Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and Development Thread part 11

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • paralay
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2005
    • 1411

    Compare the density of aircraft company Sukhoi.

    Su-27 252 kg / m
    Su-33 282 kg / m
    Su-33KUB 254 kg / m
    The Su-35 253 kg / m

    Packaging density range 252 - 282 kg / m
    The density of empty T-50 15737 - 17611 kg.

    Compare the density of the layout of American planes.

    F-16, the volume of 34.62 cubic meters, the aircraft empty weight 8910 kg, the density 8910 kg: 34.62 m = 257 kg / m
    F-15, 60.5 cubic meters, 12,975 kg empty, density 215 kg / m
    F-14, 76.5 cubic meters, 18,191 kg empty, density 238 kg / m
    F-18C, 47 cbm, empty 11,340 kg, the density of 241 kg / m
    F-18E, 49.15 cubic meters, empty 14300 kg, the density of 290 kg / m
    F-35A, 49.97 cubic meters, 13,290 kg empty, density 266 kg / m

    Thus the density of the empty American plane in the range of 215 - 290 kg / m. Mean weight of the empty F-22 is 14,038 kg - 18,936 kg.

    Comment

    • Berkut
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2011
      • 2216

      Originally posted by haavarla View Post
      Yes it does, around 18.000kg empty weight.
      Your word against PPV.

      Comment

      • MSphere
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2010
        • 8983

        Originally posted by Tu 160 View Post
        Su-35 Irbis radar is also a good deal heavier than a N001 Su-27 radar.
        You surely have some numbers to support that. From what I have found the Irbis is lighter but you probably know better...
        Last edited by MSphere; 19th January 2013, 16:44.

        Comment

        • mack8
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2009
          • 2114

          Originally posted by Berkut View Post
          Your word against PPV.
          What is PPV saying again? Thanks.
          --------------
          NO to NATO
          NO to WAR!

          Comment

          • Berkut
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2011
            • 2216

            Originally posted by MSphere View Post
            You surely have some numbers to support that. From what I have found the Irbis is lighter but you probably know better...
            I don't think he is wrong on that. Based on memory i think it should be heavier.

            Originally posted by mack8 View Post
            What is PPV saying again? Thanks.
            We discussed it here:

            http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...&postcount=233

            For those that don't know, PPV was a co-author of Flanker Bible and have contacts within Sukhoi as he often posts small pieces of news and updates. So everyone is free to trust Wikipedia, but i think i will trust PPV...

            Comment

            • Freehand
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2012
              • 986

              Better than nothing

              Originally posted by Belethor View Post
              When did Wikipedia become a reliable source???
              It is much better than nothing at all. Prove the information therein wrong, and change it. That's the cool thing about Wikipedia.

              Comment

              • Geo
                Geo
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2007
                • 67

                Originally posted by paralay View Post
                A comparison of the Su-27 / T-50:

                area of a side view 38 / 27.8 square meters
                area of the top view 110 / 115.6 square meters
                area of ​​the front view 10 / 9.47 square meters

                volume 69.41 / 62.45 cubic meters

                empty weight of the T-50: 17500 kg * (62.45: 69.41) = 15745 kg
                Good job, Paralay! Thank you.
                Can you make similar comparison T-50/F-22? It would be very interesting...

                Comment

                • calimero
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2007
                  • 197

                  Originally posted by Freehand View Post
                  It is much better than nothing at all. Prove the information therein wrong, and change it. That's the cool thing about Wikipedia.
                  x1000. I'm getting realy tired of this Wikipedia bashing. The same time it takes to write a bad comment about Wiki could be used to improve the article.

                  Comment

                  • totoro
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Apr 2006
                    • 1026

                    That sort of measurement is terribly unreliable.

                    New planes get heavier than old ones. That is a fact that's been around forever. Even a plane of othe same model, like f16, gets heavier throughout its life in various versions. Mig29 also got heavier through its life. F15 too. New materials matter little there. Various other equipment and subsystems always end up adding quite a bit more than the new, lighter materials shaved off.

                    Then there is the need for today's planes to fly twice the hours compared to older planes. That also means bulkier structure and more weight. They need to be multirole, "not a pound for air to ground" doesn't fly anymore. 13 tons for early f15 is an anomaly that will not happen again.

                    Then there is the biggest jump in weight called low observable requirements. Added structure around the weapon bays. Everything gets bigger and wider. Fuel requirements keep growing and much more of the fuel needs to go into the fuselage, compared with yesterday's designs. Then there are the radar absorbing structures and materials. Depending on their purpose, they need thickness, they add weight.

                    It is perfectly normal that a modern plane like f22 weighs over 19 tons. That f35a, a plane of f16s perfomance, weighs over 13 tons. That is a 40% increase over the modern f16s.

                    IF t50 is made to carry substantial air to ground weaponry inside its weapon bays and IF it is made to match su35 range with such internal loadouts, it will need to carry more fuel than su35. Which also means more internal fuel tanks, piping etc. IF it is designed to be effective against S or even L wavelengths, it will need certain thickness and weight for its RA materials.

                    In the end, it is impossible to say how much will t50 weigh empty but, if i must offer a number, i will use previous and similar aircraft for comparison, rather than compare area in 2d drawing and trying to get a volume then assume the density will not increase.

                    My guess for t50 would be somewhere between 17 and 18 tons.

                    Comment

                    • paralay
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2005
                      • 1411

                      Originally posted by Geo View Post
                      Can you make similar comparison T-50/F-22? It would be very interesting...
                      A comparison of the F-22 / T-50:

                      area of a side view 34 / 27.8 square meters
                      area of the top view 110.65 / 115.6 square meters
                      area of ​​the front view 9.25 / 9.47 square meters

                      volume 65.3 / 62.45 cubic meters

                      http://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by paralay; 20th January 2013, 14:10.

                      Comment

                      • Trident
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • May 2004
                        • 3965

                        Originally posted by Berkut View Post
                        FFS dude. I used like an hour to find the damn quote, so if you want to discredit C-in-C of AF and someone that played instrumental part in "TTZ" for PAK-FA, you are going into my ignore list.
                        The quote says "cruise speed" rather than "maximum speed" though, does it not? In which case Mach 2.0 is still ruddy fast, reheated or dry - almost MiG-31 territory.
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • Berkut
                          Senior Member
                          • Nov 2011
                          • 2216

                          The way i read it it is about top speed.

                          Logically: Why would it matter to the plane/frame if it is propelled (not entirely correct word i guess, but you get the point) with afterburner or not? Measures to squeeze out those 0.15 mach need to be taken anyway, whether it is super cruising or not.

                          Also, find that damn quote was a b!tch, so i mixed up what i wanted to put in the post. The quote i put is from the infamous "Hurr durr T-50 will disintegrate at 500 km/h", that whole flutter ordeal. The quote i wanted to actually put in is this:

                          В.Михайлов сообщил, что снизил на 0,15 число "М", заданные в тактико-техническом задании характеристики скорости нового самолета".
                          "К примеру, задана характеристика 2,15М, чтобы самолет летал с такой скоростью, однако это число - 0,15 влечет за собой необходимость усиления киля, увеличение веса самолета", - сказал главком.
                          По его словам, "анализ эксплуатации самолетов типа Су-27 и МиГ-31 показывает, что эти самолеты, хоть и способны ходить примерно на этих скоростях, но редко на них выходят".
                          "Зафиксировано всего лишь несколько полетов летчиков-испытателей на таких скоростях, это влечет сотни проблемных вопросов по усилению хвостового оперения и плохо сказывается на других характеристиках самолета", - сказал В.Михайлов.
                          Mikhailov said that the number was reduced with 0.15 "M", set in the tactical and technical characteristics of the job rate of the new aircraft. "
                          "For example, given a description of 2.15 m, so that the aircraft was flying at such a rate, but the number - 0.15 leads to the need to strengthen the keel, increased weight of the aircraft," - said the commander in chief.
                          According to him, "the analysis of aircraft such as the Su-27 and MiG-31 shows that the aircraft, though able to walk around at these speeds, but they rarely go out."
                          "Lock only a few test pilots flying at such speeds, it involves hundreds of problematic issues to strengthen the tail and has a bad effect on the other characteristics of the aircraft," - said Mikhailov.
                          A bit different wording here as you see.

                          Comment

                          • haavarla
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2008
                            • 6699

                            Interesting, and quite logical.
                            Didn't the early test flight of F-22 show weakness with the Vertical Stabz as well and that it had to be addressed several times before LM got it right.
                            And that this had an impact on the top speed on the F-22?
                            Thanks

                            Comment

                            • Trident
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2004
                              • 3965

                              Originally posted by Berkut View Post
                              The way i read it it is about top speed.

                              Logically: Why would it matter to the plane/frame if it is propelled (not entirely correct word i guess, but you get the point) with afterburner or not? Measures to squeeze out those 0.15 mach need to be taken anyway, whether it is super cruising or not.
                              To a first order reheated or dry does not matter, but reheated flight is naturally time limited (due to very high fuel consumption), so thermally it is not as critical an issue as sustained flight in dry thrust at the same speed.

                              Originally posted by Berkut View Post
                              Also, find that damn quote was a b!tch, so i mixed up what i wanted to put in the post. The quote i put is from the infamous "Hurr durr T-50 will disintegrate at 500 km/h", that whole flutter ordeal. The quote i wanted to actually put in is this:





                              A bit different wording here as you see.
                              Yup, doesn't explicitly clarify the maximum speed question though. I don't even want to exclude the possibility that the red line is indeed Mach 2.0, but look at it this way: you don't need variable intakes to momentarily hit M2.0 flat out, afterburners blazing - not in an aircraft with such a high T/W ratio and aerodynamics so carefully optimised for low supersonic drag. As good as the F-16 was by the standards of the day, it is now a 30 year old design and yet it managed to do so with a less advanced engine, a configuration emphasising transonic fighting and one of the simplest inlets imaginable. No moving parts whatsoever, not even auxiliary inlet (Su-47) or by-pass doors (F-22) to enable either adequate subsonic performance from a fixed capture area biased toward supersonic flight or improve off-design capability of an intake sized for subsonic speeds.

                              Thus chances are that the T-50 is either designed to routinely operate at or very near its top speed (as the Raptor demonstrates, a caret intake does fine for speeds around Mach 1.5) or its actual top speed is beyond Mach 2.0. In the former case, Mach 2.0 is likely to be a thermal/structural limitation rather than the point were thrust equals drag. Alternatively the variable ramps and auxiliary doors are merely a band-aid to assure the required supercruise capability with the interim engine, to be replaced by fixed caret intakes once the definitive power plant is available.
                              Last edited by Trident; 20th January 2013, 19:27.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • Jō Asakura
                                多聞天
                                • Jan 2011
                                • 1302

                                Variable intake ramps & auxiliary intakes are an integrated solution for the intake notwithstanding the incorporation of sub & supersonic flow diffusers- this is apparent in the official patent. Hence, I think one can rule out the CARET intake.

                                I do agree that MiG-31 & Su-27 experience may call into question the tactical usefulness of all out AB topline speed substantially in excess of M2, and instead regular & sustained top-end supercruise is far more valuable, especially given Russia's vast expanses.
                                That the T-50 is designed specifically to fly, fight & manoeuvre @ these speeds is impressive in itself, and it's not like the Vmax came down from M3 to M2 or anything- it's pretty incremental.

                                Having said that, now that they're required to undertake something they wanted to avoid- structural reinforcements and associated weight gain, maybe this offers a window to nudge up the speed limit a little further (I doubt that though).
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                • Trident
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2004
                                  • 3965

                                  Originally posted by martinez View Post
                                  Thanks, finally some good photos of the new Su-34 aircraft batch. Immediatelly I noticed something strange in front of the cockpit, seems to be a temporary solution, maybe an additional short range navigation antenna???? Well, well, a week ago you were complaining about Russian media spreading lies about "Su-34 growing pains"....
                                  Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated, NAPO clearly does seem incapable of organising production at a decent rate, as of now no definitive standard configuration has even emerged. Larger numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM (ideally a unified airframe with single and twin seat versions for both Russia AND India) would have been available earlier, at lower cost and still offered a significant fraction of the A/G performance. Let's be honest, as the world's only air force other than the USAF with a worthwhile strategic bomber force, more payload/range is not something the VVS was or is especially desperate for and it's not as though the Su-35/30 is a poor strike platform.

                                  More multi-role Flankers and comprehensive upgrades for the bombers would have done the same job for less money and sooner.
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • Trident
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2004
                                    • 3965

                                    Originally posted by totoro View Post
                                    That sort of measurement is terribly unreliable.

                                    New planes get heavier than old ones. That is a fact that's been around forever. Even a plane of othe same model, like f16, gets heavier throughout its life in various versions. Mig29 also got heavier through its life. F15 too. New materials matter little there. Various other equipment and subsystems always end up adding quite a bit more than the new, lighter materials shaved off.

                                    Then there is the need for today's planes to fly twice the hours compared to older planes. That also means bulkier structure and more weight. They need to be multirole, "not a pound for air to ground" doesn't fly anymore. 13 tons for early f15 is an anomaly that will not happen again.

                                    Then there is the biggest jump in weight called low observable requirements. Added structure around the weapon bays. Everything gets bigger and wider. Fuel requirements keep growing and much more of the fuel needs to go into the fuselage, compared with yesterday's designs. Then there are the radar absorbing structures and materials. Depending on their purpose, they need thickness, they add weight.

                                    It is perfectly normal that a modern plane like f22 weighs over 19 tons. That f35a, a plane of f16s perfomance, weighs over 13 tons. That is a 40% increase over the modern f16s.

                                    IF t50 is made to carry substantial air to ground weaponry inside its weapon bays and IF it is made to match su35 range with such internal loadouts, it will need to carry more fuel than su35. Which also means more internal fuel tanks, piping etc. IF it is designed to be effective against S or even L wavelengths, it will need certain thickness and weight for its RA materials.

                                    In the end, it is impossible to say how much will t50 weigh empty but, if i must offer a number, i will use previous and similar aircraft for comparison, rather than compare area in 2d drawing and trying to get a volume then assume the density will not increase.

                                    My guess for t50 would be somewhere between 17 and 18 tons.
                                    I would go so far as to say the bracket is 18 to 20 tons - i.e. definitely heavier than the likely weight of the Su-35S. Bear in mind also that the F-22 is slightly smaller than the F-15, yet considerably heavier than even the Strike Eagle.
                                    sigpic

                                    Comment

                                    • haavarla
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2008
                                      • 6699

                                      Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                      Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated, NAPO clearly does seem incapable of organising production at a decent rate, as of now no definitive standard configuration has even emerged. Larger numbers of Su-35S and Su-30SM (ideally a unified airframe with single and twin seat versions for both Russia AND India) would have been available earlier, at lower cost and still offered a significant fraction of the A/G performance. Let's be honest, as the world's only air force other than the USAF with a worthwhile strategic bomber force, more payload/range is not something the VVS was or is especially desperate for and it's not as though the Su-35/30 is a poor strike platform.

                                      More multi-role Flankers and comprehensive upgrades for the bombers would have done the same job for less money and sooner.
                                      Great! Call the VVS and tell them they better cancle the Su-34 deal.
                                      Seriously, are the prod rate on the Su-35S any better? It has not even passed State Trials, nor has Su-30SM. There should not be any problem with the Su-34 service since it share many of the overall Flanker layout, role, capability and then some.

                                      I would not be surprised to find out that the Su-34 has longer life hour vs both Su-35S and Su-30SM
                                      Last edited by haavarla; 20th January 2013, 21:24.
                                      Thanks

                                      Comment

                                      • Geo
                                        Geo
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2007
                                        • 67

                                        Originally posted by paralay View Post
                                        A comparison of the F-22 / T-50:

                                        area of a side view 34 / 27.8 square meters
                                        area of the top view 110.65 / 115.6 square meters
                                        area of ​​the front view 9.25 / 9.47 square meters

                                        volume 65.3 / 62.45 cubic meters

                                        http://paralay.com/paralay_tab.xls
                                        Great! Thanks and regards to RF.

                                        Comment

                                        • martinez
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Mar 2005
                                          • 1209

                                          Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                          Sorry about dragging this up from the past, but I have to agree - IMHO the Su-34 should have been cancelled. While the media claims may have been exaggerated,.........
                                          To me it is more interesting to speculate what kind of pains those Su-34 are going through. I`m just one of those technical kind of guys, not a Big-picture thinker as you seems to be, never bothered what the Russian VVS could achieve by cancelling the Su-34 while investing into Su-30 multirole, I`m just thinking it is a beautiful aircraft and it deserves to live and fly.... so keeping fingers crossed for NAPO to fix those issues ASAP.
                                          <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X