being a 'conservative' feature?

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #163 on: January 15, 2013, 06:11:03 pm »
kcran567 your observations are very naive and easily turned around.

"The T-50 configuration is clearly superior in agility...


 The design driver for inboard engines and boxy fuselage is stealth, not agility...


In fact I believe the T-50 configuration is potentially more agile in almost every respect, which would accord with my gut feelings as to the design drivers...

1) Not proven by you

2) The F-22s fuselage shaping is not a "box" as you say, its an inverted lifting body shape that DOES provide body lift.

3) How do you know it is so agile in every respect. Have you seen any video of the F-22? Pretty good agility if you ask me.

Traditional measures of manouverability we all know:

-
Wing loading
T/W ratio
Maximum climb rate
Maximum instantaneous turn rate
Specific Excess Power (Ps)
-

Note some more modern definitions of agility:

-
Pitch Agility
Time to pitch to maximum load factor plus time to pitch from maximum to zero load factor (i.e. how fast you can get to maximum pitching)




Wing loading is an older requirement for agility. As you know, how unstable the design is is a factor. The T-50 is a more stable design than the F-22/35. The center of gravity is farther forward on the T-50. The F-22/35 have their tail sufaces much further aft on the fuselage. On the F-35, the tail is ALWAYS trimmed upward, providing a LIFTING SURFACE. You never see tail lift on the T-50, Its much more stable for level flight. The T-50 design is conservative, with less nose pitch instability.


F-35: tail farther back, trim up, provide lift. More unstable.
T-50: Tail not so far back, no upward trim, more stable design.


kcran567 your observations are very naive and easily turned around.

"The T-50 configuration is clearly superior in agility because the widely spaced engines increase the effectiveness of thrust vectoring. The F-22 and F-35 with their inboard engines can't generate the same roll rates".

In truth, there are pluses and minuses of each layout, but neither layout is clearly superior by eyeballing it. The design driver for inboard engines and boxy fuselage is stealth, not agility. In fact I believe the T-50 configuration is potentially more agile in almost every respect, which would accord with my gut feelings as to the design drivers.

Agreed.

Compared to the F-22's boxy design, the T-50's design of separating the fuselage into pods like the forward fuselage, nacelles, and short range AAM bays allows for a tunnel design that generates a lot more lift since the flat areas connecting these pods act like extensions of the wing. The use of pods also makes it easier to area rule, giving lower drag and better acceleration/maneuver performance. This is pretty similar to the YF-23. It seems like Sukhoi really focused on the kinematic performance of the T-50. I think it's pretty clear that the T-50 has a distinct speed, acceleration, and maneuver advantage over the F-22.


You have no evidence of kinematic advantage. Basic physics favor a centerline mass more agile than two boxy outboard weights that counteract each other. F-14 had similar centroplane, yet it was not used on any western 5th gen.  It is outdated, but as 2idsgt, avimimus, and trident say the Russians went with what they knew and what would basically get the job done no frills with less risk. The T-50 is a less risky design, and is more stable. Outboard engines and less static instability than the f-35/22. F-22 was designed much earlier than the T-50.


My racecar with centerline mass will be much better handling than you're racecar with 2  mass located on the sides.


Also, having a huge pancake between two podded areas provide much more wetted area, which the Russians needed more wing area to make up for lost agility due to less instability built into the design. Just as the F-16 needed a smaller wing due to tail lift and an unstable design, which translated into less supersonic drag. The Russians took simpler approach on T-50.

The entire underside of the F-35 is a lifting shape derived from the lifting body research way back starting w/ M2-F1, M2-F-3 etc.

 The T-50 flat pancake is a crude approach, which does work, at the expense of needing much more flat wing area. I think the Russians did it more for weapons space/payload reasons. It was a layout they were familiar with. T-50 More old school F-14 style flat pancake wetted drag than an F-22/35.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 06:51:29 pm by kcran567 »

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #164 on: January 15, 2013, 06:32:24 pm »
The Su-27 had excellent manouverability using traditional measures but compared to the F-16 for instance it was slower to reach maximum roll rate due primarily to the higher aspect ratio wing.
What do you base that on (not trying to argue, I'm genuinely interested)? The two don't seem to be different enough in terms of aspect ratio to account for the difference in agility about the roll axis, my money is on the engine configuration being the main reason, the powerplant/s is/are the biggest mass concentrations in an aircraft after all. I once made an estimate of the impact on moment of inertia from engine offset from the centreline (very crude, scribbled onto the margin of a sheet during a boring avionics lecture) - it was pretty strong! It also indicated that TVC for roll probably cannot fully compensate (weaker dependence of its effect on offset distance), so the T-50 probably has differential TV due to its widely spaced engines, NOT - as is frequently suggested - the other way round.

Yep, it could be that. I read the aspect ratio / time-to-maximum-rate-of-role comment in relation to F-18 versus F-16. It is certain that Su-27 is slower to get to maximum roll rate, though once its there its as good as anything else.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #165 on: January 15, 2013, 07:09:39 pm »


The Su-27 had excellent manouverability using traditional measures but compared to the F-16 for instance...not as
 
Yep, it could be that. I read the aspect ratio / time-to-maximum-rate-of-role comment in relation to F-18 versus F-16. It is certain that Su-27 is slower to get to maximum roll rate, though once its there its as good as anything else.


We can most assuredly extrapolate this to the T-50. Similar old school F-14 style flat pancake lifting area with podded engines as the SU-27 family. Same design approach.

 Again, my racecar with centerline mass more agile than you're racecar with 2 outboard masses.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/328743main_EC66-1567_3x4_946-710.jpg

f-35 lifting body approach


http://air.blastmagazine.com/files/2012/06/fighter_f-14_tomcat.jpg

F-14 old school podded flat pancake T-50 wetted area approach[/quote][/quote]
« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 07:11:42 pm by kcran567 »

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #166 on: January 15, 2013, 08:32:59 pm »
He figured the wide-spaced engines were more about Russians sticking with what they know than about providing control authority.

If I recall correctly the widely spaced engines (appearing in the 1980s) were analysed as significantly increasing durability. In fact, aircraft might be able to continue fighting (e.g. with Helmet Mounted Sight and off-boresight missiles) once a missile had destroyed one of the engines. The twin engine requirement also reportedly stemmed from reliability and survivability issues.

So, would it be correct to say that the engine spacing is part of the survivability requirement (and a provides a nicely uninterrupted weapon's bay), rather than being a 'conservative' feature?


A single compact fuselage housing both engines is likely to be structurally more efficient and lighter.   Two separately podded engines probably impose a weight penalty, both because engine structures can't brace each other, and because there are additional skin area to cover. 



But twin podded engines on the T-50 could also shield it's weapon bays from radar in side aspect, and conceivably give it significantly more freedom in launching weapons without breaking stealth

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #167 on: January 15, 2013, 11:20:20 pm »
The T-50 is a more stable design than the F-22/35. The center of gravity is farther forward on the T-50.

Unlikely - a negative stability margin of up to 15% (which is pretty ambitious) has been claimed in the aerospace press (Butowski, in a FlugRevue issue from last year).  Also, as mentioned a while back, with their experience from the Su-27 and Su-47 (which were every bit as unstable as any contemporary, if not more so) means that Sukhoi is pretty much the last company to have to reign in instability due to lack of experience.
 
The F-22/35 have their tail sufaces much further aft on the fuselage. On the F-35, the tail is ALWAYS trimmed upward, providing a LIFTING SURFACE. You never see tail lift on the T-50, Its much more stable for level flight. The T-50 design is conservative, with less nose pitch instability.


None of these traits are reliable indicators for the degree of (in)stability, so you are basing this argument on a fundamentally flawed premise. Case in point:
The Su-27 and F-16 both have relaxed (neutral) pitch stability, hence are less stable than the contemporary F-15 and MiG-29 which are naturally stable designs. Now go compare tail plane position...

F-35: tail farther back, trim up, provide lift. More unstable.
T-50: Tail not so far back, no upward trim, more stable design.


As mentioned, it does not work that way.
 
You have no evidence of kinematic advantage. Basic physics favor a centerline mass more agile than two boxy outboard weights that counteract each other. F-14 had similar centroplane, yet it was not used on any western 5th gen.  It is outdated, but as 2idsgt, avimimus, and trident say the Russians went with what they knew and what would basically get the job done no frills with less risk. The T-50 is a less risky design, and is more stable. Outboard engines and less static instability than the f-35/22. F-22 was designed much earlier than the T-50.
My racecar with centerline mass will be much better handling than you're racecar with 2  mass located on the sides.

While this is certainly true for roll, I don't see how widely spaced engines would have any effect on pitch whatsoever. As Paul has mentioned, you need to differentiate what you're talking about when you say "agility".

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #168 on: January 15, 2013, 11:55:09 pm »
Yes, kcran567 please share how you calculated the CG position of the T-50 without a real one to weigh. I don't even know how much the whole plane weighs, let alone the individual components.

Regarding relaxed stability -

Su-27 - 5%
Su-35 (with canards) - 20%
Su-47 was even higher


X-29 was as high as 35%

15% is roughly comparable to other aircraft.  Typhoon is more unstable than F-22 - so is it more agile according to you?

In fact, relaxed stability can help with torsional and pitch agility, but its only one factor.


Note the conclusions of the X-29 report:


http://107.21.31.18/centers/dryden/pdf/88335main_H-1995.pdf

Quote
The level of static instability and control surface rate limits did impact the nose up and nose down maximum pitch rates. At low airspeeds, to achieve rates comparable with an F-18, new actuators with at least 50-percent higher rate are required.

The excessive instability of the X-29 meant the control surfaces were too busy keeping it from departing, which actually reduced the maximum pitch rate.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #169 on: January 16, 2013, 12:24:22 am »
T-50 is aerodinamically and structurally more advanced, maneuverable (and risky) design than F-22 using 15+ year gap in aerodynamic development. Just LO variable inlets, LEVCONs and "3D" TVC to mention.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 12:29:46 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #170 on: January 16, 2013, 07:50:34 am »
T-50 is aerodinamically and structurally more advanced, maneuverable (and risky) design than F-22 using 15+ year gap in aerodynamic development. Just LO variable inlets, LEVCONs and "3D" TVC to mention.

There is plenty of evidence that the Russians are more than 15+ years behind the Americans in crucial aviation related technologies.  In actuators, servos, AESA, for example, amongst others.   T-50 was also likely designed under more tighter financial constraints, and likely was mandated to rely more on data originally gathered specifically to support other production programs like su-27, than was the f-22.    So t-50 was probably a more constrained design than f-22.  Just because t-50 flew 15+ years later doesn't mean anything.   Without knowing the alternatives available, examined, and the trade off accepted with each design,    it is impossible to say which which design is more advanced, only which design uses more moving parts and employ more buzzwords.


« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 07:59:32 am by chuck4 »

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #171 on: January 16, 2013, 08:34:14 am »



T-50 is aerodinamically and structurally more advanced, maneuverable (and risky) design than F-22 using 15+ year gap in aerodynamic development. Just LO variable inlets, LEVCONs and "3D" TVC to mention.
The only real somewhat new aerodynamic technology used on the T-50 is the Levcons. That's true. Nothing else so groundbreaking. I say somewhat new because the Levcons in themselves are related to the Canard surface, just more well integrated into the fuselage. This would allow a more stable design to be built which is what I meant by less risky The Levcons provide the instability rather than the a dedicated unstable aircraft like the F-35.


Yes, kcran567 please share how you calculated the CG position of the T-50 without a real one to weigh. I don't even know how much the whole plane weighs, let alone the individual components.

Regarding relaxed stability -


X-29 was as high as 35%


Note the conclusions of the X-29 report:


Quote
The level of static instability and control surface rate limits did impact the nose up and nose down maximum pitch rates. At low airspeeds, to achieve rates comparable with an F-18, new actuators with at least 50-percent higher rate are required.

The excessive instability of the X-29 meant the control surfaces were too busy keeping it from departing, which actually reduced the maximum pitch rate.



If the F-35 is more unstable than the T-50 it would be able to be controlled due to its highly sophisticated actuators and millions of lines computer code. A number of pilots that have flown the F-35 have said it is the most precise and rapid flight control response aircraft they have flown ( i will try and find the RAF pilot quote or video, it is real). The Russians may have avoided this by taking a simpler approach as they have in the past. The Levcon assembly is part of that approach, albeit with the added mechanical complexity and weight of having a Levcon along with a traditional horizontal tail vs. say having an unstable delta and canard only like the Eurofighter.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 08:38:18 am by kcran567 »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #172 on: January 16, 2013, 08:38:49 am »
Just because t-50 flew 15+ years later doesn't mean anything.   Without knowing the alternatives available, examined, and the trade off accepted with each design,    it is impossible to say which which design is more advanced, only which design uses more moving parts and employ more buzzwords.

I agree with the second sentence. We should avoid debates about such vagaries.

However, it should be noted that a lot of information transfer happens accidentally (declassification, academic literature, civilian products) if given enough time. Computational power has also increased, and Russian engineers have always excelled in some areas (Soviet era gun designs and aerodynamics were often quite admirable) and work continued during the collapse of the Soviet Union, partly due to the lack of other employment, albeit the work proceeded at a much reduced rate.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #173 on: January 16, 2013, 08:45:06 am »
T-50 is aerodinamically and structurally more advanced, maneuverable (and risky) design than F-22 using 15+ year gap in aerodynamic development. Just LO variable inlets, LEVCONs and "3D" TVC to mention.
The only real somewhat new aerodynamic technology used on the T-50 is the Levcons. That's true. Nothing else so groundbreaking. I say somewhat new because the Levcons in themselves are related to the Canard surface, just more well integrated into the fuselage. This would allow a more stable design to be built which is what I meant by less risky The Levcons provide the instability rather than the a dedicated unstable aircraft like the F-35.

That is quite an assumption.

The LEVCONs can be used at high angle of attacks to control pitch moments (and potentially roll moments), so they allow a smoother transition between normal maneuverability and super-maneuverable flight regimes (something that Russian aerodynamicists have sought for a while - e.g. project Integral, the optimised AOA performance of the Yak-130 and the FSW Sukhoi 47).

I don't think it is defensible to argue that the design is conservative and aims for aerodynamic stability - given that it is designed to be unstable in yaw (even potentially super-maneuverable in yaw) and is the first aircraft to have a G-suit designed to protect the pilot from forces in more than one dimension.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #174 on: January 16, 2013, 09:24:38 am »



T-50 is aerodinamically and structurally more advanced, maneuverable (and risky) design than F-22 using 15+ year gap in aerodynamic development. Just LO variable inlets, LEVCONs and "3D" TVC to mention.
The only real somewhat new aerodynamic technology used on the T-50 is the Levcons. That's true. Nothing else so groundbreaking. I say somewhat new because the Levcons in themselves are related to the Canard surface, just more well integrated into the fuselage. This would allow a more stable design to be built which is what I meant by less risky The Levcons provide the instability rather than the a dedicated unstable aircraft like the F-35.



I am not sure if one could call an airplane "dedicated unstable".   It's either designed to be unstable or not.  In all likelihood T-50 was designed to be unstable along 1, 2 or 3 axis.    Being unstable in all three axis is also not new.  F-117 was unstable in pitch, roll and yaw because aerodyanmic constraints imposed by then state of stealth technology.   As F-117 shows, instability is not necessarily correlated to agility.    I have a somewhat hard time believing F-35 to be the most agile fighter out there, whatever its instability.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 09:39:50 am by chuck4 »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #175 on: January 16, 2013, 10:37:48 am »
I've yet to see any indications that the T-50 will have 3D TV and what I saw in the patent drawings was studied by the U.S. back in the 80s and discarded. Once again, "better" is something of a dangerous term. Sort of like, the YF-22 was more maneuverable than the YF-23, but it actually wasn't in the entire envelope and where it was wasn't exactly somewhere I would be worried about.


I don't actually see anything new, aerodynamically, with the T-50, other than the levcons, which I still feel are more for controlling the airflow into the inlets at varying alpha than anything else. I don't think they are there to "replace" the canards, like on some of the Flankers, because if you have TV, you don't need them.


What I do see is better optimization of the FCS based on the size of the vertical tails and a more reasonable approach to LO, but it is still proving expensive. Regardless, it appears it will be an excellent fighter design.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #176 on: January 16, 2013, 12:23:00 pm »
LEVCONs are being used for roll control as well
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 775
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #177 on: January 16, 2013, 12:45:18 pm »
I've yet to see any indications that the T-50 will have 3D TV and what I saw in the patent drawings was studied by the U.S. back in the 80s and discarded. Once again, "better" is something of a dangerous term. Sort of like, the YF-22 was more maneuverable than the YF-23, but it actually wasn't in the entire envelope and where it was wasn't exactly somewhere I would be worried about.
Assuming that a technology which was tested and rejected by one party cannot be put to very worthwhile use by someone else is also dangerous though :) By that logic, nobody should be bothered by helmet-mounted sights (VTAS) and high off-boresight AAMs (AIM-95) - or the F-22 fuselage configuration for that matter, which was studied by Sukhoi back in the 1990s (Su-47) and ultimately discarded for the PAK-FA  ;)

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #178 on: January 16, 2013, 12:50:28 pm »
Assuming that a technology which was tested and rejected by one party cannot be put to very worthwhile use by someone else is also dangerous though :) By that logic, nobody should be bothered by helmet-mounted sights (VTAS) and high off-boresight AAMs (AIM-95) - or the F-22 fuselage configuration for that matter, which was studied by Sukhoi back in the 1990s (Su-47) and ultimately discarded for the PAK-FA  ;)

I suspect PAK-FA configuration was selected in part to allow the maximum reuse of data and research originally gathered specifically for the Su-27/30/33/35 program, perhaps some tooling as well.  Su-47 would mean more original research.
 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 01:05:39 pm by chuck4 »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #179 on: January 16, 2013, 08:55:09 pm »
LEVCONs are being used for roll control as well

Thanks! The info is appreciated!

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #180 on: January 17, 2013, 06:30:38 am »
LEVCONs aren't simply fancy canards. They also "shift the center of lift" not only to and fro but also sideways and create initial deflection while working in concert with other large control surfaces - Synergism. I find it hard to swallow the idea that its agility and control software are anywhere inferior to its contemporaries.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #181 on: January 17, 2013, 07:19:26 am »
Moving Canards changes their own lift coefficients independently of the lift coefficient of the wings and tail surfaces. In other words, moving canards change center of lift exactly as you think levcon might do.    If canard can move differentially, that would move center of lift to one side or the other, again the same as what you think levcon does.   For that matter, ailerons, differential spoilers, elevators can all move center of lift front and back, and side to side.

In what way do normal canards and other control surfaces not move in "synergy"?

So I think there is a lot of bullshit hype surrounding levcons, but nothing really new.   It seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to get some of the benefits of canard while minimizing the RCS penalties of a normal canard.   


As to short, non-serpentine intake ducts, on stealth planes, there is a precedence.   Boeing x-32 had its engine forward of center of gravity, with an even bigger fan face prscticall under the pilot's ass,  fed by an even shorter duct under the chin.    The x-32 didn't lose to LM x-35 on account of stealth, so Boeing clearly came up with something that worked.    T-50's intake ducts could be at least as stealthy as those on the x-32.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 07:42:33 am by chuck4 »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #182 on: January 17, 2013, 07:38:58 am »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #183 on: January 17, 2013, 07:44:37 am »
The drooping axial symmetric exhaust nozzles in the video are indisputable evidence of 3D TV.


« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 07:53:38 am by chuck4 »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #184 on: January 17, 2013, 08:37:50 am »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #185 on: January 17, 2013, 08:51:50 am »
(c) OKB Sukhoi
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #186 on: January 17, 2013, 11:11:51 am »
I find it hard to swallow the idea that its agility and control software are anywhere inferior to its contemporaries.
Looking at Su-35S in real life it would seem to me whoever wrote the codes is a huge nerd.  :) It all looked very very complex.

Not to steal your thunder Flateric, but this is better quality although a bit smaller :P

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/471151/471151_original.jpg

He had high res of it it seems, but link died.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 11:55:11 am by flateric »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #187 on: January 17, 2013, 11:50:53 am »
My racecar with centerline mass will be much better handling than you're racecar with 2  mass located on the sides.
Tell that to Mr.Pugachev


"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1165
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #188 on: January 17, 2013, 07:57:56 pm »
The drooping axial symmetric exhaust nozzles in the video are indisputable evidence of 3D TV.

What?  The drooping nozzles by themselves would only be evidence of 2D TVC; you're only seeing them "operate" in pitch and can't tell how much they do or do not toe in towards the centerline when drooped.  The latter would be indicative of 3D TVC.  At any rate all you can tell from that video is that the nozzles move vertically and they relax when power is off.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #189 on: January 17, 2013, 08:47:24 pm »
The drooping axial symmetric exhaust nozzles in the video are indisputable evidence of 3D TV.

What?  The drooping nozzles by themselves would only be evidence of 2D TVC; you're only seeing them "operate" in pitch and can't tell how much they do or do not toe in towards the centerline when drooped.  The latter would be indicative of 3D TVC.  At any rate all you can tell from that video is that the nozzles move vertically and they relax when power is off.


It would be odd for the vectoring nozzle and the sleeve behind the nozzle to be axial symmetric if the nozzle is design to vector in one plane only.  In any case, look closer, in the drooped position the nozzles do toe in.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 08:51:22 pm by chuck4 »

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #190 on: January 17, 2013, 08:56:49 pm »
They are actually 2D. Just angled. Refer to posted patents
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #191 on: January 17, 2013, 09:25:42 pm »
They are actually 2D. Just angled. Refer to posted patents
Does anyone know for sure yet?

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #192 on: January 17, 2013, 09:27:57 pm »
Cool T-50 3 minute video with short demo and missile test at the end. Just mute the annoying music though.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/dmF4Ql1QgU8
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 10:16:47 pm by flateric »

Offline Kryptid

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 275
    • Unbuilt Aircraft Projects on Facebook.
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #193 on: January 17, 2013, 09:38:36 pm »
I'm pretty sure the missile launch footage was computer-generated. Admittedly, whoever made it did a bang-up excellent job.

In regards to the nozzles, being axisymmetric doesn't necessarily mean true 3D-vectoring. Look at the Su-30MKI.
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #194 on: January 17, 2013, 10:18:23 pm »
Does anyone know for sure yet?

for ages
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 10:20:19 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #195 on: January 17, 2013, 10:21:23 pm »
Cool T-50 3 minute video with short demo and missile test at the end.
it's pretty old CGI
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #196 on: January 18, 2013, 11:35:29 am »
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #197 on: January 25, 2013, 02:56:53 pm »
OK
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 06:08:18 am by Wil »

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #198 on: January 27, 2013, 02:39:52 pm »
From Paralay forum, a great work of Photoshop...!!

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #199 on: January 28, 2013, 01:58:31 am »
If it had flat nozzles it would be farther back
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2038
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #200 on: January 30, 2013, 07:43:00 am »
Flateric - but with widely separated 2D-movement, angled nozzles one can get 3D forces, correct?


Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #201 on: January 30, 2013, 09:14:20 am »
Widely separated angled 2D nozzles can generate a yaw input that non-angled 2D nozzles can't.   However, such yaw component would also be coupled to either roll force or pitch force.    You can't get yaw without also get one or both of the others.       Aerodynamic control surfaces must be deflected in order to counteract pitch or roll forces that is not desired for the present maneuver.   
 
So I'd say it is a hack that doesn't substitute for true 3D thrust vectoring.
 
Question:
 
If they can arrange for the entire 2D thrust vectoring nozzle to rotate on a circular bearing about the long axis of the engine, then that would be true 3D thrust vectoring.   Have the Russians tried this?   It seems to me the technology required to rotate a 2D TV nozzle would be much the same as the technology required to manufacture the nozzle on the Yak-141.
 
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 09:47:52 am by chuck4 »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #202 on: January 30, 2013, 10:29:30 am »
I doubt rotation would be as fast. The FCS would have to have a separate mode for all possible nozzle positions (in order to couple with aerodynamic controls)??  :o

...or is it just me.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #203 on: January 30, 2013, 10:48:18 am »
The FCS isn't "separate" from the TV. The TV itself would be part of the FCS. It's control laws should gurantee the optimum input of the control inputs based on the maneuvering required and the part of the flight envelope it is in. That would include the Levcons, the TV, Ailerons/flaperons, L.E. flaps, verticals tails and horizontal tails.
 
I'm wondering if one of the purposes of their TV design is to allow control of the aircraft without using the aerodynamic surfaces, to maximize stealth when maneuvering into position. Not hard maneuvering, but just flight course changes, since you get the combination of pitch, roll, and yaw with differential deflection. Sort of how a B-2 uses differential thrust to control yaw in "stealth" mode, only a more 3D version of that.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 04:35:30 pm by Sundog »

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #204 on: January 30, 2013, 11:05:48 am »
From Paralay forum, a great work of Photoshop...!!

Cool  B)
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline lancer21

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 286
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #205 on: February 05, 2013, 04:45:49 am »
PMI ( ex-FGFA) model from Aero India, courtesy Shiv Aroor @Livefist:



Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #206 on: February 05, 2013, 01:53:45 pm »
OK
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 06:07:42 am by Wil »

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #207 on: February 05, 2013, 04:46:31 pm »
T-50 is aerodinamically and structurally more advanced, maneuverable (and risky) design than F-22 using 15+ year gap in aerodynamic development. Just LO variable inlets, LEVCONs and "3D" TVC to mention.

I don't think 3D TVC in and of itself means more maneuverability, although the wide spacing of the engines on the T-50 will allow it to take advantage of 3D TVC. Also, doesn't the F-22 have some kind of leading edge device as well? I sometimes see lift vortex vapor being generated in front of the wings.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #208 on: February 05, 2013, 05:20:26 pm »

If you didn't notice, 3D was marked with " "
You can call it 2.5D TVC if you want.
Of course, Raptor has wing leading edge flaps. But it has not LEVCONs.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #209 on: February 16, 2013, 04:16:33 am »
OK
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 06:07:19 am by Wil »

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #210 on: February 16, 2013, 07:40:38 am »
I just wonder if there is any particular reason to cut off the bar with photographers name and id of the picture?
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #211 on: February 16, 2013, 08:31:08 am »
Wil, spotters who post at RussianPlanes, have a sport interest, too, as number of page hits counts among community.
You making this contest less 'fair play' while reposting them here in fulll size.
I'm not talking of removing (c) tab at the moment.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #212 on: February 16, 2013, 01:39:30 pm »
what is the hemispherical dorsal dome protruding from behind the canopy?   Is it the tracking aperture bulb for  some kind of up and rear viewing electrooptical sensor? 


what is the purpose of the big apparent openings on the canopy frame behind the back of the canopy transparency?



 
« Last Edit: February 16, 2013, 01:43:57 pm by chuck4 »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #213 on: February 16, 2013, 03:31:04 pm »
Ball (sometimes dubbed R2-D2) is a part of UOMZ 101KS EODASki (101KS-O) and according to some not only tracks targets/dangers but also serve as radiating DIRCM turret.
Vents behind the cockpit glass are for air conditioning system.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline JeffTracy

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 7
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #214 on: February 17, 2013, 02:19:30 am »
 

If you didn't notice, 3D was marked with " "
You can call it 2.5D TVC if you want.
Of course, Raptor has wing leading edge flaps. But it has not LEVCONs.

Canting the 2D nozzles in that way would appear to be of significant benefit during high alpha velocity vector rolls (when the small, all moving verticals would begin to loose effectiveness).
Roll right requires right roll, nose right yaw (otherwise you're Just changing alpha into sideslip) and pitch down to counter inertial coupling. Deflecting the left nozzle down would give moments in those directions.
Yaw and pitch authority can often be the limiting factors on high alpha roll rate.
I expect the levecons are useful in controlling the forebody vortex at high alpha. Almost looks like it's all been thought through!

Interesting that the company that was one of the first to put a HMS and HOBS missile on an operational aircraft are still very interested in high alpha agility.

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #215 on: February 18, 2013, 04:29:23 pm »
It's needed for short runways
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Maveric

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1711
  • Fight for yor Right!
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #217 on: March 07, 2013, 01:36:50 pm »
...from FliegerRevue...
I see you on the dark side of the moon.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #218 on: March 07, 2013, 04:44:18 pm »
As interesting as they are those drawings always crack me up.  It's not as though the manufacturer sends a copy of the engineering blueprints to the publisher. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #219 on: March 09, 2013, 04:05:12 pm »
Not badly drawn at all, thanks.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10755
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #220 on: March 09, 2013, 10:50:03 pm »
As interesting as they are those drawings always crack me up.  It's not as though the manufacturer sends a copy of the engineering blueprints to the publisher.


In fact, some are extremely accurate. Some of the artists have been able to wander around the production line viewing the assembly of the planes and have been supplied with relevant technical drawings. In other cases, the drawings were necessarily speculative (e.g. Soviet aircraft during the Cold War).
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #221 on: March 10, 2013, 07:43:48 pm »
Seems reasonably accurate to be honest
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #222 on: March 24, 2013, 06:57:43 am »
http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/227/2271964.html

Quote
The invention relates to aircraft equipment.  The device consists of two sections in the form of a skeleton with a grid, steered in the air intake ducts.  In the extended position is a gap between the sections, and the projection on the plane perpendicular to the air intake ducts, there is overlap the edges of the front section.  The first one is connected to the second section of the kinematic coupling, transmission shaft rotation, the first section of which is fixed and which is connected to a power drive shafts, which established the second section.  Each section consists of at least two parts and has at least one fold axis about which part of the section can be folded.  At the installation sites covering the air intake shaft has a panel.  Said invention is to increase the reliability of the protective device and improving maintainability.  Description: 6  f-ly, 4 ill.    The invention relates to aircraft equipment, in particular for structures air intakes (LA) equipped with protection device power plant against foreign objects.
  The need to install a safety device called the possibility of contact with air path powerplant foreign objects from the airfield pavement or small birds on takeoff, landing and taxiing of aircraft.  Getting used to eliminate various designs with grids.
  Grid of the type described in U.S. Patent number number 2931460, 3871844, 4833879 permanently fixed in the inlet power plant.  Such designs are the main modes of flight delayed submission to engines required air flow.
  Known construction of protective devices intakes of power plants, in which the grid attached to several segments of the circle (see U.S. patent number 2,695,074 number, 2623610, 2618358, 2704136, 2747685, 2709499, 2704136, 2835342, 2812036).  Segments like petals and released or moved between the retracted position actuators.  In the extended position the segments fit together and block the flow of air in the retracted position adjacent to the skin channel inlet.  Because the design of these contain a large number of segments, the following problems occur:
  - During installation, adjustment of the segments as in the issued and in the retracted position,
  - For each segment to be transferred from the control of the actuator, thus increasing the number of parts, complicated construction, reduced reliability and increased weight.
  Closest to the proposed solution is a retractable safety device for gas turbine engine air intake as described in U.S. patent number 2,944,631.  It can be used as a circular air intake and other forms, such as elliptical or rectangular.  Protective device consists of two sections, each of which is set to rotate relative to an axis across the channel inlet, so that in the extended position sections cover the entire channel, the front edge of the sections are closed to each other, the other edge of the sections merge with the walls of the channel inlet.  Sections have a framework that supports a grid designed to trap dirt and foreign objects.  In the retracted position, the sections are located outside the Flow-through, allowing air to pass freely in the power plant, so the shape of the sections corresponds to the shape of the channel walls intake so that they form parts of the channel wall.
  Axis on which sections are set, can be parallel or even match.  In a preferred (according to the authors of U.S. Patent number 2,944,631) variant section mounted on a common axis, located in the center of the channel across it, and the front edge of the sections meet in a plane containing said axis.  In this section are connected kinematically by rocker mechanism and turn actuator (hydraulic cylinder) attached to the edge of one of the sections.
  The design of such a safety device has the following drawbacks:
  - Difficult adjustment for the front edges of the closure of sections in the extended position and vpisyvaemosti them to bypass channel in the retracted position (no exact closing the front edges of the sections in this design may dirt into the engine, in the absence of the channel vpisyvaemosti may stall with protruding edges) ,
  - For closing the front edges must be strictly symmetrical surface of the channel walls in the area of ​​protective device, ie  cylindrical, conical, elliptical or rectangular,
  - The axis of rotation of the sections must lie in the same plane (in particular, be parallel or match)
  - Installation of both sections on a common axis of rotation complicates the construction site rotation sections
  - The design does not allow to be removed for repair only one section without disturbing the installation of another,
  - With a long, tapering to an input channel is difficult to remove a section through the inlet channel (need to remove the engine to dismantle sections of the channel),
  - Rocker mechanism to synchronize the rotation of sections has great friction and rods connected to the frame sections that are experiencing from this additional burden.
  The present invention is to increase the reliability of the protective device and improving maintainability of protective devices, in particular the elimination of problems associated with the need for closing the front edges of the sections and their removal from the channel.
  The problem is solved by using a safety device air intakes containing two sections, each of which is a frame with a fixed grid and it is set in the channel inlet to rotate so that the extended position sections cover the air intake section of the channel, and in the retracted position, the image fragments of the channel wall inlet, characterized in, that the said sections are set so that in the extended position is a gap between the sections and thus projected on a plane perpendicular to the channel inlet in a protective device, there is overlap the edges of the front section.
  Mentioned the possibility of turning the mentioned sections performed due to the fact that they were installed, each on its axis of rotation, and the mentioned gap and overlap formed by the selection of the relative position of these axes.
  Mentioned the possibility of turning the mentioned sections is realized due to the fact that the first of these sections is controlled actuator and is connected to the second section of the kinematic coupling, the use of simultaneous move partitions from the retracted position to the down position and back.
  Said control actuator first section is implemented so that the first section is mounted on shafts that rotate about the axis of rotation of the section, and that is connected to an actuator.
  The second section is mounted on shafts that rotate about the axis of rotation of this section, referred to as the kinematic linkage is designed so that it transmits the rotation shaft, which is fixed on the first section, the shafts on which are mounted the second section.
  Each section consists of at least two parts and has at least one folding axis about which parts of each section can be folded.
  At the installation sites mentioned trees lining the channel inlet has panel Retractable when turning sections mentioned in the down position.
  This solution enables:
  - To avoid any need for precise clamping front edges of sections, so as preventing dirt and foreign objects in the proposed closure of sections formed by the fact that the leading edge of one section is shifted relative to the front edge of the other sections to form the overlap
  - Shift of the same section from the edge of the other sections in the direction along the inlet channel to simplify control sections in the extended position, as  does not require a precise fit the edges,
  - Because  edges do not merge, attenuated form requirements of sections and form the channel inlet: they may not have symmetry, providing exact closing edges, so the channel can be asymmetrical,
  - By connecting the actuator to the shaft can pass the control effort on the turn of the sections by the shortest route and avoid strain sections, which occur when the actuator is connected to the edge of the section,
  - Spacing of the axes of rotation of sections protective device can accommodate between kinematic constraints and reliability synchronization turning sections
  - Due to the fact that the kinematic relationship transmits motion from shaft to shaft, to avoid deformation of the second section,
  - Greatly facilitate operation (taking out sections), the cover due to the fact that each of the sections mounted on a single axis of rotation, and each has an axis of folding.
  1 shows an air intake duct with the guard with a section in the retracted position in perspective.
  Figure 2 shows a longitudinal section of the channel with the guard with the sections in the retracted position.
  Figure 3 shows the channel inlet with a safety device with the sections in the extended position in perspective.
  4 shows a longitudinal section of the channel with the guard with the sections in the extended position.
  Protective device inlet LA contains two sections 1 and 2, each of which represents a 7 frame mounted thereon grid 3 and channel 4 is installed inside the air intake to pivot between a retracted position and released so that the extended position of section 1 and section 2 covers Channel 4 intake (see Figure 3, 4), and in the retracted - form a wall fragments inlet channel 4 (see Figure 2).
  Sections 1 and 2 are set as follows (see Figure 4), which is in the extended position is a gap between the sections of A (A is a gap that the leading edge of one section 1 does not touch the front edge of the other two sections, and vice versa) and that the projection a plane perpendicular to the channel inlet in a protective device, there is overlap the edges of the front section B (the presence of overlap means that the projections on this plane sections overlap each other near the front edges - overlap).  In the case shown in the figures, Section 1 is located above two sections and floors are made so that the front edge of the bottom section 6 2 offset from the front edge of the upper section 5 1 up.
  Ability to rotate the sections 1 and 2 carried out by the fact that they are set on the axes of rotation 9 and 10, respectively.  Each section mounted on the axis of rotation, ie,  axis 9 and 10 are not the same, and in general may be placed randomly with respect to each other (the indirect channel inlet axis 9 and 10 may be even not parallel).
  A gap and overlap B sections are formed by the selection of the location of the axes 9 and 10, so that is the location together with the form of the Section provides the required values ​​and the gap 7 and overlap B. Required size of the gap and overlap are determined experimentally.  4 shows the magnitude of the gap A is the distance between the front edges of the sections in a direction along the inlet channel, but as the overlap B - length of the segment on which the projections overlap of sections 1 and 2 in the plane perpendicular to the channel inlet.
  One section, for example, the first section 1, is controlled by actuator 11 and is connected to the second section 2 of the kinematic coupling 12, the use of simultaneous move partitions from the retracted position to the down position and back.
  Installation of sections 1 and 2 on the axes 9 and 10 is implemented in such a way that each side of section 1 is fixed at one of two coaxial shafts 13, which is the axis of rotation of the axis of rotation 9 section 1 and section 2 of each side - one of two coaxial shafts 14, which is the axis of rotation of the axis of rotation 10 of section 2.  Shafts 13 and 14 do not cover the air inlet duct 4.  Management section 1 is implemented so that the actuator 11 is connected to each of the shafts 13 and can rotate them.  This avoids distortions.  Kinematic relationship 12 installed on both sides of sections 1 and 2, and is designed so that it transmits the rotation shaft 13 to the shafts 14.
  Each section 1 and 2 consists of at least two parts and has a folding axis 15 about which parts of each section can be folded to reduce its size.  Folding can be done, for example, by shompolnogo connection axis 15.
  At the installation sites of shafts 13 and 14, covering the channel 4 has movable panels 16 and 17, entered in the contours of the inlet channel at the retracted position of sections 1 and 2 and Retractable when turning sections 1 and 2 in the down position.
  The gaps between the edges of sections 1 and 2 and a covering Channel 4 are so small that you can not foreign objects again in the channel 4.  Space 18 above the upper section 1 communicates with the space 19 with the bottom section 2 through the side channels 20 in the air intake frame for collection of foreign objects in the waste bin, 21, who is under the bottom section 2.  Location Collector 21 is selected under the lower section 2 so as to have got there things were not keen on the air flow in the power plant.  In a waste bin, 21 hatch 22 to retrieve debris.
  Protective device inlet works as follows.
  At rest before starting the engine, sections 1 and 2 safety device rotated about axes 9 and 10, respectively, due to the fact that the power drive 11 rotates the shaft 13, which is fixed at one section and kinematic relationship 12 passes this rotation shaft 14, which is fixed Section 2.  Section moved to the down position.
  When turning the sections 1 and 2 press on movable panels 16 and 17 casing 4 and channel them into the wall utaplivajut channel 4.
  In the extended position the cutting edge 6 of the second section two removed from a gap relative to the front edge of the first five sections 1 in the longitudinal direction (along the channel 4) and up to form the overlap in the vertical direction in the plane perpendicular to the air intake ducts in a protective device as described above and shown in the drawings.
  After starting the engine, and the movement of aircraft on the runway of the flow of air to the power plant, is on channel 4 through the air intake grid 3 sections 1 and 2.  Foreign objects in the power plant through a gap between sections 1 and 2 prevented by overlapping 8, because  overlap with a gap formed perpendicular profiled air inlet channel 4 channel that can not move objects that are moving in a stream of air and they themselves can not abruptly change its direction.  In this case, the heavier the foreign object, the less they are able to depart at the direction of air flow, thus less likely that they will pass through said shaped channel.
  After takeoff, the aircraft sections 1 and 2 actuator 11 are transferred to the retracted position.  The movement of the drive shafts 13 11 passed, and a kinematic linkage 12 - 14 shafts.  Therefore, sections 1 and 2 rotate and fit the contours of the channel 4.  Movable panels 16 and 17 casing channel 4 are once again flush with the skin of channel 4, closing the front edge of the 5 and 6, sections 1 and 2 in the field installation of shafts 13 and 14.
  In Transition sections 1 and 2 in the retracted position foreign objects from airfield pavement and small birds, detainees braid 3 sections 1 and 2, enter the space between 18 and 19, sections 1 and 2 and the wall of the air intake frame.  Foreign objects, arrested top section, after cleaning the side channels 20 fall into the waste container 21.  Items detained lower section 2, in the process of cleaning get there immediately.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #224 on: March 24, 2013, 07:53:48 am »
Seems reasonably accurate to be honest

How would you know?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #225 on: March 24, 2013, 09:13:22 am »
Good artist work, but w. many mistakes that could have been avoided using readily available open data and - that's not talking of weird missiles zoo.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10889
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #228 on: March 28, 2013, 09:10:57 am »
Have these been posted yet?  Are they even from the PAK-FA? (lifted from another forum, mods please delete if not kosher)






Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 580
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #229 on: March 28, 2013, 02:25:02 pm »
Have these been posted yet?  Are they even from the PAK-FA? (lifted from another forum, mods please delete if not kosher)

Quite some time ago (12+ months ago) - IIRC, they were indeed images of a PAK FA simulated cockpit, given away by it's large HUD and MFD's. The Su-35BM(aka S) shares a similar cockpit design, but utilises a different HUD.

Offline Machdiamond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 325
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #230 on: March 28, 2013, 02:49:49 pm »
As interesting as they are those drawings always crack me up.  It's not as though the manufacturer sends a copy of the engineering blueprints to the publisher.
Don't know about this specific case but I have actually witnessed one published by Flight International in the late 80's. The guy who created it was at the manufacturer site for two weeks with access to all engineering drawings he wanted and the result was pretty decent in terms of accuracy.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 802
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #231 on: March 28, 2013, 03:58:14 pm »
Didn't T-50 have side stick controls?

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #232 on: March 28, 2013, 08:00:05 pm »
That's only for the Su-47.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #233 on: March 29, 2013, 03:34:43 pm »
The pictures are old, but they were uploaded recently. We might as well post the source, which is:

http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/korotchenko-rusarms/album/287888/?p=1

The pictures are from Sukhoi OKB, they have several T-50 stands there and T-50-0 is also located there.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #234 on: March 29, 2013, 04:10:58 pm »
photos were made during Putin's visit to Sukhoi on March 1, 2010
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #235 on: April 11, 2013, 04:15:32 am »
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/04/10/253004.html
Quote
One of the biggest challenges currently facing the Russian aircraft engine is a development of the second stage engine for the aircraft PAK FA (T-50). Most of the work on the creation of this engine performs Rybinsk "Saturn."
 
 About that, at what stage is the creation of the engine, which features the new aircraft will become the "heart" told "Interfax-AVN" chief designer "Saturn" Yuri SHMOTIN.
 
 - Yuri, tell us what should be the engine for the fifth generation fighter aircraft? What are its main features?
 
 - The plane of the fifth generation T-50 is not just a fighter, bomber or attack aircraft. This multi-purpose aircraft. Such aircraft should be given a new "heart", which would make it highly maneuverable, fast, cost-effective and able to withstand such competitors as American F-22 and F-35.
 
 Engine for the fifth generation fighter aircraft will be different from the previous generation increased specific thrust, lower weight, reduced specific fuel consumption and the presence of new solutions for low visibility. In this case, it should be relatively cheap to operate and maintain. "Saturn" is currently working on such an engine.
 
 - What units and aggregates of the new engine is given special attention in the development? What is the greatest challenge for the engineers?
 

 - In aircraft engines, everything is important. One of the most complicated engine components is a high-pressure turbine. We were asked to make a turbine operating at this level of temperature at which the metal nickel alloys just melted. This work was successful.
 
 The heart of an aircraft engine is a high-pressure compressor. Of its level of excellence is directly dependent all basic characteristics of the engine. The amount of detail in the new high-pressure compressor, we have managed to reduce by almost half compared with the previous stage of the compressor, while providing a significant performance increase by one level. The cost of making such a compressor will not exceed the cost of making HPC engine fourth generation. This is subject to the application of new materials and technologies.
 
 Solving these and other problems, we will get to a gas generator with a new level of performance, which will be the basis for a new family of engines. Characteristics of the gas generator units, such as the effectiveness of the ARC, increased on average by more than four percent, and on a number of modes and eight. In fact, it is a revolution in engine, because determines the possibility of the engine with a huge reserve of development for traction.
 
 - What structural materials preferred for a new engine?
 
 - No of new materials is impossible to provide the characteristics that we make to the new generation of CCD. The specialists of "Saturn" is a good experience and the impact of new materials developed by the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Aviation Materials (VIAM).
 
 First of all, it is, of course, high-temperature nickel alloys spade. Turbine blade - it is a unique product. It is a complex spatial structure, which must operate at temperatures above 2000 K.
 
 There are also proprietary materials "Saturn." We can offer them for a new generation engine. These materials make it possible to increase the half life of the engine at the same temperatures.
 
 Today much is said about the use of composite materials. The new engine for the PAK FA used composites that are based not only on the polymer matrix to the cold part, and parts by the high-temperature compositions. These works "Saturn" is already long enough.
 
 - Do not forget that all new and modern with the time expires. Is there a possibility of the engine created for modernization?
 
 - Of course. Concurrently with the development work on the engine of the fifth generation we build backlog, which will develop the engine is not only ten, but at 30, maybe 50 years.
 
 Today, the "Saturn" conducted extensive research on the development of fifth-generation engine with the use of a technology called "variable cycle engine." The studies, which suggest that a certain transformation engine thermodynamics through design changes can significantly improve engine performance at subsonic and supersonic flight conditions. One of these transformations can be the use of the third circuit. All this is provided.
 
 - How will affect the installation of new engines for flight characteristics of fifth generation fighter? Feel a difference pilot peresevshy the plane with the engine of the first stage on the plane with the engine of the second stage?
 

 - The new engine is fundamentally different from the previous product of the first stage. Of course, the pilot will immediately feel the difference in traction. The plane with the new engine will be more docile and can quickly react to the pilot. In fact, the engine of the second stage is to give the T-50 aircraft to a new life.
 
 - Yuri, we know that the PAK FA is already being tested. What engines are equipped with the first prototypes?
 
 Now prototype completed the first phase of the motor, which in engineering circles is known as the product 117. In essence, this is the result of a deep family AL-31, which is installed on the aircraft today the Su-27.
 
 Certainly, it's a great engine, which is a best seller and is built on the fundamental principles and basic ideas of the design office Arkhip Cradles. But this is still the engine stage 4 + +.
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #236 on: April 30, 2013, 04:38:32 am »
Quote
UMPO demonstrated the first examples of intermetallic blade at the exhibition of innovative projects in Moscow
 "Ufa Engine Industrial Association" has demonstrated the first examples of a high-pressure compressor blades promising engine for the PAK FA to show the results of the federal program, which took place on 25-27 April in the "Forum Hall" (Moscow).  All parts are made of a unique way of casting intermetallic compound (an alloy of titanium and aluminum - titanium aluminide).  Its advantage is that, while maintaining the strength characteristics of the blade from titanium aluminide much lighter than similar parts made by injection molding technology previously used nickel alloys.  This is the result of joint work UMPO and the National Research Technological University "Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys" in the framework of the Federal Target Program "Research and development on priority directions of scientific-technological complex of the Russian Federation in 2007 - 2013 years."

  In addition to ready-made blades, the stand of association was presented a demonstration model of the process of manufacturing a rotor blade turbine low pressure PD-14 engine, which is currently being developed at the company.

  "Ufa Engine Industrial Association" - the largest manufacturer of aircraft engines in Russia.  Sales revenues in 2011 amounted to 20,562 million rubles.  The principal activities are the manufacture, maintenance and repair of turbine aircraft engines and gas pumping units, production and repair of units helicopters.  "UMPO" is part of the "United Engine Building Corporation" - 100% specialized subsidiary of JSC "OPK" Oboronprom "for engine assets. Association is a member of the All-Russian public organization" Russian Engineering Union "of Bashkortostan regional office with which Mr. 24.01.2012 . headed by Managing Director of JSC "Ufa Engine Industrial Association" AV Artukhov.

  JSC "OPK" Oboronprom "- multi-profile industrial and investment group established in 2002. Included in the GC" Russian Technologies ". Main activities: helicopter building (OJSC" Russian Helicopters "), engine building (MC" United Engine Corporation "), other assets . Revenue enterprises in 2011 exceeded 229 billion rubles.
http://www.aviaport.ru/digest/2013/04/29/254263.html
 
this maybe? http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/239/2396366.html
« Last Edit: April 30, 2013, 04:43:59 am by saintkatanalegacy »
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #237 on: May 12, 2013, 04:14:22 pm »

Hello boys!!


Two size comparisons: Su-27/PAK FA and F-22/PAKFA


interesting... interesting...


(From Paralay)


Best wishes!

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #238 on: May 16, 2013, 12:24:53 pm »

Hello!


Another comparison of sizes, from Paralay.
...and a new pic! Enjoy!


http://russianplanes.net/images/to108000/107398.jpg
« Last Edit: May 16, 2013, 12:31:24 pm by Wil »

Offline Wil

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #239 on: May 18, 2013, 11:40:09 am »
Hi!

Just a nice pic...

http://russianplanes.net/id107085

 :-*

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #240 on: June 13, 2013, 04:55:43 am »
Getting a bit slow here i see...

Excellent video released, showing T-50-1 during high AoA trails and other snacks:



Sum up of the video:

- They claim more than 500 flights has been made. I firmly believe that is a big pile of malarky. Correct number is around 300.
- They claim that top speed is 500 km more than F-22, and say that T-50's top speed is 2500 km. I don't think i need to point out just how BS that is.
- It is also claimed that T-50 is lighter and has greater range than F-22, which sounds correct.
- T-50 exceeded expectations, in for example supercruise and super maneuverability.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1833
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #241 on: June 13, 2013, 05:25:34 am »
It is nice to see that security around the video footage is becoming more relaxed.

The big surprise for me is that it sounds like they are 'a stone's throw' from it being optionally manned.

Of course, Buran had similar capabilities a long time ago - but without sensor fusion, automatic target identification (and prioritisation?) and the complex flight envelope.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #242 on: June 13, 2013, 06:03:28 pm »
Have they begun weapons separation tests? At around the 2:40 mark in the video when the T-50 does the flyby, it looks like it has a camera pod attached under the right (Left side since it's from the front) of the engine/intake nacelle.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #243 on: June 13, 2013, 11:55:30 pm »
not yet, it won't happen until test articles will be moved to GLITz
this is not camera, but right MLG door that don't want to close as fast as left one did
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #244 on: June 14, 2013, 03:16:42 am »
As for the max speed of Mach 2.1 to 2.35, is that with current engines or the product 30 engines? I'd imagine that the future product 30 can bump up the T-50's max speed up.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #245 on: June 14, 2013, 03:33:45 am »
As for the max speed of Mach 2.1 to 2.35, is that with current engines or the product 30 engines? I'd imagine that the future product 30 can bump up the T-50's max speed up.

Just because you put in more power doesn't mean you can go faster. Structural limits doesn't change. Take this with a huge grain salt, as accuracy of this is around rumor level:

Quote
Так на испытаниях этой весной при полной загрузке топливом и массагабаритными макетами вооружений 4й борт взлетел с 310 метров, достиг крейсерской скорости 2135кмч и максимальной 2610кмч, при этом был еще потенциал по разгону, а так же забрался на 24300 метров - дальше не пустили.

Quote
This spring fully loaded with fuel and dummy weapons 4th board took off from the 310 meters, has reached cruising speed of 2135 km/h and maximum speed of 2610km/h, there were also potential for more, and also climbed to 24,300 meters - wasn't allowed higher.

Information is from a second hand source, but originally it is from radioscanners apparently. As said, take with a lot of salt.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #246 on: June 15, 2013, 12:30:19 pm »
not yet, it won't happen until test articles will be moved to GLITz
this is not camera, but right MLG door that don't want to close as fast as left one did

OK, thanks, that makes sense.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #247 on: June 15, 2013, 01:13:37 pm »
not yet, it won't happen until test articles will be moved to GLITz
this is not camera, but right MLG door that don't want to close as fast as left one did

Not only that, but it is also seemingly battling an internal issue if it should or shouldn't.  :P (it goes back and forth) 
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline antigravite

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #248 on: June 29, 2013, 02:58:50 pm »
Definitely needs to be associated to another thread. Let's start it up here. Moderator move it where it belongs to. PAK-FA related, maybe?


A.


http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument;jsessionid=E6C64B978975E303EAB9D13B3266C702.espacenet_levelx_prod_2?FT=D&date=20130605&DB=&&CC=EP&NR=2599719A1&KC=A1&ND=1&locale=en_EP
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 04:28:50 am by flateric »
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
L e t   b o l d s   b e   l i g h t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #249 on: July 07, 2013, 05:19:45 am »
Have the other patents been formally translated as well?

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #250 on: July 13, 2013, 12:11:56 am »
As for the max speed of Mach 2.1 to 2.35, is that with current engines or the product 30 engines? I'd imagine that the future product 30 can bump up the T-50's max speed up.

Just because you put in more power doesn't mean you can go faster. Structural limits doesn't change. Take this with a huge grain salt, as accuracy of this is around rumor level:

Quote
Так на испытаниях этой весной при полной загрузке топливом и массагабаритными макетами вооружений 4й борт взлетел с 310 метров, достиг крейсерской скорости 2135кмч и максимальной 2610кмч, при этом был еще потенциал по разгону, а так же забрался на 24300 метров - дальше не пустили.

Quote
This spring fully loaded with fuel and dummy weapons 4th board took off from the 310 meters, has reached cruising speed of 2135 km/h and maximum speed of 2610km/h, there were also potential for more, and also climbed to 24,300 meters - wasn't allowed higher.

Information is from a second hand source, but originally it is from radioscanners apparently. As said, take with a lot of salt.

I am definitely taking the 2610 km/h claim with a grain of salt. Especially when flateric said pretty assertively that max speed was supposed to be between 2135 km/h and 2300 km/h, lowered from the initial 2500 km/h requirement. Unless flateric is deliberately downplaying the PAK-FA's capabilities. It's also quite possible that the PAK-FA vastly exceeds the requirements. After all, its high speed performance is better than expected.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9717.msg144759.html#msg144759
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 03:41:30 am by Radical »

Offline EricChase88

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 84
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #251 on: July 14, 2013, 11:39:30 pm »
At first F-22 stated top speed and supercruise speed was also lower for a long time than now. It should be no surprise if T-50 is substantially faster than currently stated. F-22 exceeded requirements so I don't see why T-50 cannot.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2013, 01:33:45 am by EricChase88 »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #252 on: July 15, 2013, 01:17:26 am »
Because of construction materials T limits, as it was said many times.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #253 on: July 19, 2013, 02:11:15 am »
I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2013, 04:48:03 pm by Radical »

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #254 on: July 19, 2013, 08:47:00 am »
At first F-22 stated top speed and supercruise speed was also lower for a long time than now. It should be no surprise if T-50 is substantially faster than currently stated. F-22 exceeded requirements so I don't see why T-50 cannot.

What is the purpose of posting non sequiturs, especially for things we already established, in a thread that is trying to get facts over rumors?  :o

All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #255 on: July 19, 2013, 06:34:34 pm »
I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?


This thread is brought to you by the letter P. P for prototype
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline saintkatanalegacy

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 718
  • Little Miss Whiffologist
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #256 on: July 19, 2013, 06:51:00 pm »
Quote

[/size]On the engine for the PAK FA
[/size]
[/size]Reporters asked about the future fifth-generation fighter engine being developed for the program "promising aviation complex tactical aircraft" (PAK FA), Fedorov noted that work is being done extremely well under the leadership of chief designer STC them. Arkhip Cradles Eugene Marchukova.Design Bureau NPO "Saturn", headed by chief designer Yuri Shmotinym, did a great job on the new gas generator engine characteristics have turned out much better than expected by the customer. Now comes the final configuration of the motor and coordination with the Yakovlev Design Bureau. Sukhoi asks on placing the engine on the aircraft. President of JSC "UAC" Mikhail Pogosyan puts a condition that the engine installed in the aircraft without any change in the support (now at T-50 or PAK FA fighter jet engines are installed ed. "117" before the new engine). Installing the engine of the second stage will dramatically increase the speed of the aircraft, as the increase thrust and acceleration, in addition, the engine will be easier to maintain.
[/size]
[/size]It should be noted that one of the conditions for the developer fighter is the price of a new engine - it should not be higher than the price of the engine, "izd. 117", which is set today, and this demand will be met and maintained. The engine in the production of the most cost-effective when it is released in large series, as it is today, for example, the engine AL-31 FP / FN in Moscow "Salyut" and Ufa MPO. Today, there is confidence that even at half of the series, which now is, the production of the new engine will be cost-effective. Now an estimated price corresponds to the engine "izd.117."
[/size]
[size=78%]http://vpk.name/news/93188_presskonferenciya_npo_saturn.html[/size][/size][/font]
風 Swift as the wind
林 Quiet as the forest
火 Conquer like the fire
山 Steady as the mountain

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #257 on: July 19, 2013, 09:44:03 pm »
Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?

They're most likely towed in to minimize drag during supercruise. At supersonic speeds, the flow tends to be conical off of the nose, so having the nacelles angled aligns them with the airflow at it's main design point within the flight envelope. I don't think they would angle them for engine out since they have 3D TV to adjust the thrust vector of the operating engine for such situations.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8537
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #258 on: July 20, 2013, 01:15:50 am »
Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?
That's exactly the reason given in patent application (that makes one wonder why people lazy to read things), but as Sundog says, it has multiple pros.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 01:19:21 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 823
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #259 on: July 20, 2013, 03:02:31 am »
I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Compared X-35 and F-35 lately? Or F-22 and YF-22?
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Radical

  • Guest
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #260 on: July 20, 2013, 09:39:48 am »
Also, what's the reason for the engines to be towed in? Safety in case of one engine out?

They're most likely towed in to minimize drag during supercruise. At supersonic speeds, the flow tends to be conical off of the nose, so having the nacelles angled aligns them with the airflow at it's main design point within the flight envelope. I don't think they would angle them for engine out since they have 3D TV to adjust the thrust vector of the operating engine for such situations.

I thought the TV isn't really 3D, but 2D with plane of rotation angled from the vertical? As a side note, does the EMD F-23 tow it's engines out to do the same?

I might be naive in asking this, but why are there so many square/rectangular panels (i.e. edges facing the front), especially on the top side? Isn't that detrimental for stealth? When you look at the F-35, F-22, and B-2, there are very few (if any) panels with edges facing the front. Maybe this is just a stopgap for pre-production airframes?

Compared X-35 and F-35 lately? Or F-22 and YF-22?

Given that production of the PAK-FA will start soon, I think the more relevant comparison is with the EMD F-22 and F-35, not YF-22 and X-35. This isn't just with the T-50, J-20 also has a lot of panels and lines facing the front.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2013, 09:51:37 am by Radical »

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Sukhoi T-50 Su-50 PAK FA - flight testing and development Part II
« Reply #261 on: July 20, 2013, 11:06:25 am »
Given that production of the PAK-FA will start soon,