TaiidanTomcat Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Su-50 Facebook Edited February 9, 2010 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Some new stuff over on AFM board :- http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthrea...567&page=22 Nice drawings and schematics. Ken Nice schematic posted on that site. I guess they will put a rearward facing radar on the T-50. I thought the parachute will be in the stinger though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Nice schematic posted on that site. I guess they will put a rearward facing radar on the T-50. I thought the parachute will be in the stinger though. It is - but in the top - like the Su-34, not in the tip - like the Su-27. Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 It is - but in the top - like the Su-34, not in the tip - like the Su-27.Ken Ah, thanks Ken. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 :D, BAM'n'IVM, Of course we have to be serious and reverential in any thread about the PAK-FA. Try being a non-American and a little bit lefto-pinko and being a little bit light hearted in any thread about the F-22 or F-35 and see what happens. :D. Taidan Tomcat, I think yours is the best reporting name yet. Well done to come up with something like that mate So simple but so up to date and effective. Yeehaa! Oh, sorry, I've just committed the cadinal sin of aircraft discussion, especially pertaining to the PAK-FA, F-22 and F-35. I forgot the Golden Rules. I do most humbly apologize. I'll try to see it doesn't happen again. (But I don't think I'll try too hard, so I might fall again. :P ) Now on a more serious note if the drawings by planeman on the AFM forums are anywhere near accurate it solves the problem that some of the readers of this forum have been, can I say, supercritical of, :lol:, and that is just how are they going to hide the compressor faces from the ever superior western radars? Well having two gradual almost 90 degree bends in the intakes would, it would seem to me not only pretty well solves that problem but also help the airflow to slow down to subsonic speeds before it gets to the compressor faces. NB. I didn't say that this simple device in and of itself would slow the airflow down to subsonic speeds, but I believe it would help. We still have to find out the function of the LERX/canard devices on the LE of the wing. They may be multifunctional devices with perhaps some intake ramp function. Who knows? Do any of our aero engineers have any thoughts on the functions of these surfaces? Could they be part intake ramps and part LERX/canards of some kind? :), Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Amazingly, despite folks taking their ball home and refusing to play, I'm still able to follow news stories on the PAK-FA. I personally was shocked, but somehow, it still CAN happen. Av Week thinks the moving LEX has a canard function. Personally, that's what I've thought from the beginning. These will play an important role as a "third" flight control surface. I think they are too far forward to significantly impact airflow to the intake faces. Additionally, I think they will have minimal impact on airflow at supersonic speeds, because they'll pretty much be streamlined with the main wing. Edited February 9, 2010 by Waco Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) Why the frack are the tinyurls getting converted to scalemodelworld.net? While I don't think Sukhoi screwed up and will show an engine face, those key forum schematics are a bit troubling. That tight a curvature can't be the real thing. It screams flow separation, pressure loss, and such an uneven pressure distribution (sideways) it looks impractical. Of course, if the Russians are smart (they are) we'll never know how they did it--short of sticking a head down the inlet of an Indian model... Edited February 9, 2010 by MarkW Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flankerman Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 There has been some very heated discussion on another forum about how the main landing gear retracts. One school says that the wheel rotates about the axle - and lays horizontally up into the wing root. The other school says that the wheel stays vertical as it retracts - and sits inside the intake trunking. I am of the latter school - I think the wheel rotates a little bit - but is essentially vertical against the trunk. I have produced the following two (crude) photo manipulations to show what I think... The 'flat in the wing root' idea ... What I think happens... Of course, it is all very speculative, I have no idea if I'm right or not.... :) Ken Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 Maybe you would have a better educated guess than me Ken but how do you think the short range missile will eject from those smaller side missile bays? There seems to be visible rivets on the front, but no visible doors on the bottom or side of it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pin Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 But the MiG-29 and Su-27 never had official Russian names Most of russian military jets don't have "official" names, they are designates by models only. The exceptions are usually media inspired, like Su-25 - rook , Su-47 Berkut, An-124 Ruslan or An-22 Antey, but such names are never mentioned in any militatry documentation But unofficial names sometimes are quite funny. To the best of my knowledge the following aircraft types have well recognized names: Su-7 - Tube (for its engine layout) Su-24 - glazier's diamond (for scratchy sound of turbines in take-off mode) Su-25 - rook or comb (because of vast number of weapon pylons under wings) Su-27 - bread ring (not quite, but I don't know better translation for Сушка) Su-34 - platypus Su-47 - bunglesome MiG-21 - balalaika (for its shape) MiG-23 - camp bed (because of folding wings) MiG-25 - Food Supermarket (because of alcohol based deicing system) or Massandra (famous brand of Crimea fortified wine) An-8. An-12 - Serai An-24. An-24 - Fantomas (do you remember this french movie of sixties? Or at least Mike Patton's band? ) Mi-6 - Caravanserai Mi-8 - Decanter Mi-24 - Crocodile Mi-26 - Cow Il-86 - aubergine Tu-160 - swan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oroka Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Those sound more like nicknames, kinda like the F-16 Viper, A-10 Warthog, B-52 BUFF... names based on characteristics of the aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 :D, G'day Agressor Supporter, I don't kow if I'm right here, but could that pod simply be a fibreglass or plastic shape to check the aerodynamics of that area, as envisaged by the designers, on the prototype. Maybe on the production machines that fairing will have the doors and all the other parafanalia that goes with carrying missiles inboard. Just a thought on the subject; remember, this is a flying protoype and the final product may well look quite different from this. Compare, if you will the T-10 prototy[e and the Su-27 production machines. Also, were there not differences between the YF-22s and pre-production machines and then again between pre-production machines and the production line birds that have gone into service. :), Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Maybe you would have a better educated guess than me Ken but how do you think the short range missile will eject from those smaller side missile bays? There seems to be visible rivets on the front, but no visible doors on the bottom or side of it? Has it been confirmed that this is the purpose of the fairings, to house a short-rage AAM, or is that more 'interwebz speculation? *cough* plasma stealth *cough* *cough* artificial intellect *cough* Yeah it's a prototype, blah blah blah... but that fairing looks awfully small to house an R-73/74. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) I was just thinking the same thing, Trigger ... They almost look like an aerodynamic feature rather than a housing ... and ... I wasn't going to bring up Plasma Stealth Emitters ... but ... Hey, maybe even side looking radar ? Gregg Edited February 10, 2010 by GreyGhost Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ross blackford Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 -_-, Or perhaps side looking infra red Gregg? , Ross. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pin Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Those sound more like nicknames, kinda like the F-16 Viper, A-10 Warthog, B-52 BUFF... names based on characteristics of the aircraft. Precisely, I meant that Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChernayaAkula Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Has it been confirmed that this is the purpose of the fairings, to house a short-rage AAM, or is that more 'interwebz speculation? *cough* plasma stealth *cough* *cough* artificial intellect *cough* Yeah it's a prototype, blah blah blah... but that fairing looks awfully small to house an R-73/74. KEN'S LINK to the AFM boards contained a schematic where someone had calculated these fairings to be 4.5 metres long, which would make them long enough for both R-73 and R-77. Whether they're deep enough is another question, though. Maybe this is Russia's idea of concealed weapons carriage outside of the internal weapon bays? This cut-away shows Archers and Adders with folding fins. I believe the idea of folding fin Archers was posted elsewhere already. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 KEN'S LINK to the AFM boards contained a schematic where someone had calculated these fairings to be 4.5 metres long, which would make them long enough for both R-73 and R-77. Whether they're deep enough is another question, though.Maybe this is Russia's idea of concealed weapons carriage outside of the internal weapon bays? This cut-away shows Archers and Adders with folding fins. I believe the idea of folding fin Archers was posted elsewhere already. Yeah, saw that; IIRC, a fanboy drew that, so it's about as accurate as anything anyone here could come up with. After being repeatedly told these past 2-3 years that a shape designed specifically for LO was no longer needed thanks to the engineering miracle that was Plasma Stealth (How many pages have we had with people pointing out shape similarities to the F-22 and YF-23?) and recently reading of the aircraft using "artificial intellect" you'll have to forgive me if I remain unconvinced. One of the most glaring things that stands out to me in the drawing is how thin the airframe is at the spine. That's supposed to support the weight of a heavy interceptor in a fast turn? The R-73's roughly the same dimensions as the AIM-9 (-73's diameter is slightly greater) yet look how large the bay for the Sidewinder is on the F-22. So those fairings are supposed to contain an AAM along with the internal structure of the doors, including it's hinges? And how is the missile launched? You wouldn't want gravity, especially if you're turning; no telling where the missile might end up before the motor lights up. How is it ejected into the slipstream before the motor ignites, and if so, what kind of mechanism is used to accomplish this? A trapeze? That's less space for a AAM. Push rods (ala F-15, F-4's Sparrow launchers)? Possibly.... Mount the missile on the door (I think the F-35 is supposed to do this too)? Again, where's the internal structure plus will this put the AAM clear of the front of the fairing? Sukhoi may have figured out a way to do this, but call me skeptical. Until I see a missile actually in there (mock-ups don't count), I'm thinking the fairing are more likely to house components of the EW suite. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dmanton300 Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Just for the sake of argument, the F-22's bays are so big to accomodate an AIM-9L/M class missile with big 'ole fins on it. The plan is (as far as I understand it) for a finless variety of the R-73 to be utilised (well, nothing more than vestigial fins at least) so physically getting a missile in that space is possible. It would be like putting a -9X in the F-22's bay. . suddenly you have a lot of spare room! I've always thought the six AMRAAM bay underneath the Raptor is a masterpiece of efficient packing, six missiles, all with extendible launchers, shoehorned in there is beautiful. I've always thought the Sidewinder bays are just the opposite. The location makes a rail launcher rather than an ejector necessary I suppose, but sure looks hokey to me. As for getting the missile out of that bay (if it exists on the PAK-FA) then I would imagine something like the Frazer-Nash hydraulic ejector like used on the Tornado F.3 to clear the Skyflash/AMRAAM from the aircraft would be likely? I'm not convinced it is a missile bay either (in fact I don't think it is to be honest), but I can see how it might be and what the solutions may be. The thing that strike me is how broad the aircraft's spine is behind the canopy. If that's used for fuel maybe Sukhoi should look at tendering for KC-X? Aside form tailplane interface with wing trailing edge I'm not really seeing the F-22/YF-23 visual comparisons except in general "similar solutions to similar problems" type results. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) There has been some very heated discussion on another forum about how the main landing gear retracts.One school says that the wheel rotates about the axle - and lays horizontally up into the wing root. The other school says that the wheel stays vertical as it retracts - and sits inside the intake trunking. I am of the latter school - I think the wheel rotates a little bit - but is essentially vertical against the trunk. I have produced the following two (crude) photo manipulations to show what I think... The 'flat in the wing root' idea ... What I think happens... Of course, it is all very speculative, I have no idea if I'm right or not.... Ken personnaly i think the openings in the sides of intakes trunk are only there to permit the landing gears to retract in the wing root... as they do on flankers! (give some place for the wheels... probably a matter of landing gears structs enlignment with frame... always as they previously done on flanker, that is, in my opinion, the most simple-efficient solution!) remember the smooth round shapes on the flanker gearbay entry that cuts-in the intakes nacelles... they just hadn't covering it this time... (i thing the shape of new intakes makes this hole bigger than on the flanker) the section you pointed has not enough depth to put a wheel in... the way you sows it... at least... Edited February 10, 2010 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) and, for thoses hypothetical sidebays, i'm not sure if thoses are not just some covers parts... for the moment... like that's not the proper radar yet in the nose... neither for the engines... maybe we won't see missiles bay opened soon... (never seen Berkut with opened missilebay? anyone does??) maybe new missiles arent ready yet...? my fantasy is that they don't use doors for the sides bays : the mecanism has the shape of some sort of "canoe" (small boat) that swivel on the longitudinal axis. showing is hollowed face, containg the missile, when pivoting... just before firing... don't know if this could be possible... but i think this would be great! (had been inspired by a headlights retract system seen on an old britt supercar ...but i can't remember what car it was...) Edited February 10, 2010 by mingwin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Sigh. I will repeat: It *was* confirmed that they are weapon bays. Don't believe me, read yourself here: http://kyrazh.ru/index.php?action=vthread&...076&page=24 (last two replies on that page) It makes perfect sense to have those bays there. Just think about it. What is the point of having small range missiles in the large bays? There will surely be place wasted, since the weapons are not placed "revolver barrel" style. Btw, IIRC, it was also said that R-73 dont fit there. So either: 1: R-60 2: New missile. I personally guess both of the options above. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Sigh. I will repeat: It *was* confirmed that they are weapon bays. Don't believe me, read yourself here: http://kyrazh.ru/index.php?action=vthread&...076&page=24 (last two replies on that page) It makes perfect sense to have those bays there. Just think about it. What is the point of having small range missiles in the large bays? There will surely be place wasted, since the weapons are not placed "revolver barrel" style. Btw, IIRC, it was also said that R-73 dont fit there. So either: 1: R-60 2: New missile. I personally guess both of the options above. your surely right Berkut. i was just calling them "hypothetical" because, i wasn't able, to prove by myself, that's what it was... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 your surely right Berkut.i was just calling them "hypothetical" because, i wasn't able, to prove by myself, that's what it was... Don't worry, it was not aimed at anyone at all, just generally it seemed that the question about the bays arose once again... Also, i have to agree with Ken regarding wheels. I don't see LG "twisting" in the few sec we see it retract in a vid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Also, i have to agree with Ken regarding wheels. I don't see LG "twisting" in the few sec we see it retract in a vid. you really have good eyes! :D all vidz i seen didn't shows that much about retraction cycle... the only seconds i seen related to, are hard to use... since the sun shines straight to the cam... and t-50 view is partially obstruct by cockpit frame and mirrors, of filming flanker... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.