Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA manouverability versus F-22

[Sundog]

That would be a rate of climb of >60,000 feet per minute... As Robin would say, "Holy Sh#t Batman!"

You do realize that doesn't mean it will climb to 60,000 ft in one minute, correct? It's rate of climb, I'm assuming at sea level, which is a measure of how much excess energy an aircraft has at any given altitude and should not be confused with time to climb, which is how long it takes an aircraft to reach any given altitude.

 

[sferrin]

Yep. There are tight F-22 turns out there. Just because they don't do them all the time doesn't mean anything. Consider the two following:

At 5:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSw3gGnrtWI

At 2:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYtpczzMTws

 

[Radical]

I'm more interested to see what the T-50 can do in yaw. That will be what actually distinguishes it from F-22.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You do realize that doesn't mean it will climb to 60,000 ft in one minute, correct? It's rate of climb, I'm assuming at sea level, which is a measure of how much excess energy an aircraft has at any given altitude and should not be confused with time to climb, which is how long it takes an aircraft to reach any given altitude.

If you read the initial quote you would find that the F-22 pilot said "climb all the way supersonically". Now the speed of sound changes with altitude but a ball park of over 60,000 feet per minute (which is 1,100 kph) is reasonable. So yes this isn't just initial rate of climb. The thing about the F-22 is when you punch through Mach 1 you still have an awful amount of thurst in reserve.

 

[sferrin]

All that thrust lets you climb really slow too if you want to:

Starting at 0:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge9PCGyGXeA
4:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG96wleqmrk

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm more interested to see what the T-50 can do in yaw. That will be what actually distinguishes it from F-22.

Yaw! Snappy flat turns in air combat may have made a difference back in 1918 trying to get front guns onto a Fokker but in today's air combat about as useful as an open cockpit.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

All that thrust lets you climb really slow too if you want to:

Err no. All you need is a positive thrust to weight ratio to sit on your tail and climb slowly.

 

[sferrin]

All that thrust lets you climb really slow too if you want to:

Err no. All you need is a positive thrust to weight ratio to sit on your tail and climb slowly.

To be pedantic about it that is true. However both the F-16 and F-15 have better than one-to-one and we never saw them pull a stunt like that. ("But TVC", yes, yes, and a lot of power on tap as well.)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To be pedantic about it that is true. However both the F-16 and F-15 have better than one-to-one and we never saw them pull a stunt like that. ("But TVC", yes, yes, and a lot of power on tap as well.)

I've seen F/A-18s do that rapid pull up to 90 degrees AoA and slow climb on thrust before. Its more to do with controllability of an aircraft at high alpha than a thrust thing.

 

[sferrin]

To be pedantic about it that is true. However both the F-16 and F-15 have better than one-to-one and we never saw them pull a stunt like that. ("But TVC", yes, yes, and a lot of power on tap as well.)

I've seen F/A-18s do that rapid pull up to 90 degrees AoA and slow climb on thrust before. Its more to do with controllability of an aircraft at high alpha than a thrust thing.

Huh. Oh well, I'd thought that it had as much to do with having an extra margin of power.

 

[VTOLicious]

Some screen captures of the video posted in the other PAK-thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7kP7_vViSk&feature=player_embedded

Very impressive to see the LEVCONs, TV and other control surfaces work in harmony. Please note the deflection of the LEVCONs independent from each other!

BR Michael

 

[flanker]

All that thrust lets you climb really slow too if you want to:

I am somewhat puzzled why you are showing this? "Kolokol" ("Bell") is nothing new, it has been demonstrated by all Flankers and T-50 too. As to tight turn, although in somewhat different axes T-50 and Su-35S too.

PS: As to independent LEVCON deflection, we have known that for literally years.

 

[bobbymike]

All that thrust lets you climb really slow too if you want to:

I am somewhat puzzled why you are showing this? "Kolokol" ("Bell") is nothing new, it has been demonstrated by all Flankers and T-50 too. As to tight turn, although in somewhat different axes T-50 and Su-35S too.

PS: As to independent LEVCON deflection, we have known that for literally years.

If you read further up the thread there were comments about the T-50 doing this with the inference the Raptor could not, I believe these are a response to those earlier comments.

 

[flanker]

If so, then my bad. I just tend to filter out comments by chase and discussion revolving them. ;D

 

[Avimimus]

To be pedantic about it that is true. However both the F-16 and F-15 have better than one-to-one and we never saw them pull a stunt like that. ("But TVC", yes, yes, and a lot of power on tap as well.)

I've seen F/A-18s do that rapid pull up to 90 degrees AoA and slow climb on thrust before. Its more to do with controllability of an aircraft at high alpha than a thrust thing.

Huh. Oh well, I'd thought that it had as much to do with having an extra margin of power.

Yes - we lost one of our CF-188s practicing for this...

Seriously - this, the cobra and basic TVC turns are not really worth debating. Draken's can do cobras, the F-22 can do TVC turns (in pitch/roll at least)...

What can be debated:
- Sustained high AOA turns, stability in them
- The possible advantage of TVC in yaw
- Purely aerodynamic maneuverability and controllability of super-maneuverable turns (or recovery from them)
- The fact that all of the control surfaces can operate separately in the Pak-FA (e.g. the Levcons can be used a drag rudders in yaw), and what advantages may come from such advanced programming.
- High speed maneuverability (important for BVR combat)
- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

This last one is interesting - once a target is acquired can the computer pick the ideal angle for defeating radar lock (and use the complex aerodynamic controls to position the aircraft without completely changing flight direction)?

 

[sferrin]

As to tight turn, although in somewhat different axes T-50 and Su-35S too.

Interesting. I've never seen either do that. I don't mean flopping over the top of a low speed loop, I mean flying relatively fast and pulling a very sharp turn that changes the direction of flight as shown in Post #242

 

[sferrin]

- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

This last one is interesting - once a target is acquired can the computer pick the ideal angle for defeating radar lock (and use the complex aerodynamic controls to position the aircraft without completely changing flight direction)?

This is why I've always wondered if those pods under the T-50s wing roots were really missile bays. Are there any pictures of them open or even showing how they're suppose to open? Now if the T-50 were meant to reduce visibility by trying to stay perpendicular to the likely direction of the enemy and those "pods" contains side-looking radar arrays. . .

 

[flanker]

Interesting. I've never seen either do that. I don't mean flopping over the top of a low speed loop, I mean flying relatively fast and pulling a very sharp turn that changes the direction of flight as shown in Post #242

Wouldn't it be harder to turn tight with low speed rather than with relatively fast speed? I am not sure here, that is why i am asking. One would also need to keep in mind F-22 does it rather low, so speed seems high. For instance here Su-35S' speed isn't necessarily lower than F-22, but i would claim the turn is atleast as tight:

http://youtu.be/qyKQWanjjDs?t=3m15s

Although on different axes. There is also one done later, although it *seems* to be done at lower speed)

There are much much better videos out there but i can't be arsed to look right now.

 

[Sundog]

If you read the initial quote you would find that the F-22 pilot said "climb all the way supersonically". Now the speed of sound changes with altitude but a ball park of over 60,000 feet per minute (which is 1,100 kph) is reasonable. So yes this isn't just initial rate of climb. The thing about the F-22 is when you punch through Mach 1 you still have an awful amount of thurst in reserve.

That I believe, so in the future, you would say "Time to climb" not "Rate of climb" as they mean two very different things.

 

[sferrin]

To be pedantic about it that is true. However both the F-16 and F-15 have better than one-to-one and we never saw them pull a stunt like that. ("But TVC", yes, yes, and a lot of power on tap as well.)

I've seen F/A-18s do that rapid pull up to 90 degrees AoA and slow climb on thrust before. Its more to do with controllability of an aircraft at high alpha than a thrust thing.

Those other shots didn't really do it justice. This slow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBZfSqNO9-s

(I haven't seen the F-22 repeat that in "official" demos. Just thought it interesting.)

 

[quellish]

- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

Most modern stealth aircraft do this. For example, on the B-2, the defensive systems are integrated with the flight controls. When a threat is detected the flight control laws change to alter the RCS for that threat. Control surface deflections are different, some components aren't allowed to flex as much, etc.

 

[lancer21]

- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

This last one is interesting - once a target is acquired can the computer pick the ideal angle for defeating radar lock (and use the complex aerodynamic controls to position the aircraft without completely changing flight direction)?

This is why I've always wondered if those pods under the T-50s wing roots were really missile bays. Are there any pictures of them open or even showing how they're suppose to open? Now if the T-50 were meant to reduce visibility by trying to stay perpendicular to the likely direction of the enemy and those "pods" contains side-looking radar arrays. . .

You're talking this and that about T-50 but you're not even sure what the wing pods are for ? Everybody and their dog knew from day one, plus it's been sort of confirmed in a video this MAKS (not to mention reliable insiders)... oh and btw regarding the side arrays, you probably missed the posts discussing them in the other T-50 topic few days ago. They are on the side of the NOSE, and the arrays were shown at MAKS as well.
On that subject, curiously i've still never got a reply when asking (repeatedly) if the AESA radars are still vulnerable to Doppler notch, that would be VERY interesting to find out (can't recall if i asked that question here on SP too though).

 

[sferrin]

- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

This last one is interesting - once a target is acquired can the computer pick the ideal angle for defeating radar lock (and use the complex aerodynamic controls to position the aircraft without completely changing flight direction)?

This is why I've always wondered if those pods under the T-50s wing roots were really missile bays. Are there any pictures of them open or even showing how they're suppose to open? Now if the T-50 were meant to reduce visibility by trying to stay perpendicular to the likely direction of the enemy and those "pods" contains side-looking radar arrays. . .

You're talking this and that about T-50 but you're not even sure what the wing pods are for ? Everybody and their dog knew from day one, plus it's been sort of confirmed in a video this MAKS (not to mention reliable insiders)... oh and btw regarding the side arrays, you probably missed the posts discussing them in the other T-50 topic few days ago. They are on the side of the NOSE, and the arrays were shown at MAKS as well.
On that subject, curiously i've still never got a reply when asking (repeatedly) if the AESA radars are still vulnerable to Doppler notch, that would be VERY interesting to find out (can't recall if i asked that question here on SP too though).

You ever seen those side pods open? Me either. Oh, and exactly what does their lack of panel lines showing where they might open have to do with maneuverability? Since, you know, if one doesn't see panel lines they couldn't possibly have an opinion on the F-22's maneuverability. : (Yeah, you're comment makes that much sense.)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That I believe, so in the future, you would say "Time to climb" not "Rate of climb" as they mean two very different things.

What the? Nothing to do with this sub topic of discussion is about time to altitude. It has always been about rate of climb. In particular the claim that the best way to climb an F-22 is to “stay supersonic all the way to altitude”. Note that while altitude is mentioned it is mentioned as an abstract objective not a particular quantity. However the pilot does mention that he is climbing supersonically and sustaining that rate of climb. So please excuse us all the misplaced 'lesson' and rather look to your own lack of understanding.

 

[EricChase88]

All your videos show F-22 slow down when climbing. T-50 video shows it is accelerating when climbing.

 

[sferrin]

All your videos show F-22 slow down when climbing. T-50 video shows it is accelerating when climbing.

You should probably read a little closer.

 

[Sundog]

That I believe, so in the future, you would say "Time to climb" not "Rate of climb" as they mean two very different things.

What the? Nothing to do with this sub topic of discussion is about time to altitude. It has always been about rate of climb. In particular the claim that the best way to climb an F-22 is to “stay supersonic all the way to altitude”. Note that while altitude is mentioned it is mentioned as an abstract objective not a particular quantity. However the pilot does mention that he is climbing supersonically and sustaining that rate of climb. So please excuse us all the misplaced 'lesson' and rather look to your own lack of understanding.

I'm an Aeronautical engineer. I've calculated rate of climb and time to climb before. I don't need you to lecture me. I realize now the 60000 ft number was just thrown out by TT. Yes, the F-22 may have a ROC greater than 60000ft at sea level, but that doesn't really tell me anything in regard to this discussion, as it isn't an exact number and I don't know what it is for the T-50. But I'm not surprised by the number as the F-15's rate of climb at sea level is 50000 fpm, so, yeah, I would expect the Raptor to be better.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

All your videos show F-22 slow down when climbing. T-50 video shows it is accelerating when climbing.

your point being?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

You ever seen those side pods open? Me either. Oh, and exactly what does their lack of panel lines showing where they might open have to do with maneuverability? Since, you know, if one doesn't see panel lines they couldn't possibly have an opinion on the F-22's maneuverability. : (Yeah, you're comment makes that much sense.)

I've always wondered how those sidebays open. Upward or Downward?

If upward, it may hit the slats. If downward, does it have enough clearance from the MLG doors?

Ugh, so many questions...

 

[bobbymike]

All your videos show F-22 slow down when climbing. T-50 video shows it is accelerating when climbing.

your point being?

EricChase88 - do you understand and acknowledge that using airshow videos to make statements evaluating 2 different aircraft and their complete flight envelopes and how they would fare in air to air combat against one another cannot be done with any accuracy right?

Look a T-50 turned like this and a Raptor turned like 'that' the T-50 can obviously win an air to air engagement.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm an Aeronautical engineer. I've calculated rate of climb and time to climb before. I don't need you to lecture me.

The only one doing lecturing here is you and it’s extremely misplaced and despite explaining it to you a couple of times you still don’t seem to be getting it.

I realize now the 60000 ft number was just thrown out by TT.

No it was thrown out by me:

That would be a rate of climb of >60,000 feet per minute... As Robin would say, "Holy Sh#t Batman!"

And you chimed in about time to altitude which had nothing to do with anything anyone was talking about.

Yes, the F-22 may have a ROC greater than 60000ft at sea level, but that doesn't really tell me anything in regard to this discussion, as it isn't an exact number and I don't know what it is for the T-50. But I'm not surprised by the number as the F-15's rate of climb at sea level is 50000 fpm, so, yeah, I would expect the Raptor to be better.

I’m glad you now understand that there was nothing wrong in what I said and I didn’t need your overblown attempt to lecture me about something as simple as the difference between rate of climb and time to altitude.

However it is worth again pointing out what the F-22 pilot said “climb supersonically all the way altitude”. This means that the rate of climb is at least Mach 1 from sea level to whatever he considers altitude. Most likely at least the troposphere or over 30,000 feet. So it would appear that it can sustain this rate of climb a long way up. Say for example its 45 degrees nose up at Mach 1 from 0 to 30,000 feet that’s a sustained rate of climb of >30,000 feet per minute. Which would be about 1.5 times the time to altitude of a BAC Lightning. And all this is being very generous with an interpretation of the statement. Higher, faster indeed.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

My impression is that Sukhoi Su-35 outmanoeuvers anything in existence, but that is pure speculation. Su-35 simply loves to rotate on dime and swoosh through air with scalpellike precision, just watch that extreme cobra stunt, jeepers creepers. That said, I am not big fan of that airplane, as I consider it to be an old airplane, as it represents a continuous improvement of Su-27. And As Su-27 flew before Jan 1980, I consider it to be `an old airplane`. I have also observed the old-schooler Mig-29 with thrust vectoring, but it can`t match Su-35 .
As an airplane, I like F-22 much better( and F-23 even more), as it represents a better package of surviveability, such as stealth , supersonic cruise, etc. And it is a modern airplane, which is so important for me. As to T-50, I think they are still not pushing that platform to its limits. My hunch also tells me that Russians won`t give it a break until they squeeze out every available inch of air manoeuvers and surpass Su-35. We will have to wait and see , it will take years before they figure out minor glitches and polish that platform to new `competition-humiliating` levels in air manoeuverability.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I can't wait until these kids return to their respective comic book forums.

 

[sferrin]

I can't wait until these kids return to their respective comic book forums.

School should be starting back up any day.

 

[Radical]

You ever seen those side pods open? Me either. Oh, and exactly what does their lack of panel lines showing where they might open have to do with maneuverability? Since, you know, if one doesn't see panel lines they couldn't possibly have an opinion on the F-22's maneuverability. : (Yeah, you're comment makes that much sense.)

I've always wondered how those sidebays open. Upward or Downward?

If upward, it may hit the slats. If downward, does it have enough clearance from the MLG doors?

Ugh, so many questions...

Maybe the bays have two doors that open upwards? I don't know, just throwing ideas out there.

 

[Avimimus]

- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

Most modern stealth aircraft do this. For example, on the B-2, the defensive systems are integrated with the flight controls. When a threat is detected the flight control laws change to alter the RCS for that threat. Control surface deflections are different, some components aren't allowed to flex as much, etc.

Very interesting - I'd read about the idea but I hadn't heard that it had been implemented - and in a flying wing no less. The B-2 really is a technological marvel (even if it has a 286 processor).

 

[sferrin]

- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

Most modern stealth aircraft do this. For example, on the B-2, the defensive systems are integrated with the flight controls. When a threat is detected the flight control laws change to alter the RCS for that threat. Control surface deflections are different, some components aren't allowed to flex as much, etc.

Very interesting - I'd read about the idea but I hadn't heard that it had been implemented - and in a flying wing no less. The B-2 really is a technological marvel (even if it has a 286 processor).

As long as it does the job it wouldn't matter if it had an 8088.

 

[Bill Walker]

Guys, "climbing supersonically" doesn't have to mean "going straight up supersonically". Many modern combat aircraft have the most specific excess power at M>1, but at flight path angles much less than straight up.

 

[Trident]

Guys, "climbing supersonically" doesn't have to mean "going straight up supersonically". Many modern combat aircraft have the most specific excess power at M>1, but at flight path angles much less than straight up.

This.

 

[F-14D]

- Use of advanced parts of the flight envelop to maximise stealth in a known direction

Most modern stealth aircraft do this. For example, on the B-2, the defensive systems are integrated with the flight controls. When a threat is detected the flight control laws change to alter the RCS for that threat. Control surface deflections are different, some components aren't allowed to flex as much, etc.

Very interesting - I'd read about the idea but I hadn't heard that it had been implemented - and in a flying wing no less. The B-2 really is a technological marvel (even if it has a 286 processor).

As long as it does the job it wouldn't matter if it had an 8088.

...until you had to try and fix it. This is a significant concern of USAF on both the B-2 and the F-22.