Sukhoi Su-24BM / T-60 / T-60S / izdeliye 54 tactical bombers

sferrin said:
Anybody know what this is? The reason I put it here is because I've seen the T-60 designation attached to it at some time in the past.
Click to expand...

It's a nice piece of imagination, but that's all I'd class it as. It's got a number of LO features but it's also got some features that are built-in radar reflectors unless there's some very careful choices of materials. Additionally, to my eye those inlets look rather on the long side and even the B-2's inlets were no longer than necessary.
 
The 1996 Flight illustration was pretty much one of fancy and little else - cost the mag a few bob, and a little bit of gentle ribbing!
 
Maybe I should print out some of these sketches and take them to Farnborough and ask Sukhoi guys which one looks most like T-60S

;D
 
T-4M-MS design evolution, for reference.

Source:

Ildar Beretdinov, T-4
 

Attachments

  • T-4MSa.jpg
    T-4MSa.jpg
    121.3 KB · Views: 988
  • T-4MSb.jpg
    T-4MSb.jpg
    105.2 KB · Views: 766
I must add that Matej's drawing based on something more concrete than thoughts how it can look like.
 
This T-54 reminds me of that YF-23 derived 2 seat delta winged a/c that had some drawings floating around once. Or at least I think it does from what I recall.


Matej said:
Preview of unfinished T-54 drawing. Please NO QUESTIONS (adressed to me).
Click to expand...
 
Matej, this is a fascinating drawing. I'm embarassed to admit how long I have been looking at it :D

What I can't figure out is how the VG wing folds ... does it disappear into the fuselage? Or does it store underneath the swept wing? I'm trying to imagine the airflow across the wing in its swept position.

In the TsNII drawing, it seems the VG wing folds up against the swept wing, so that the two wings basically become one wing when the VG is swept. In Matej's drawing, it appears the VG wing goes completely under the swept wing ... is this the difference between the T-54 and the T-60?


--Gavin.
 
Great artwork, Mato.

Wings have swept angle of 70-80 at maximum, i.e almost parallel to a/c center line, and were moved to specially profiled niches underneath the fuselage. Why this swept angle is not corresponding with swept angle of a core airframe - may be because if niches' edges have less sweep, it would affect aerodynamics, I don't know.
T-60 had the same weird VG wing construction. Month ago I heard nothing about T-54 at all, and only knew that T-60 itself was a construction advocated by TzAGI as their view on how T-4MC would evolve, and 'pushed' to Sukhoi while hi-ranked bureau staff (Oleg Samoilivitch to be named in a first row, for me he always will be Russian Ben Rich) was not very happy with some idiotic technical decisions it has (this weird VG wing construction and two-path engines). Remember, that after angry Simonov left Sukhoi and became MAP vice-minister, he went with idea that TzAGI must design airplanes, and design bureaus must build them...
Status of T-54 program - was it child of Sukhoi itself, or again, TzAGIs enfant terrible - is not known, but logically, it's the second one.
 
Should I take this drawing to Farnborough and show it to any Sukhoi people I find?

Might get an interesting response...

;D
 
Paul...do not think it would lead to any results. At least good ones. Time of openess - sometimes stupid - of beginning of 90s - is gone forever. Comments you will receive will be not far from these I've described several posts above. Moreover, they would begin to dig the leak source, and it would not be any good for yellow muppet.
 
Matej; doesn't your wing overlap the bomb bay when fully back? That would be a bad feature ;)
 
Wingы overlapping weapon bays and surely main landing gears doors are mystery for us. While second looks logical (a/c could not land anyway with wings fully swept back), first mystery is just a question of geometric parameters. Note that all we we have is very simplistic description of T-54 mockup.
 
overscan said:
Matej; doesn't your wing overlap the bomb bay when fully back? That would be a bad feature ;)
Click to expand...

I never said that I like this design. Its not only bomb bay (I think that it should be placed between cockpit and VG wing), but also what can pilot do, when the hydraulic system of VG fail? He wont be able to deploy main landing gear during emergency landing. Also what with situation during changing wing swept when turbulence push the wing against fuselage and it will do contact?

BTW, variable level double path jet isnt also a genial idea.
 
Matej said:
BTW, variable level double path jet isnt also a genial idea.
Click to expand...

Can someone explain what this "double path jet" is? I asked already earlier in this thread. :)
 
It's Kolosov OKBs point of view how variable bypass engine would look like (remember GE F-120 with its VABI technology) - but in a Soviet way of thinking.
 

Attachments

  • 2tube.jpg
    2tube.jpg
    69.8 KB · Views: 669
That does remind me of some of the Tandem-fan concepts Vought studied. Not that bad an idea, really, and the lift fan system for the F-35B could be considered a limited case example of this.
 
Am I correct in thinking then that the point of such an engine is to have two cores, and use only one of them for economic cruise, switching to dual core operation when necessary for takeoff or for supersonic flight?

Wouldn't the engine therefore be rather oversupplied with air in the single core mode?

I think I agree with Oleg Samolovich on this "innovation".
 
Its clearly shown in flaterics picture. The main idea was to combine advantages of turbofan and turbojet. During cruise, engine is activated in high bypass ratio turbofan mode to save fuel. When needed, it can be switched to turbojet mode, when bypassing air is pressed to second turbojet, so virtually you will have two turbojets with low bypass ratio and high thrust instead of one turbofan.

Good idea on the paper, but very complicated in real.
 
So how many cores the T-60S would have if it was a twin-engine design, as usually descriebed? Two or four? ???
 
Matej said:
Its clearly shown in flaterics picture. The main idea was to combine advantages of turbofan and turbojet. During cruise, engine is activated in high bypass ratio turbofan mode to save fuel. When needed, it can be switched to turbojet mode, when bypassing air is pressed to second turbojet, so virtually you will have two turbojets with low bypass ratio and high thrust instead of one turbofan.

Good idea on the paper, but very complicated in real.
Click to expand...

Hey this is the kind of engines which the Concorde successor would used. Low-noise turbofans at take off, changing into a high-efficiency turbojets at mach-2.
 
And GE combined all that stuff in one core already in 1978.
 
Even better! This mean that the future SST engine is ready (what the name of the engine?)
So what the company wait to make a concorde successor? Ten years ago, a 550 passengers airliner seemed as doubtfull as the future SST...
sorry to hijack the thread. Lets go back to the T-60S
 
With the help of paralay, now I can present modified T-60 history.

1. OKB Sukhoi is working on advanced Su-24BM modification.
2. In 1981 program B-90 started. Simonov pressed the initiative that TsAGI should develop the new planes and OKBs must build them.
3. (1982) T-4MS derived project transferred from TsAGI to OKB Sukhoi, where it received designation T-54. Oleg Samojlovich became chief designer.
4. In OKB Su, people are unhappy with, ehm, stupid solution applied on T-54 like VG wings under fuselage or two-path engines. It also killed further works on Su-24BM, so plane was completely redesigned as Sukhoi T-60.
5. In 1985, Samojlovich moved to OKB MiG and used T-60 scheme as basis of new MiG 70.1 heavy interceptor. There is attempt to use the same airframe for tactical bomber.
6. In 1987 - 1988 project was once again reworked as T-60S (S means serial - production). In Novosibirsk aviation plant started construction of a prototype. But the model didnt pass the TsAGI tests and was once again (third time!!!) reworked and once again put into production.
7. Some activity was done in 1991 - 1992 under development of a new perspective bomber.
8. The program is officially closed in 1992. Some things indicates, that it is connected with development interruption of AL-41F, so the final version of the T-60S should be powered by this engines.
9. In 2006, guys from secretprojects forum presented as first worldwide this story publicly. ;) :D
 
Matej said:
5. In 1985, Samojlovich moved to OKB MiG and used T-60 scheme as basis of new MiG 70.1 heavy interceptor. There is attempt to use the same airframe for tactical bomber.
Click to expand...

This single statement makes the entire connection between the "701" and the T-60S very clear.

Thank you.
 
TinWing said:
Matej said:
5. In 1985, Samojlovich moved to OKB MiG and used T-60 scheme as basis of new MiG 70.1 heavy interceptor. There is attempt to use the same airframe for tactical bomber.
Click to expand...

This single statement makes the entire connection between the "701" and the T-60S very clear.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

But - at least I can't see any clear connection in the outward appearance of the T-60S and Product 701. ???
This has been on paralay's site for some time already, and I found it somewhat questionable. Can someone of you enlighten me?
 
Well, most of the conceptual drawings we've seen attributed to the T-60S maybe were actually depicting the T-54? Take a T-54, change a few things to get the T-60, and then really change things and get the T-60S, and you could potentially go from a T-54 design to the 701. I might throw something together depicting this, I have a few ideas of what might have been done.
 
Meteorit said:
But - at least I can't see any clear connection in the outward appearance of the T-60S and Product 701. ???
This has been on paralay's site for some time already, and I found it somewhat questionable. Can someone of you enlighten me?
Click to expand...

This is "redesigned T-54" (in fact completely new design, only the cockpit remained the same and was later used on Su-34) and from this design was derived MiG 70.1 On the left is official conceptual drawing and on the right more accurate paralays drawing.
 

Attachments

  • T-60.JPG
    T-60.JPG
    22.6 KB · Views: 2,752
Apologies for me being so suspicious, but how do you know the drawing is official? And is it from MiG or Sukhoi?
 
Official figure of supersonic passenger self-summer on the basis of the project 701.
 

Attachments

  • 701P.gif
    701P.gif
    20.2 KB · Views: 670
wow. Some weeks ago, we talked about the MiG 701 here (or on the whatif modelers forum?). Looking at the cockpit of the 701, I thought "this look like a Su-34... maybe we can use it as basis?"
And now, I read that

"This is "redesigned T-54" (in fact completely new design, only the cockpit remained the same and was later used on Su-34) and from this design was derived MiG 70.1"

cool ;D
 
paralay said:
Official figure of supersonic passenger self-summer on the basis of the project 701.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. (See http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=29.0)
Once again, this has been thought to be the most accurate depiction of 701:

index.php


So, canard or no canard?
 
Meteorit said:
So, canard or no canard?
Click to expand...

Maybe this is the problem for a lot of people:

index.php


But it has nothing to do with real MiG 70.1. This wooden model was as also overscan said created only for Tony Buttlers book Secret Projects. And the basis was very old scatchy drawing made by Piotr Butowski.

So it means: T-60 canards, MiG 70.1 without canards
 
So it seems that the picture on left side of Matej's reply #71 that was dismissed as being just a bad illustration of the Mikoyan 701 really depicts the T-60S (as was originally claimed).
I presume the T-60S thus wouldn't have had VG wing nor dual-core engines.
 
Well, the Su-24BM went from VG to fixed wing as well, so its certainly possible.

I hadn't heard that Samolovich went to Mikoyan- when was this? Is it mentioned in his memoirs?
 
Yes, it was in May 1985 after Simonov returned to Sukhoi, Silaev forced Samoilovitch to leave OKB with offer to go to yakovlev, TzAGI or MiG. He went to MiG with losing his position from assistant to General designer to assistant to Chief Designer.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom