Soviet fighters

During last days, I made some pics of rare soviet/russian fighters. First is Yakovlev Yak-45I, proposal to early PFI competition, which led to TPFI and LPFI - Su-27 and MiG-29. Second is possible configuration of MiG Izdelije 1.27 PAK FA and third artists impression of future MiGs multirole fighter, based on interview with Vladimir Barkovskiy.




Bigger: www.hitechweb.szm.sk...



Bigger: www.hitechweb.szm.sk...



Bigger: www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

ok... they look ok... But do you have any "real" pics of the planes...?

One thing that stands out about these images, particularly the PAK-FA and the MIG-2020 is that there is no attempt to hide the heat signature of the engines -
It's interesting that the aircraft appears to have a shape that could be stealthy to radar, and yet be totally unstealthy to the infrared bandwidth. I know these are artists' renderings, but this is something I've noticed in other renderings of Russian advanced aircraft.
hmmm... curious.

Matej, do you by any chance have more pics of the project-33 (Mig-33) that was sold to China and became the FC-1 other than that black and white pic ???

Whilst Yakovlev appear to have got stuck in 1952, the MiG's are very smart looking and remind me of a Rockwell ATF proposal I've seen a few times.

That Yakovlev proposal does not seem to be for the PAK-FA but for some other obsucre thing called PFI.

The following is the Yakovlev proposal for the VSTOL PAK-FA :

external image

He didn't say it was for Pak-Fa.

Actually, the design shown above marked "1.27 PAK FA" was created by a guy I know on a different forum. He posted a hand drawn plan view a few years ago.

Originally posted by intelgurl
there is no attempt to hide the heat signature of the engines

Actually, the 1.44 had conventional round "holes in the back", exhausts for the 3-D vectoring AL-41s. Apparently they had lined the inner surfaces of the nozzles with ceramic tiles or something to help alleviate the IR signature. You don't need a platypus-style nozzle like on HAVE BLUE or SENIOR TREND to lower your IR signature. Plus, any supercruise capability, as it would involve not using the 'burners, would also help to reduce exhaust temperature. The use of conventiona-styled nozzles on aircraft such as the 1.44 is most likely a compromise designed to enable 3-D vectoring to be used. I dunno how easy it would be to design a 3-D vectoring nozzle using an arrangement similar to that found on the F/A-22, but I imagine it'd be quite the challenge.

[edit on 8/4/2005 by SOC]

Fighter Master FIN: here is Yak-45 STOVL derivate with canards instead of horizontal tails and on the right is simplyfied drawing of original Yak-45.



Stealth Spy 1: "obscure thing" is Perspektivnij Frontovoj Istrebitel - perspective fighter competition, which finaly led to Su-27 and MiG-29. This Yak is from 1972 proposals.

Stealth Spy 2: I have only one another picture of MiG Izdelije 33, but still that model in grayscale.

SOC: Drawing was made from the same wind tunnel model, as the hand drawn plan, that you mentioned. I am not 100 % sure, if it was definitely applied to final version of MiG Izdelije 1.27, but it is possible.

Intelgurl: As SOC wrote, for fighter it is much more usefull to have roud shaped nozzle with 3D vectoring. If you have flattened nozzle, you can vectore it only in 2D up and down [YF-22] or left to right [Bird of Prey and also X-45]. F-117 had low IR nozzle, but the price is enormous heat loading, when the hot gasses pass trough rounded cross-section to near pencil shaped nozzle. There were some attempts to build low IR 3D nozzle in Soyuz R-179-300 engine, but it was very complicated. Instead of this, perspective russian fighters will have AL-41F or simmilar engines.

Flat exhausts are not required to reduce infrared signature, but rather to maintain the stealth shape of the entire plane. In US planes, the exhaust is disrtibuted across several outlets which are flat to maintain the lines. Infrared signature is reduced by mixing cold air with the hot exhaust and spreading it across the rear of the plane. Sometimes, the exhaust is placed over other surfaces to shield the exhaust from elow, eg. the A-10 thunderbolt.

Round shapes are required for full 3d thrust vectoring, but flat exhausts with other surfaces like canards can be used to increase maneuverability.

Originally posted by matej
Stealth Spy 1: "obscure thing" is Perspektivnij Frontovoj Istrebitel - perspective fighter competition, which finaly led to Su-27 and MiG-29. This Yak is from 1972 proposals.

Oh i did'nt mean it in a bad way ... but one can see why the Yak was rejected by just taking a look at it.

Stealth Spy 2: I have only one another picture of MiG Izdelije 33, but still that model in grayscale.

Would you care to post it .
Thanks in advance

The picture in the right bottom is not of an Al-41 F.

That is a picture of the working of the Eurofighter's propoesed 3D TVC fitting to its engines


i've posted it here >> www.abovetopsecret.com...&singlepost=1550089

and it is from here >> www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk... (sroll down to the bottom)

The Al-41F is also a 3D TVC- supercruise engine that will be displayed at MAKS-2005 in a few weeks time.

Here are some pics on what a Russian website claims is the Al-41F1 undergoing testing on a Sukhoi testbed aircraft.

(pics are oversized to be posted, so here are the links)

img168.imageshack.us...
img168.imageshack.us...
img168.imageshack.us...

Note that the Al-41F1 is a full fledged 3D TVC with supercruise and will have 15,000 kgs of thrust and meant for the PAK-FA and the Russians have alredy announced last month that it will fly in 2007.

Here is that Russian website i was talking about >> paralay.narod.ru...

and here is its english translation (wait for it to load) >> ENGLISH TRANSLATION

[edit on 6-8-2005 by Stealth Spy]

What happened to the plans to fly the X-31 with that nozzle, were they ditched or is it still ongoing?

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Oh i did not mean it in a bad way ... but one can see why the Yak was rejected by just taking a look at it.

Yakovlev proposal looks like it look, because they did not have time to work a lot on it. It was created at time, when there were big development problems with Yak-38 and Yak-141.

You have a lucky day: here is second model photo...



And my drawing. It was very hard work, because when you look precisious on this plane, you will see, that it is very different than what it appears to be.

Bigger:
www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

Russian version or derivative of the US F-16, matej?
I'm seeing alot of similiarities.





seekerof

Better to said the same class aircraft. It had better aerodynamic shape [but my opinion is that F-16 looks better] and was designed to have as much as possible common parts with MiG 1.42 MFI.

Something wrong, I cannot edit my posts. I redrawn the Yak-45 2 view, now it is less fatt and better answers to the model. Also the link is a bit different:

www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

There are also two new pictures, MiG TPFI proposal [lost to Sukhoi T10 - later Su-27] and Jakovlev MFI [lost to MiG 1.42 MiG-39].



link Bigger picture: www.hitechweb.szm.sk...



link Bigger picture: www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

Long X-mas and a lot of time on computer Here is another. First drawing is proposed serial configuration of experimental Yakovlev Yak-36. It was called Yak-36MP, but this designation was later reused again during Yak-38 development.

Bigger here: www.hitechweb.szm.sk...



Second represents latest variant of soviet stealthy tactical bomber Sukhoi T-60S after redesigning to lenght 28 m (91,9 feet).

Bigger here: www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

well matej, could you tell me was that Mig-29 a prototype of Mig-29 or Mig I.44?

It was nothing to do with either emile, it was MiG's design in competition with the Su-27 but lost and was never built.

Originally posted by intelgurl
One thing that stands out about these images, particularly the PAK-FA and the MIG-2020 is that there is no attempt to hide the heat signature of the engines - ...
I've noticed in other renderings of Russian advanced aircraft.
hmmm... curious.
[/quote]

In other discussions people have talked about stealth being most effective from the front ( and sides).

Another thing that has been said is that with BVR missle the fighters would be miles (50+-) apart.

And generally infared missles are shorter range (i am no expert so correct me if need be).

I wonder if their approuch is simply why spend mega bucks to reduce an aspect of the signature that means you have already lost. ie. the enemy is on your butt launching a missle! If you were supposed to have knocked him out of the sky before they got behind you why plane for him to be behind you?


Dead
Steve

respectlful to you.