T-50 PAK-FA configuration.

Originally posted by emile
I will put some money on that configration of T.50 has no future if it would still be designed as Raptorski. I think that Sukhoi bur. has already realized this so the configration of T.50 might chang already.

Except lower detectable, almost all of professor of aerodynamics would say that Canard layout is more superior than formal layout as F-22. THat is what I always presisted that MiG I.44 was more advanced and better than S-37 and F-22, if we just talking about the aerodynamical configeration.

But canards are harder to make them stealth, and stealth is more important today than a little better maneuvrability, especially if you consider that next gen misilles are so maneuvrable that you don't even need to face enemy aircraft the misille can be fired backwards.

There are some misunderstanding I think. I mean that lower detection should be used by another way not to sacrifice maneuverability.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I have seen many artist renditions which make it look 80% F-22 and 20% Su-27, but I was wondering, what will it REALLY look like? is there any clear indication WHAT it will look like?

BTW, I only wish to discuss this aircraft project, and I don't want comparing here.

Take a close look at this picture and draw your own conclusions.

warfare.ru.../update/jan2005/2/mat.jpg

Sadly, for aircraft aficionados, all the plane's mentioned are already outdated.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Good 3-view Matej!!! very excellent, so is the wind tunnel model pic!!

The MiG-29 could be considdered a knock off on the F/A-18 y'know, the F-15 in turn a knock off on the MiG-25! you can argue for hours, but why not stick with a proven design rather than making your own?

I would think the people who designed an airplane as capable as the Mig-29 would be extremely offended at comparisons with the F-18. In fact, I can prove it:

www.codeonemagazine.com...

The Russians have mostly been ahead of us in aerodynamics and aircraft design going back to before WW2. Our advantage is our superior computer technology. Many companies are taking this advantage and turning it into an overwhelming advantage in systems.

A mediocre aircraft with superior systems will always have an advantage over a superior aircraft with mediocre systems.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by orca71]

planeman: Thanks. I used cca 7 degrees outward, because Su-47 and also T-60S used the same (only T-60S had it inward).

emile: Partialy i can agree, but from Su-35, there is no need to enhance the maneuvrability of the fighters. Another thing - Sukhoi has no experience with pure delta/canard plane and the engineers of any design bureau usualy use alike designs and solutions (something like thinking persistance).

orca71: And you see this. We allready discussed this.



But I can agree with you in MiG-29 vs. F/A-18C/D. MiG-29 has much better aerodynamic than Hornet, but Hornet has (compared to MiG-29 izdelije 9-12A) better electronic eqipment. Now, when you compare MiG-29OVT with TVC, helmet mounted display and targeting, Zuk-MFS radar, BLRS Sokol and Pharaon, F/A-18 also in E/F Superhornet modification has lower chance to survive. But I still speak that the most important factor is man in cockpit.

Pretty good analogy. But although I didn't know are there any canard layout was designed by Sukhoj, they do has some experience of delta wing design as Su-11, Su-15 etc. Because of the authorities discion, PAK-FA was combined with Suhkoj to design next denerational fighter, I guess they would adopt the layout of I.44.

Originally posted by orca71

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Good 3-view Matej!!! very excellent, so is the wind tunnel model pic!!

The MiG-29 could be considdered a knock off on the F/A-18 y'know, the F-15 in turn a knock off on the MiG-25! you can argue for hours, but why not stick with a proven design rather than making your own?

I would think the people who designed an airplane as capable as the Mig-29 would be extremely offended at comparisons with the F-18. In fact, I can prove it:

www.codeonemagazine.com...

The Russians have mostly been ahead of us in aerodynamics and aircraft design going back to before WW2. Our advantage is our superior computer technology. Many companies are taking this advantage and turning it into an overwhelming advantage in systems.

A mediocre aircraft with superior systems will always have an advantage over a superior aircraft with mediocre systems.

[edit on 7-2-2006 by orca71]

Ummm thats a pretty bad conclusion you came up with. WW2 the only thing Russia had were numbers not superior A/C. Also the F-15 is older than the MIG-29 i think and wasnt matched until the SU-35. A/C like the F-16 and F/A-18E out match a MIG-29. Russia best Modern A/C are defintly the SU-27 and SU-35.

Not saying Russia make bad A/C.

Originally posted by ACGoDZ
Ummm thats a pretty bad conclusion you came up with. WW2 the only thing Russia had were numbers not superior A/C.

Also the F-15 is older than the MIG-29 i think and wasnt matched until the SU-35. A/C like the F-16 and F/A-18E out match a MIG-29. Russia best Modern A/C are defintly the SU-27 and SU-35.

Not saying Russia make bad A/C.

You are joking right?


News for you, the Yak-3 and Yak-9 were as good as anything the Allies had in A2A combat. The Yak-3 was superior to all Nazi aircraft below 5000m.


The Free French Normandy-Niemen Squadron had the choice of any allied aircraft for operations... they chose the Yak-3.

Upon entering combat with the Luftwaffe it was fund to be markedly superior to both the Focke Wulf 190 and the Messerschmitt Me-109 at lower altitudes. Such was the panic amongst Luftwaffe staff upon the appearance of the Yak-3 that they sent a signal to all squadrons saying "Avoid all combat below 10,000 ft with any Yak fighter lacking an oil cooler under the nose".

Aerodynamically, the F-15 was matched (indeed, beaten) by the Su-27. It is closer between the MiG-29 and F-16, the MiG-29 kicks ass all over the F-18 [again, aerodynamically].

Russian aircraft traditionally have excellent aerodynamics, its their lack of a computer industry [a silicion valleyski so to speak] that hindered their aircraft, a lack of compact, light cpu power resulting in avionics that didn't match up to the airframes they were fitted in.

I would bet on that straight-wing version of Su-47 Berkut. Its a lot make more sense to be inferior challenger for F-22, Eurofighter, Rafale and F-15C. I would say that its typical Russian fighter if they ever put that kind of jet in production. It shudder me when I think about its capablities that if Russian would able to secure the money for full production. They would intergrate Su-37's avonics, electronics and engines into that drawn-up plan version of that Su-47 or so-called T-50. Su-50 does ring the bell too. I do want to add it up, Su-50 Phoenix...

Guys, by the way, please don't even compare MiG-25 Foxbat to obviously far more superior F-15C Eagle. In the record I took liberty to looked it up, F-15C from USAF and Israel AF shot down 7 of these jets from Iraq, Syria and Libya. None of F-15 got their asses spanked, not yet and probably will never. By the way, I can't wait for Russia to finally fly that "T-50" anytime soon before 2010. We'll find out how either great or sudden crash of that jet.

Originally posted by OneMyrmidon
We'll find out how either great or sudden crash of that jet.

Many advanced and ultimately successful fighters suffer crashes in the prototype/development programme:
F22
Gripen
Eurofighter

Originally posted by Lucretius

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

forward swept winged concept :

I like it

What he said.

Someone mentioned the problems with the wing root. Sukhoi is capable of fixing the problem (or at least alleviating it somewhat), and I'm sure that they well. But that being said if the real PAK-FA is anything like that I am going to be a lot happier in the years to come.

This has come a contest between hose whose countries have Russian planes against Americans hoping that somehow they can feel that if there was aerial combat they would win.

Russia makes great planes, that is a fact, but it is also a fact that their planes are very unreliable, specially their electronics systems. Therefore Russian planes almost always under-perform of their theoretical capabilities because of this.

The other fact is that whether we like it or not, the US makes the most advanced planes on this planet. The MIG 29, SU27/35 and so are mere evolutions of a basic and quite old design. But they nowhere near the technology achieved by the YF-23 and F-22 on their Advanced Fighter Contest. Let's be serious here and look at the facts. The F-22 is the best fighter plane right now, as was the F-15. it is simply that the only country with the kind of technology a and experience to develop such a plane is the US...
Look at your computer, who designed the Processor and Operating System and everything else?
take a look at the technological advances in the last 30 years or so? I bet more than half came from the US...
I'm not American but these are facts, and you can argue about it all you want, but if there was an air combat my money would be with the USAF and their planes

I simply cannot comprehend why people feel that the MiG-29(w/o OVT but with all the other jazz like the ZHUK-M Phazotron and Sura HMS) is a sucky plane?!!

Really..

I don't think it will feature forward swept wing... In fact I think it will be complete copy of F-22, at least concerning external look. IF it will be produced of course.

I want to mention some things:

The Russian plane will be so instable that they made a special engine ( no other country in the world has such one, at least that is what I heard).
That means that it will have supermaneuverability, I bet you noticed the small wings in the front, those are special wings for it ( the eurofighter has such ones too).

Then the rockets, I heard they have a larger distance than any other (give me the right info if I am not right).

The stealth part, I don't know that for sure, but I bet Russia has the ability to make stealth fighters, if not they wouldn't do that.

That is everything for so far I heard.

This information is from a Russian program, believe me, I picked the facts out of there, because there was much exaggoration.

Originally posted by Ilija
The Russian plane will be so instable that they made a special engine ( no other country in the world has such one, at least that is what I heard).
That means that it will have supermaneuverability, I bet you noticed the small wings in the front, those are special wings for it ( the eurofighter has such ones too).

Then the rockets, I heard they have a larger distance than any other (give me the right info if I am not right).

The stealth part, I don't know that for sure, but I bet Russia has the ability to make stealth fighters, if not they wouldn't do that.

That is everything for so far I heard.

This information is from a Russian program, believe me, I picked the facts out of there, because there was much exaggoration.

How will a new engine make any difference to the stability of the plane? And those "little wings" are called canards.

WRT I hope you are not suggesting that the PAK-FA will be rocket powered, that would just not be practical.

Finally, how do you know the information you are posting here isnt exagorated?

The info about the F-22 may be exaggorated too , you know.
The engines have some kind of special configuration.
The engines allows such manuevres that at least I couldn't even imagine, like staying verticaly at one place in the air and moving up and down (ofcoarse it's spins during that manuevre, or it will get out of balance).
The Su's (i think from the 30st, I may be wrong) couldn't even take off normaly, it would spin and crash, but with those engines it flies well.

Discovery exaggorates too, Russsian programs exaggorate, it's good for the bussines, but you can pick the facts out of it. If you watch Russian programs you can compare those things and give a verdict.

And those canards are allowing super high manuevrability of some kind, the eurofighter got them too, and it's manoeuvrability is pretty good.

I know you have a different opion, but that's what I heard of the project
(actually more, but everything else is probably exaggorated).

I say I may be wrong with some things, because they don't give much info about it. But things like the engines: I'm sure about it, there were openings to look at it.

And one thing, that plane is under development, no one can give very accurate information. Most people can just guess what it will look like ( I self have no idea, I only know how the prototype of the Su-37 Golden Eagle looked like).





[edit on 29-3-2007 by Ilija]

Originally posted by Ilija
The Su's (i think from the 30st, I may be wrong) couldn't even take off normaly, it would spin and crash, but with those engines it flies well.

The Su-30 is a carrier-based version of the Su-27. Everything up until the Su-47 Berkut/Firkin (Which basically translates as everything from the Su-27 to the Su-37) is based off of the Su-27, in fact. The airframe, while heavy, is also very stable. It's a traditional layout quite similar to that of the F-15, albeit with a few aesthetic differences. The only very different thing about the Su-35 and Su-37 is the use of vortex lift. But this hasn't got anything to do with the engines.

I can see how the Su-47 requires extra support from the engines to remain stable (remain? Become might be a better word). The only significant, truly innovative (not necessarily new, but a good use of it) thing would be thrust vectoring applied all across the airframe, somewhat similar to the F-35B's roll posts, used for STOVL operations. If this was applied in a larger area with more vectoring areas it could possibly allow for some serious maneuverage. An interesting thought. It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see it considering that the Russians seem to have a knack for making new engine systems work.

And those canards are allowing super high manuevrability of some kind, the eurofighter got them too, and it's manoeuvrability is pretty good.

Possibly, but there would be little difference to having elevators. Having both canards and elevators as is present on the MiG 1.42/1.44 MFI allows for extra mobility, but only while moving at a normal airspeed. It doesn't matter how many control surfaces you have when you're stalled. The only full-spectrum maneuverability option would be some sort of thrust vectoring as I've already outlined.

The only unique options that canards offer is the utilization of vortex lift. And that's not quite "supermaneuvereability".



[edit on 3/29/2007 by Darkpr0]

[edit on 3/29/2007 by Darkpr0]

Originally posted by Darkpr0

The Su-30 is a carrier-based version of the Su-27.

[edit on 3/29/2007 by Darkpr0]

Umm. no.. the Su-33 is the carrier version of the Su-27.
Su30 is an advanced Land based fighter..