Objective comparison of F-22's and the T-50's aerodynamics?

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3642
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post27 Aug 2013, 16:47

In the interest of being on topic, the T-50 has a broad, smooth upper surface with short vertical stabs. By comparison to the upper surface the lower surface seems to have been an exercise in slapping engines onto a great wing/body blend. so while the short vericals may reduce drag I feel the tunnel will increase it as it has additional surface area and more corner interferances. The F-22 on the other hand has a rather uniform upper and lower surface toward the rear and a smooth "flat plate" mid-body on the lower surface. The F-22 seems to have the lower drag body, but this may or may not be countered by the larger Vert and Horz Stabs.

Pitch authority seems to favor the F-22 as it's engines are more powerful (for TVC, however they also appear closer to the CG than the T-50 engines) and the Horizontals seem much larger (and more aft of the CG).


the aerodynamic wildcard here is the LEVCONs. to what extend to they manage airflow and controllability?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 581
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post27 Aug 2013, 22:06

For drag, you need to look at area ruling since that affects the wave drag at supersonic speeds. In this, T-50 should be better because tandem weapon bay placement results in lower maxim cross section area.
Last edited by disconnectedradical on 27 Aug 2013, 23:29, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3642
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post27 Aug 2013, 22:51

I am aware of that dichotomy (more surface area for less volume) but simply saying that the decreased volume equals less drag at M 1.7 does not pan out. it is about the distribution profile of the cross section, not just the total area. Testing will give us an answer one way or another. The F-22 far exceeded its design speed for supercruise and they changed a number of things between the prototype and the production model so it stands to reason that some of those changes were made with wave drag in mind.

The T-50 seems to be broader than the F-22 in the fore body so there may not be any benefit to be had in the wave drag area. The only people who know for sure are the design engineers of each plane.

In the video on the top of the previous page the T-50 seems to have excellent control (none of that "Isaac Newton" post stall stuff of earlier Sukhois) so the engineers responsible for the C-law did good work.

I see in some still that the LEVCONs operate differentially. My question about those is if they are an actual control surface for roll/pitch or if they simply act as nothing but vortex control and operate differentially due to local AOA when in roll. Any way you slice it they are an aerodynamic advancement over the fixed upper intake lips of the F-22.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 581
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post27 Aug 2013, 23:27

Area ruling isn't about total frontal area, it's about max cross section area and how cross section area distribution along the front-rear axis conforms to that of Sears Haack shape. I read that wave drag is lowered by either lower max cross sectional area or smoother distribution. Tandem weapon bays of PAK-FA means that max cross sectional area should be lower than F-22. So T-50 is a more slender aircraft. As for which has smoother distribution, I don't know.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3255
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 01:42

disconnectedradical wrote:Area ruling isn't about total frontal area, it's about max cross section area and how cross section area distribution along the front-rear axis conforms to that of Sears Haack shape. I read that wave drag is lowered by either lower max cross sectional area or smoother distribution. Tandem weapon bays of PAK-FA means that max cross sectional area should be lower than F-22. So T-50 is a more slender aircraft. As for which has smoother distribution, I don't know.

That isn't necessarily true. There are all kinds of systems to juggle around in the airframe, so tandem bays don't necessarily lead to a leaner profile. Particularly if the Russian systems are bigger or less distributed.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 581
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 03:16

PAK-FA's systems and avionics may not take up as much volume as F-22's since it's newer, but then again the T-50 is packing more systems on board, and technically nothing is preventing the F-22 to be upgraded with lighter and more avionics.

Also, both aircraft have similar frontal area but T-50 has smaller max cross section area, so more slender and reduce supersonic drag. Then again slender is just one of many factors.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3642
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post28 Aug 2013, 14:01

please look at my last post and tell me where I ever said frontal. I was trying to explain the same thing you were trying to rebut me with, and I was pointing out reasons why the T-50 may NOT have a better distribution.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

ericchase88

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2013, 14:39

Unread post30 Aug 2013, 01:40

According to test pilot Bogdan T-50 only showed 40% of it's potential at MAKS. It is already turning very tightly and impressively.
Offline

ericchase88

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2013, 14:39

Unread post01 Sep 2013, 21:20

From MAKS 2013 airshow

T-50 is doing 360 turns in 18-19 seconds, already comparable to Su-35S and F-22. T-50 is also not using max power in those turns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoFmbLm-oKg

At 3:55, the plane does near vertical climb while accelerating. Acceleration is quick and noticable, I have never seen any aircraft with such power. This is not even using second stage engines. This look like T-50 will exceed any aircraft in climb and acceleration. If F-22 is not holding itself back during airshows, it will easily exceed F-22 as well; even with weaker 117 engines.
Offline

ericchase88

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 20 Jan 2013, 14:39

Unread post03 Dec 2013, 13:04

he wings on the T-50 are large and well-swept, optimized for supersonic flight and for high(er) altitudes. In comparison to the F-22, given even remotely comparable engines, the PAK FA should be able to fly faster, for longer and supercruise more effectively (with lower fuel consumption and greater speed).

The all-wing shape of the T-50 follows the same principles that was so successful with the Su-27 and the MiG-29 and not only provides lift, but also provides ample space (along with the large wings) for massive fuel and/or weapons bays. Reducing drag, increasing range and payload and creating lift and stands in good light compared to the F-22s design.

CARET inlets of the air intakes are useful for “wave riding”, generating increased lift for the airframe. This allows lower RCS and increased airflow. With the long length of its horizontal wedged edge (of the inlet) additionally helps lift. Large, moveable Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERX) over the inlets are highly innovative and perhaps plays a role in making the T-50 super-maneuverable. It is not a flap-like structure but perhaps more like an aileron and behaves in someways perhaps like a canard.

This is an interesting innovation and also provides a solution for the T-50 in managing air-flow over the wing and onto the slanted stabilizers, solving problems of a twin-tailed delta configuration.
Offline

sergio-from-moscow

Banned

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2013, 07:50

Unread post06 Dec 2013, 09:23

it isn't pleasant to me as the t-50 in front looks, my opinion that it not the most successful design and something reminds me Su-34.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2473
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post06 Dec 2013, 23:08

ericchase88 wrote:From MAKS 2013 airshow

T-50 is doing 360 turns in 18-19 seconds, already comparable to Su-35S and F-22. T-50 is also not using max power in those turns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoFmbLm-oKg

At 3:55, the plane does near vertical climb while accelerating. Acceleration is quick and noticable, I have never seen any aircraft with such power. This is not even using second stage engines. This look like T-50 will exceed any aircraft in climb and acceleration. If F-22 is not holding itself back during airshows, it will easily exceed F-22 as well; even with weaker 117 engines.


Agree it's an impressive climb, but how are you judging it vs. other aircraft? I've seen F-15's shoot skyward like this, and the F-22 trounces the Eagle in the vertical so...
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 581
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post07 Dec 2013, 07:49

ericchase88 wrote:he wings on the T-50 are large and well-swept, optimized for supersonic flight and for high(er) altitudes. In comparison to the F-22, given even remotely comparable engines, the PAK FA should be able to fly faster, for longer and supercruise more effectively (with lower fuel consumption and greater speed).

The all-wing shape of the T-50 follows the same principles that was so successful with the Su-27 and the MiG-29 and not only provides lift, but also provides ample space (along with the large wings) for massive fuel and/or weapons bays. Reducing drag, increasing range and payload and creating lift and stands in good light compared to the F-22s design.


And you know this how?

CARET inlets of the air intakes are useful for “wave riding”, generating increased lift for the airframe. This allows lower RCS and increased airflow. With the long length of its horizontal wedged edge (of the inlet) additionally helps lift. Large, moveable Leading Edge Root Extensions (LERX) over the inlets are highly innovative and perhaps plays a role in making the T-50 super-maneuverable. It is not a flap-like structure but perhaps more like an aileron and behaves in someways perhaps like a canard.

This is an interesting innovation and also provides a solution for the T-50 in managing air-flow over the wing and onto the slanted stabilizers, solving problems of a twin-tailed delta configuration.


This is the first time I've heard of this kind of claim. Can someone knowledgable shed light about this?
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2629
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post01 Mar 2015, 03:58

Nobody else continuing this debate?
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 581
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: Irvine, CA

Unread post01 Mar 2015, 09:57

Without further information, there's not much that we can add. I made this thread back when I was a freshman undergrad in aerospace engineering. I might comment after I get my degree, since things like aspect ratio, payload fraction, and things of that nature will then make more sense.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests