Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 40 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1197

Thread: Su-57/T-50/PAK-FA/FGFA News/Discussion 08/2017

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,205
    101KS-P's function is to aid the pilot with landing during difficult conditions and probably will also aide in terrain following too.

    Yeah, didnt recall that specific turn of phrase Jo. But basically he is calling them "pre-serial" in the context that they will have slow production rate. They will be "serial" in the context of not being prototypes and in terms of their capabilities.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    682
    What is the KS-P?
    Electro-optical system for landing and low-level flight.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    India
    Posts
    289
    and that a T-50 flight test status report dating from 2014 mentioned they had been opened in flight up to 800km/h IAS.

    https://russianplanes.net/id200171

    http://ww4.sinaimg.cn/mw1024/7695e2e...20mf0gt0vl.jpg

    Will someone translate the sentences to english in this http://ww4.sinaimg.cn/mw1024/7695e2e...20mf0gt0vl.jpg pic and say what has been mentioned in that flight test report? What are the highlights of that report.

    And coming to phase 2 series, can someone shed light on how are they different from phase 1 as far as CFC and other composites are concerned ? Is the phase 2 using SWNT and MWNT reinforced CFC ? LM site clearly mentions the use of CFC modified with carbon nano tubes in the JSF.

    Besides the application of RAM do the aerostructures themselves such as the nacelles and air intakes act as RAS in the Pak-fa ?
    Last edited by Arihant; 12th September 2017 at 16:44.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    India
    Posts
    289
    Name:  4666865_original.jpg
Views: 2427
Size:  45.3 KB

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @radisconect
    Considering that there's still exposed metal pitot tubes, I certainly hope that's not the production version.
    Eyeball surface testing happening in the Pak Fa thread now.

    Where are you seeing bare metal now ?

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @arihant
    aerostructures themselves such as the nacelles and air intakes act as RAS in the Pak-fa ?
    Yes.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    446
    @KGB, do you not know what a pitot tube is?

    Also, is there any indication what the thrust goals of the izd.30 engines are? PiBu on Air&Space Cosmos say around 16-17 tons, which is sort of on the low side, while others claim 18 tons, or even 19 tons. Have there been any official statements in this area?

    The thrust for the 117 engine is also murky, because some sources say 15 tons, others say 14.5 tons with 15 tons only available in "emergency", which I don't quite know what that means.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by RadDisconnect View Post
    @KGB, do you not know what a pitot tube is?
    For Russia's customers' sake I would hope there would be multiple changes to the design before it goes into serial production.

    Specular return aside (just the pitots themselves have an RCS numerous times larger than the entire F-35 front aspect) the measures to reduce surface discontinuity return on all examples of the pak fa so far are almost non existent.

    Still has forward facing dihedral reflectors on the OLS. Still has issues with canopy leading edge and frame. Issues with multiple panel edges on the fuselage sides. Still the massive issue with the discontuities on the trailing edges of the wings and actuators.

    Have said it before, in 20 years time it'll mean nothing to be the 8th stealthiest bird in the sky.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 14th September 2017 at 00:54.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @Radisconnect
    do you not know what a pitot tube is?
    Yeah and as far as I know the ones on the Raptor are steel.

    Say,claim,official,murky.. Thats the problem with specs like this. Somebody will post a quote from Sukhoi but it will lifted out of a Sputnik article. So those get tossed out. Then a quote will surface from a RuAf official about the specs but then somebody will make a post saying that the RuAf said it didn't bomb an aid convoy in Syria but 17 US intel agencies said that it did. So those get tossed out.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,744
    KGB- kindly show the fine members of this forum the F-22's steel pitot tubes. ( hint- there hasn't been one since the early EMD aircraft -BECAUSE THE AIRCRAFT is in service) Hence why Rad was asking about the pitot tube, the aircraft does not need one after envelope expansion and weapon tests are complete.

    I don't think anyone here has an issue with official information from Sukhoi, information from you on the other hand....
    Last edited by FBW; 14th September 2017 at 01:17.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    446
    @ActionJackson a spherical object isn't ideal but when properly treated shouldn't be a huge issue, although faceting would be more ideal (I'm honestly not sure why that's not done, maybe Berkut or Scar can explain?). As for the metallic pitot tubes, those are items that can fairly easily be made stealthy. The more stealthy (but probably much more expensive option) is to use pressure sensors throughout the aircraft like the B-2 or F-23.

    @KGB, F-22 has steel pitot tubes? And your source for this is what???

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,744
    You guys are referring to the air data sensors on the sides of the F-22 and the Su-57. Essentially, yeah they are pitot tubes (actually a bit more). The pitot tubes or booms fitted to aircraft in testing are on the nose. More precise measurements.

    The ones on the production F-22 are certainly not exposed steel as evidenced by the pictures of them. I doubt the production Su-57 will have exposed metal ones either.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622
    It's unlikely that white external fuel tank merely 2000L due to the comparesion of same scale to F-22's 2270L.
    Je pense, donc je suis.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,205
    We dont know thrust of Izd.30. Izd.117S is 14000kg nominal, 14500kg including emergency. 117 is 14500kg nominal, 15000kg emergency.

    T-50 uses PTB-2000 (obviously not the same as on Su-24M/Su-34) and rated for 1860liters.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,900
    They look like more ferry tanks than mission tank to me.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,204
    I'm stuck with my Phone here away at work. If someone could copy/paste similar picks of the fatso EFT on Su-34 for comparison. Perhaps we can see any difference.
    Thanks

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,205
    "any" difference? You mean literally everything being different? They have nothing in common other than the white color.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,204
    Someone alluded to the Su-57 EFT being larger than 2000 liters.. so yes what would the comparison look like.
    Thanks

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    446
    @Berkut, what's the source for the 15,000 kg being "emergency?" Not that I really disagree because PiBu also said 14,500 kg thrust for the 117. Same thing with 117S, I always thought it's supposed to be 14,500 kg.

    When I was looking for information about the izd.30, the only real numbers I could find was that it's supposed to be 17-18% "more effective" than the 117, without saying what "more effective" actually means. Also, I think Jo once found documents saying that it's supposed to have 5% better specific thrust and 25% lower specific gravity, though I don't know what that's compared to. Also, is "specific gravity" in that document the same as density*g? Because that would seem a bit unrealistic.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @FBW

    I'm no expert on sensors but I have a pic in front of me and the tip looks like steel.

    F 22 was supposed to have shaved and flush sensors but the idea was shelved to save money says F16.net F22 thread

  21. #81
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,859
    I agree 1860l sounds rather small, hardly bigger than the Super Hornet tank. While the very gentle taper fore and aft means that the PTB-2000 probably has relatively modest capacity for its length and diameter, less than 2000l seems too small to be credible - those things are big!

    Are we sure it's not based on confusing mass and volume? 1860kg/(0.8kg/l)=2325l which sounds plausible - virtually the same capacity as the F-22 bags but in a larger envelope (lower volumetric efficiency).

    Perhaps the PTB-2000 is biased toward efficient supersonic carriage, which would favour a shape optimized for low supersonic drag at the expense of more wetted area for a given capacity (more subsonic drag). Is the F-22 tank supersonic?
    Last edited by Trident; 14th September 2017 at 21:25.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @radisconect

    what do you mean 25% "seems a bit unrealistic". ? Obviously a clean sheet engine is going to be worth the trouble ie a lot better.

    you don't believe the spec ?

  23. #83
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,859
    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    Still has issues with canopy leading edge and frame.
    Still fail to see what those would be, based on the very similar solutions adopted by the F-23.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,859
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB
    what do you mean 25% "seems a bit unrealistic". ? Obviously a clean sheet engine is going to be worth the trouble ie a lot better.
    I think he's saying that if 'specific gravity' simply means density (i.e. mass per volume), a 25% improvement would be implausible - which I concur it is. For reference, the engine would have to be made almost entirely out of composite materials (as in, virtually NO more metals whatsoever!) for that to be possible.

    Hence I agree that specific gravity probably means something else in this context - perhaps T/W ratio? 25% would be in the right ball park for improvement from a new generation engine, but what is specific thrust in that case?
    Last edited by Trident; 14th September 2017 at 21:24.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    446
    Specific thrust in propulsion can mean thrust per unit mass flow, so a supercruising engine would want to have more specific thrust. The document said 5% better specific thrust. I think specific gravity meaning thrust/weight sounds more realistic. But a 5% improvement in specific thrust and 25% improvement in T/W over what? The baseline AL-31 or the 117? The document didn't say, and Jo simply assumed it's over the 117.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,859
    Yes, thrust per mass flow would be the proper English usage, but 5% seems like a fairly modest improvement (easily achieved by merely dropping BPR a couple of notches without even inserting any new technology)?

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    446
    Yes that's what I think too. The two numbers seem to be at odds with each other. If it's compared to the izd.117, 5% for specific thrust seems too modest, but 25% increase in thrust to weight seems a bit much. If the izd.117 has around 9-10 T/W, the 25% improvement, while not entirely unrealistic, stretches my belief a bit.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,205
    RadDisconnect; you are asking for source of quite obscure information which is many years old at this point. I have no idea where i would find it, and frankly i can be bothered to look either. I guess it is up to you to choose which information you think is correct here - i am not going to bother convincing anyone. Source or no source, with 14500kg being the emergency number for 117S, it is logical to assume so is 15000kg for 117.

    As to PTB, again, 1860 liters or about 1400kg. Not 2000 or 3000 or 2325, 1860. Here, even a source; https://vk.com/pakfa?z=photo-1496409...46609028%2Frev

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    446
    Understand, but I'm now a bit curious about the context of "emergency." For example, does "emergency" mean that 14,500 kg thrust is the nominal maximum, with 15,000 kg only accessible when maintainers on the ground tweak the engine to allow it, or is 15,000 kg something the pilot can engage or disengage when flying the airplane?

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    The canopy frame again ? did someone mention that BS again..

    This is exactly what I said would happen 10-15 months ago. I asked the usual suspects , do you believe the Pak Fa is a fake stealth jet ie a jet that doesn't actually live up to the stealth designation. They said "well we will see what the next prototypes look like.

    Well here's the next prototypes. And their imaginary problem with the canopy is still here (the problem that they have determined , by looking at pictures of it on their computers, disqualifies it for stealth)

    And since one of their gimmicks was crossed off the list (the engine cowelling is painted ) they've come up with a new one. Steel pitot tubes

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 43 users browsing this thread. (5 members and 38 guests)

  1. Flanker_man,
  2. haavarla,
  3. mrmalaya,
  4. QuantumFX

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES