Sukhoi Su-24BM2 / T-60 / izdeliye 54 tactical bombers

Matej said:
Of course, only T-54 had doble path jet engines, they were quickly abadoned and T-60 had conventional.
Click to expand...

Hm, T-60 had this weird two-tube stuff, Mato. And I'm not sure if T-54 had.
 
So why it was so many times redesigned? Wasnt the goal of the first redesignation elimination of this engines and VG wigns under fuselage? ???
 
After some simple computing (with help of people around me) I realized that VG wings that I draw were uselessly big. So if they should be smaller, I was able to move them backward and that created much space in the center of fuselage. On the other hand, problems with landing gear are worse now. But in non-engineering point of view, it looks nicer now :)
 

Attachments

  • T-54small.jpg
    T-54small.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 936
I know, as was done this figure moreover, I advised the artist

Configuration is similar, but it is not precise. Everything which is said about T -60 - according to larger degree correctly. But then project was reworked, after receiving the new designation T-54 of form they became not simply more beautiful and more elegant, they became those more chopped as to F -117. when I still it worked in Sukhoi OKB, in it went several projects:

S-37 (supersonic attack aircraft according to canard configuration. Greatly resembled Swedish "Grippen", about which constantly they poked on all NTS. but machine it was simple lovely sight!);
T-54;
Su-27KM (then S-32, and now known as S-37 "Berkut");
Su-27V (the present Su-32).

So here I somehow asked Antonov (then, in the beginning 1990- X, it was zam.nachal'nika of division 100, who although is a little familiar with Sukhoi OKB, it wonderfully knows Antonov's role in all developments KB of the last 30 years) about the machines T-54 and Su-27KM, it answered as follows: Su-27km this is a good aircraft, which in the process design has a tendency the shape of altogether only by not bad aircraft. But T-54 - this is the very good aircraft, which because of the last demands of customer drifts from very good to the simply good aircraft, but we this resist!"

Who does not know - Antonov together with Bondarenko "tied" T -10 (Su-27), and it the actual author the father not only of all modifications Su-27, but also generally all studies in the dry of the last 30 years. But in order to understand its scale of estimations/evaluations, I can say - Su-27 (T -10s) - this very good, and for example, heavier ship Su-27K - simply good aircraft. In KB of dry Antonov - indisputable authority; therefore if he described T -54 as very good, then this means that this is unique, stage aircraft.

However, concerning Su-32, which allegedly replaced with T -54, one matter the completely new, specialized and optimized under the purposeful/target task aircraft, and another - cheaper modification under the similar tasks of the aircraft of the foregoing generation.
Click to expand...

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1406&start=885&sid=ccf71dd6a19813ed5388113f8ef2f632
 
A recent drawing from paralay's site at http://paralay.narod.ru/t60.html. I'm posting it here because narod.ru seems to have problems with files over 100 kB (at least for me).

Anyway, I still wonder whether this drawing best represents the T-54, T-60, or T-60S?
 

Attachments

  • T-54.jpg
    T-54.jpg
    405.7 KB · Views: 2,096
According to the ex-Sukhoi employee, T-54 succeeded the T-60S project - perhaps when the T-60S designation became public (the same thing happened when S-32 designation appeared in public, and Sukhoi changed S-32 to S-37.
 
So instead of

T-54 -> T-60 -> T-60S -> second T-60S

it should be

T-60 -> T-60S -> second T-60S -> T-54

and thus paralay's drawing would represent the T-54 with AL-41F engines and somewhat altered wing system.
And the T-60 would be something like Matej's drawings, with wings sweeping under the fuselage and those 'double-path' engines.
And the T-60S would be the MiG 701 look-alike with fixed wing and canards.

Did I get it right to at least some degree? :)

Oh, and which of the above would have had the B-2 style intakes?
 
My drawing represents the initial design transferred from TsAGI to OKB Sukhoi. No matter its number.

Paralay maybe tried to draw, how final design from early 90s should look like.
 
Paralay's drawing seems to be based on this drawing, which is reportedly from TsAGI. But like Metej said, it seems to represent a more advanced stage of the design than the drawing he posted.

Paralay's versian is interesting, but the air intakes don't seem quite right. Too small, and maybe located where the air flow would be greatly disturbed by the wing.

--Gavin.
 

Attachments

  • t60s2.jpg
    t60s2.jpg
    21.7 KB · Views: 783
http://www.aeroreview.ru/?/pages/ako/ako_200501_032037/ako_200501_032037.htm
 

Attachments

  • T-6BM 1977-1981.jpg
    T-6BM 1977-1981.jpg
    10.8 KB · Views: 990
  • T-54 1985-1992.jpg
    T-54 1985-1992.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 1,045
Very interesting ... but can anyone help with a translation ???

Thanks, Deino :)
 
About Т-54 there anything is not present.
If to make the drawing on this picture that we shall receive:
Length about 25 meters, wing span about 25 meters, engines AL-31F 2 x 12500 - 13600 kilogram.
Takeoff weight of an airplane nearby 50 - 60 tons, is no more!
Not clearly whence the information about 80 - 100 tons has undertaken. :eek:


... In 1985 studied versions Су-24ММ (« small modernization »). The first - with the take-off mass increased by 2000 kg and the increased range owing to installation new, more high-power and economic ТРДДФ АЛ-31Ф. The new airplane distinguished the additional air intake above a fuselage that has been caused by the increased air flow at АЛ-31Ф. The second version was advanced actively by representatives of the Air Forces. It{he} provided increase in range due to unprofitable{superimposed} conformal fuel tanks still before it was applied by Americans on the F-16. One of authors of idea was V.R.Kovtun. However activity on Су-24ММ and do not send{have left} from a stage of design researches. Probably, it{this} was promoted not by absolutely successful name of the machine{car}: local funnymen deciphered an abbreviation "MM" as « the Deadborn Monster ». Other version - «Му-му» (a dog, as is known, under the order of madam too have drowned). Probably, the reason was much more "prosy" - even in spite of the fact that Су-24М, unlike Су-27ИБ, is capable including « on a supersound » to execute{design} low-level contour flight, for ОКБ was more expedient to advance Су-27ИБ, though cost of operation even usual Су-27 above, than Су-24М...
 
Thanks, but whats's that strange "Ako"-design ... ??? Just another iteration of the Su-24BM ?

Cheer, Deino
 
Yes, is Su-24BM

but lok that, is project 701 launch a KS-172 missil.
 

Attachments

  • 704ld.jpg
    704ld.jpg
    63 KB · Views: 982
Angel said:
...
but lok that, is project 701 launch a KS-172 missil.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I think for this MiG long range interceptor I.701 is a seperate tread !

Deino
 
Bomber Т-60С (1981 - 1985), the chief designer Samoylovich, he should be similar to the MiG 70.1, has engines Al-41F 2 x 20000 kg and takeoff weight about 70 tons.
radar B004 (Su-34)

Interceptor the MiG 70.1 (1985-...), the chief designer too Samoylovich, but takeoff weight about 70 tons and engines AL-41F 2 x 20000 kg.
Radar N014 (1.42)
 
I'll have to disagree with the article Paralay quoted. While it was indeed later than this than the F-16 flew with conformal tanks, documentation exists that the idea was studied in the late 1970s if not earlier (there's a drawing of both upper and lower conformal tank installations in Jay Miller's Aerograph on the F-16) and the F-15's FASTPACs are a very similar approach.
 
elmayerle said:
I'll have to disagree with the article Paralay quoted. While it was indeed later than this than the F-16 flew with conformal tanks, documentation exists that the idea was studied in the late 1970s if not earlier (there's a drawing of both upper and lower conformal tank installations in Jay Miller's Aerograph on the F-16) and the F-15's FASTPACs are a very similar approach.
Click to expand...

And let's not forget the one they wanted to put in the "tunnel" on the Tomcat for USAF interceptor. Some of the early Hustler concepts also had conformal tanks.
 
elmayerle said:
I'll have to disagree with the article Paralay quoted. While it was indeed later than this than the F-16 flew with conformal tanks, documentation exists that the idea was studied in the late 1970s if not earlier (there's a drawing of both upper and lower conformal tank installations in Jay Miller's Aerograph on the F-16) and the F-15's FASTPACs are a very similar approach.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Russian people suffer an inferiority complex because of that that the state does not give money for search activities, it is necessary to use the American ideas.
 
Prospective differences MiG 70.1 and T-60S.

http://paralay.narod.ru/t60.html
 

Attachments

  • t60s.jpg
    t60s.jpg
    99.7 KB · Views: 1,295
  • 701.jpg
    701.jpg
    108.5 KB · Views: 2,817
For information:

Sukhoi T-60 was first publicly revealed at Moscow Aerosalon 1993, where work was described as "well advanced" and it was said the aircraft would enter service by 2000.

Air International Nov 1993
 
Sentinel Chicken said:
It's either been a long day at work or I'm just confused- the MiG and Sukhoi designs look identical to me?
Click to expand...

Yes. because as it's stated chief designer (Samoilovitch) was the same
 
Samoilovitch has left Sukhoi OKB after conflict with Simonov in late 80s, and brought his favourite baby - T-60C, to Mikoyan, where it's aerodynamic design was implemented now as 70-ton class LRI (info comes from Paralay site)
 
Thought I'd get this topic started up again as this has recently been something I've been looking at.

So we've got this:

T-60: weird contraption with underwing folding VG wing panels
T-60S: Samoliovich's design, later taken to MiG to form the basis of the 7.01
T-54: Most current design, appearing to be a rework of the original design to eliminate the erroneous wing features

Some questions then:

1. Which aircraft should have had the B-2 style intakes? The T-54, or the original T-60?
2. Between the 7.01 and the T-60S, which one had the canards?
 
SOC, your questions are related to far more black world than even ATB development:) Remember that Sukhoi even didnt officially confirmed existence of T-60C, not talking of T-54...
 
Do I at least have the designs and their order right?

Also the B-2 intake thing was already mentioned in the thread before, I am looking for a little clarification as to which of the three designs featured them.
 
T-54 said to have B-2-like serrated cowl inlets.
No proof of any of iterations have canards, canards are exist of one of Pyotr Butovsky T-60C drawings and truly speculative.
 
After the three years of our discoveries, I want to return back this interesting thread. Looking it with the retrospective, probably some of us or some of the new members will have additional information, comments, additions that will help to get this puzzle together...
 
flateric said:
Sentinel Chicken said:
It's either been a long day at work or I'm just confused- the MiG and Sukhoi designs look identical to me?
Click to expand...

Yes. because as it's stated chief designer (Samoilovitch) was the same
Click to expand...

No way! Here I was for years thinking that a couple of westerners got the two mixed up and all along it really was the same design! Neat.

Thanks.

P.S.
Source on the two new drawings?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom