Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 352

Thread: Su-57 (PAK FA) News, Discussion and Pics

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,723
    Looking good, though higher res needed:







    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,302
    "A map does you no good if you don't know where you are"

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,369
    This new digital camo looks stunning with its engine cowlings covered and underside painted as well.

    I'm sure this has been up before, i just love how Sukhoi designed this jet.
    How they made the Elevators as a continuation of the Airfoils itself(IMO there is no physical seperation between them).

    I am very interesting to learn about the Cl chart of this new Sukhoi, when we know the Cl of the said Flanker family is massive(for a fighter).

    The Airfoils of Flanker and Su-57 strike me as the biggest difference if you we take a general view of the two designs.
    I would say the lift coefficient of Su-57 is higher vs Flanker.

    Guess It was a given that Sukhoi would continue with the Cambered Airfoil layout of the whole airframe, as we see the elevated cockpit section for increased internal volume, IMO Flanker design trait.
    As it convex down towards the aft of the jet engine section. Just like a cross section of a cambered airfoil.

    Simply brilliant choice of design.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Airfoil_lift_and_drag.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	63.7 KB 
ID:	260364
    Last edited by haavarla; 5th May 2018 at 12:07.
    Thanks

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    I am very interesting to learn about the Lc chart of this new Sukhoi, when we know the Lc of the said Flanker family is massive.

    The Airfoils of Flanker and Su-57 strike me as the biggest difference if you we take a general view of the two designs.
    I would say the Lc of Su-57 is higher vs Flanker.
    Do you know this pic? Unofficial and all but maybe you can make something out of it...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	F35 vs T50 L to D ratio.jpg 
Views:	231 
Size:	62.5 KB 
ID:	260363

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,369
    i dunno LMFS. those charts does not look like they are from any flightmanual, so in that case we can discard them..
    Its fine for random people to make their own calculation. But it will never be correct.
    Last edited by haavarla; 5th May 2018 at 10:10.
    Thanks

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    Yes, not from a flight manual at all! We will have to wait very long for that

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,656
    Slightly off at a tangent..........

    The original T10 Flanker had a sliding cockpit canopy.

    The redesigned T10S (Su-27) has a clamshell canopy - but the new Su-57 has reverted to a sliding design.

    What are the advantages/disadvantages between a sliding canopy and a clamshell??

    Is a clamshell easier to seal ?? (I assume you can taxy quite fast with a sliding canopy? - but not with a clamshell?)

    Any thoughts ??

    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,269
    What are the advantages/disadvantages between a sliding canopy and a clamshell??
    The height of the hangar of the aircraft carrier can be lower, 5 meters instead of 7.5 meters

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Philly PA, USA
    Posts
    983
    I think a sliding design is probably simpler to incorporate. There's no increase in height from the opened canopy. Though, I suspect maintenance is not as straight forward. Interior access to the canopy is easily had while its open (cleaning) in a clamshell arrangement. A sliding canopy would have to be closed for internal access, unless you have some nimble ground crew. That situation would probably exacerbate if it were a two-place cockpit, covered by a sliding canopy (B-47, TF-9F). Carrier aviation, in the early days of jet operations, preferred sliders because they could remain open for takeoff and landings and be closed while in flight. As jets became more reliable, and jet operations more established, the desire to have the canopy open during launch and recovery was not as compelling. The Su-57 doesn't fit in anywhere in that narrative. I'm curious as to why the Russians went with a two-piece canopy design in the first place.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    69
    I'm curious as to why the Russians went with a two-piece canopy design in the first place.
    They have no single piece canopy anywhere that I know, my guess is this is to protect the pilot in case of failure (accidental detachment) of the canopy. They place the rearview mirrors in the vertical frame as well

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,920
    Height could indeed be the answer in the Su-57's case, as with the tail fins shrunk so dramatically an (open) clamshell canopy might end up the long pole in the tent!

    Two part canopies are generally preferable in terms of weight, as the frame provides structural support (the reason why the F-35 has the internal brace) and you have the opportunity of using different materials and thicknesses for windscreen and canopy. AFAIK the Su-57 has a silica glass windscreen for heat resistance during supercruise - manufacturing the entire transparency out of that material would probably make it a lot heavier.

    One question that interests me about the canopy is the ejection sequence - does the Su-57 (like the Flanker) jettison the entire thing or does the pilot eject through an explosively shattered canopy (as on the F-35)?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    455
    A two piece can also permit you to use more heavy duty materials for the windshield part, without making the entire thing excessively heavy.

    I hadn't registered that some of the early T-10's had a sliding canopy. But yes, they evidently did:


    An interesting detail on the T-10 canopy is that they retained the braceless rear piece up into T-10-17, even though it was post-redesign:

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,656
    LMFS....They have no single piece canopy anywhere that I know
    The Mig E-152M had a forward-hinged one-piece canopy which also served as a blast shield on ejection....



    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,369
    haha a good one Ken! Good to see you are still around

    About the Canopy height.. well thinking about it, they managed to put a Su-27K on a carrier, and the problem wasn't the height of a elevated Flanker Canopy.
    Its the VERY long Vertical Stabz! For all intent and purpose, those things are on the scale of things MASSIVE.

    So i don't see the Canopy of said Su-57 any problematic operating on a Carrier regardless of it being a sliding canopy one or a elevated one.
    Last edited by haavarla; 5th May 2018 at 17:00.
    Thanks

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident
    One question that interests me about the canopy is the ejection sequence - does the Su-57 (like the Flanker) jettison the entire thing or does the pilot eject through an explosively shattered canopy (as on the F-35)?
    Looks like the whole rear part:


    Video (From 31:30):

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,916
    What are the advantages/disadvantages between a sliding canopy and a clamshell??
    A clamshell can be made one piece and has better RCS advantages.

    Also, a single piece does not have to be the same thickness throughout so the front can be made thicker to protect from birdstrikes, debris, etc.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 5th May 2018 at 17:01.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,268
    Slides are prone to jam, locking the pilot inside. That was the situation many many years ago before explosive bolts came in. As we can see the entire rear part is ejected in the ejection sequence. It is also more easy to manufacture a canopy in two part than in a single one. Especially when Stealth plays in (think tight tolerances). The choice of a two part canopy is hence more akin to manufacturing capabilities than anything else. Rafale and Gripen use hinges for example to bypass most of the problems.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 5th May 2018 at 17:10.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Flanker_man View Post
    The Mig E-152M had a forward-hinged one-piece canopy which also served as a blast shield on ejection....
    Correct, and early versions of the MiG-21, up to the PFM.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern Scandinavia
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by archangelski
    Correct, and early versions of the MiG-21, up to the PFM.
    The early Fishbeds had the same forward hinge that lifted the entire thing, but on them it wasn't strictly a "one-piece" since it had a separate windshield in an oval frame. The hotrodded MiGs (152, 166) did away with that and only sported a tiny one-piece - somewhat reminiscent of some of the Reno air racers, actually.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    near nowhere
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Snufflebug View Post
    The early Fishbeds had the same forward hinge that lifted the entire thing, but on them it wasn't strictly a "one-piece" since it had a separate windshield in an oval frame. The hotrodded MiGs (152, 166) did away with that and only sported a tiny one-piece - somewhat reminiscent of some of the Reno air racers, actually.
    Exact. I only thought about the monobloc canopy and not the small windshield that is part of it ...

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,920
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellum View Post
    Looks like the whole rear part:
    Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Also, a single piece does not have to be the same thickness throughout so the front can be made thicker to protect from birdstrikes, debris, etc.
    ... the approach adopted by the F-35 and J-20. It's only recently that progress in manufacturing technology has made non-uniform thickness in a single piece transparency possible though.

    Nonetheless, it still forces a compromise on the designers, as using different materials for the windscreen and canopy is impossible - so while the disadvantage in weight has been reduced, it has not been completely eliminated (at least for applications placing steep requirements on windshield strength).

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,291
    F-16 had a multi-ply transparency with tapered thickness since 1971 (47 years ago). It is thick in the front and thin at the canopy bow behind the pilot's head. It took until 1979 to get satisfactory optical qualities for high rate production.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,920
    I stand corrected, thanks!

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,339
    The mods think JSR posts are more useful than Berkut's apparently.

    I don't like the Su-57 digital camouflage. I think it looks weird and tacky and I'm hoping it can get the blue camouflage of the Su-35.
    Berkut was even a jerk to ppl who liked him

    Most ppl seem to like the camo. I always thought the Ukraine digital Flankers looked pretty sleazy. Maybe Ukraine will get its su 57's painted that way

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Malmesbury UK
    Posts
    3,656
    Haavarla..they managed to put a Su-27K on a carrier, and the problem wasn't the height of a elevated Flanker Canopy.
    The 'height' of the Su-27K (Su-33) was determined by the folded wings - the fin height was actually reduced slightly to fit the hangar deck of the Kuznetsov.





    Ken
    Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
    Flankers (& others) website at :-
    http://flankers.co.uk/

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,723






    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,369
    Great stuff! I don't know whom is the photo press Chief at Sukhoi, but by all means, pls keep em coming
    Thought i recognize some of the buildings, Zhukovsky air base?
    Thanks

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    62
    The last pictures of the prototype of the Su-57 , Has the coat ram applied? i don´t think.
    Last edited by RALL; 6th May 2018 at 22:19.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    9,723
    054 and 055, so obviously not.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by "RALL
    The last pictures of the prototype of the Su-57 , Has the coat ram applied? i don´t think.
    Those pictures are showing the repainted first stage prototypes T-50-4 and T-50-5R, which have neither RAM nor canopy treatment. Second stage prototypes have partial RAM treatment as can clearly be seen on certain photos and metallization on the rear part of canopy. Only the latest prototype to fly, T-50-10, has visible treatment on the whole canopy. Although the first stage prototypes have doors shaped with RCS reduction clearly in mind, almost all those were revised on the second stage and the sawtoothing is now a bit different. And even within the second stage they again changed at least the rear landing gear doors for more sawtoothing from T-50-9 on.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

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