The T-50 (PAK-FA) Thread

I wouldn't be too much hanged up in such numbers, they are pure speculation at best.

We do know that T-50 has been called a "flying gas can" and it is also known that there is more fuel capacity in it than in Su-27. But other factors, like empty weight, is unknown and there are no pointers either.

can the T-50 supercruise like the F-22? (Supersonic speed without afterburner)

It was never mentioned anywhere so far but I believe it can.

Now why do I think that?

M1.01 is a supercruise...it's not M1.6 like your average Raptor but it's faster than a speed of sound.

Current engines used with T-50 are Su-27 engine upgrades, not as powerful as the ones they intend to install once the T-50 goes serial but these engines asre powerful enough to propel the streamlined jet beyond M1.0

I remember German MiG-29 pilots accidentally going supersonic during Ful Mil flights. Perhaps in a slight dive or headwind but it used to happen with older engines as well.

In order to avoid this and prolong the engine TBOs Germans slightly degraded RD-33.

During the development of Yugoslav Attack jet called J-21 Orao (Eagle) Yugoslav Company SOKO-Mostar worked closely with Romanian company Avioane Craiova who made their version of it called IAR-93 Vultur (which means Eagle as well).

Chosen powerplant was Rolls Royce VIPER as SOKO already knew this engine well and started license building it.

Viper was as non-afterburing engine but during trials (IIRC in 1976) one of the IAR-93 / J-21 testbeds reached the speed of 1.045km/h in level NOE flight but was lost 'cause the empennage fell off at such overstress or tail flutter.

So it was an old engine and not so streamlined jet but it was at or near M1.0 without AB.

So which of those figures would you say are reasonably close? I remember some talk of max speed being only Mach 2, which seems a bit curious considering the sweep angle.

Not much is known. Wingspan is almost certain (13.95m), and from that it is easy to calculate the length.

can the T-50 supercruise like the F-22? (Supersonic speed without afterburner)

It is supposed to go supersonic without AB yes, but so could Tu-128.

M1.01 is a supercruise...it's not M1.6 like your average Raptor but it's faster than a speed of sound.

No, that is not supercruise. Atleast not according to USAF. :)

There are many fighters capable of barely-supersonic cruise. But very few can do anything above mach 1.2

Wrong. Although that is true to some extent, the jet core cools rapidly and is wrapped in cooler bypass air. The engine exhaust nozzle surface will be far, far brighter.... and the goal is not elimination of IR signature, just reduction.

F-22's nozzles are designed to suck in the surrounding air around the nozzles to make a kind of envelope and also cool the exhaust. By pass air is present in all engines and rather then F-22's nozzles T-50's nozzles better mix them as it is symmetric.

Eh, what? I had three things listed, not two. Then what what? :D You are not making any sense as usual.

 

Yes, isn't that evidence enough?

 

Vertical tails, first one is the first picture of it:

 

http://russianplanes.net/images/to62000/061725.jpg

 

+

 

http://russianplanes.net/id70004

 

Feel free to compare other, better pics and find out that those tails does match T-50-1's and not T-50-2's. As to horizontal:

 

 

And why do you think T-50-2 was also grounded for a good while? Same story as with T-50-1:

 

http://russianplanes.net/id114101

I dont see any difference. In the last pic if you see it has been compressed vertically to look different. Any more evidence.

M1.01 is a supercruise...it's not M1.6 like your average Raptor but it's faster than a speed of sound.

1.01 is transonic - the compression shock is still not settled completely. Real supersonic - 1.2+.

Also supercruise was a Lockheed definition and set so high (mach 1.5) that the raptor could be advertised as the only one capable of doing this.

Umm no it wasnt..

The Definition is:

Sustained supersonic flight of an aircraft without the use of afterburners.

and technically if you wanna say Lockheed Martin did invent the term, it wouldnt have been set at Mach 1.5 as the term was used in F-16 Upgrade proposals for 1.2 Cruise Speed.

Supercruise is a Common Definition...

There were several aircraft before the F-22 that could sustain 1.3+ without using reheat. and there are several Generation 4.5+ Fighters that can do it with external stores.

There are many fighters capable of barely-supersonic cruise. But very few can do anything above mach 1.2

Exactly.

I dont see any difference. In the last pic if you see it has been compressed vertically to look different. Any more evidence.

Which picture exactly? The one with horizontal stabs? If you don't see the correlation between them in that one, then sorry, i can not help you...

Also supercruise was a Lockheed definition and set so high (mach 1.5) that the raptor could be advertised as the only one capable of doing this.

Not really. It was MoD/USAF who set the supercruise requirements, not Lockheed.

Exactly.

 

 

 

Which picture exactly? The one with horizontal stabs? If you don't see the correlation between them in that one, then sorry, i can not help you...

 

 

 

Not really. It was MoD/USAF who set the supercruise requirements, not Lockheed.

Why not?? Help me understand the difference. Please I would like to.

Why not?? Help me understand the difference. Please I would like to.

Look on the right hand picture. That is original T-50-2 stab, look at the camo pattern. Then look at the middle picture showing T-50-1, look at the pattern. Now look at the left picture, T-50-2 is clearly using T-50-1 stab.

Look on the right hand picture. That is original T-50-2 stab, look at the camo pattern. Then look at the middle picture showing T-50-1, look at the pattern. Now look at the left picture, T-50-2 is clearly using T-50-1 stab.

Oh I get get. T-50-2 was grounded because they painted a wrong camo on it.

Oh I get get. T-50-2 was grounded because they painted a wrong camo on it.

Dude, this is not rocket science.:doh: T-50-2 got T-50-1's stab.

Or am i victim to very subtle trolling?

I get that but except camo can you tell me physical difference between them?

http://vk.com/michaeldec?w=wall216211895_551

I get that but except camo can you tell me physical difference between them?

There might not be a difference in the design of the two- but if 50-2 needed stabs replaced, it indicates there was something wrong with the original, and that means either a) poor quality control or b) something broke, which means poor quality control and/or a flawed design in the first place.

That said, the ribs/strakes on the original T-50-2 design look somewhat more prominent to me. But that may be an effect of the lighting and pattern.

I need more photos!

The ethos appears to be itterative design improvements - get the basic structure right then go from there.

Maybe there was a design fault inthe new STAB, maybe no fault just the previous one had more benign handling characteristics - maybe someone decided to add a new radar array or radio antenna but it didn't perform as well as they'd hoped. Maybe there was a change to a part that they used because they thought they could trim off a couple of kilos, and after some hours of flight they took off and away for destructive structural testing, maybe this, maybe that. Maybe there was a problem, maybe there wasn't and some aspects of the second STAB will appear in a later version.

This statement:

if 50-2 needed stabs replaced, it indicates there was something wrong with the original, and that means either a) poor quality control or b) something broke

Seems a big jump that to me implies a desire to see things going that way.

That said, the ribs/strakes on the original T-50-2 design look somewhat more prominent to me. But that may be an effect of the lighting and pattern.

Neither T-50-1 or T-50-2 had the strengthening plates on stabs to start with. They got them retrofitted. (vertical tails has been also retrofitted)

T-50-4 and -5 (to certain degree T-50-1 and -2 too, after their massive retrofits) are covered with plates all over the frame.

The ethos appears to be itterative design improvements - get the basic structure right then go from there.

 

Maybe there was a design fault inthe new STAB, maybe no fault just the previous one had more benign handling characteristics - maybe someone decided to add a new radar array or radio antenna but it didn't perform as well as they'd hoped. Maybe there was a change to a part that they used because they thought they could trim off a couple of kilos, and after some hours of flight they took off and away for destructive structural testing, maybe this, maybe that. Maybe there was a problem, maybe there wasn't and some aspects of the second STAB will appear in a later version.

 

This statement:

 

 

Seems a big jump that to me implies a desire to see things going that way.

I meant the original stabs on T-50-2, not the originals from -1. Either way, there was a REASON to change out to T-50-2 stabs, and with how new the airframes are, it really shouldn't be fatigue. Ergo, something was wrong with the original T-50-2 stabs. Did I ever say it was catastrophically wrong?

Neither T-50-1 or T-50-2 had the strengthening plates on stabs to start with. They got them retrofitted. (vertical tails has been also retrofitted)

 

T-50-4 and -5 (to certain degree T-50-1 and -2 too, after their massive retrofits) are covered with plates all over the frame.

Heavy retrofitting of strengthening plates goes somewhat further in indicating the design wasn't satisfactory as it was.

I'm not saying it's not a basically sound design- just that it appears it's still quite a ways from being ready for primetime

Neither T-50-1 or T-50-2 had the strengthening plates on stabs to start with. They got them retrofitted. (vertical tails has been also retrofitted)

 

T-50-4 and -5 (to certain degree T-50-1 and -2 too, after their massive retrofits) are covered with plates all over the frame.

Did T-50-3 ever get the reinforcement plates?

T-50-5, May 2014.