Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post23 May 2019, 15:51

gta4 wrote:The structure strength is another X-factor of Su-57.
According to aviation week's interview, prototypes of Su-57 suffers from insufficient structure strength which limits its G rating. If it is strengthened then it would cause overweight.



https://sputniknews.com/russia/20170814 ... -computer/

“Each such plane becomes a computer center which is able to decide exactly what type of arms and ammo it needs for a specific combat mission. In the UAV mode, the plane can reach its target much faster with overloads of up to 15 G, while the maximum overload a pilot can endure does not exceed 10 G,” said Viktor Pryadka, the CEO of the Avintel Aviation Technologies Alliance."

How does its G rating compare to other aircraft?
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post23 May 2019, 16:03

fidgetspinner wrote:
gta4 wrote:The structure strength is another X-factor of Su-57.
According to aviation week's interview, prototypes of Su-57 suffers from insufficient structure strength which limits its G rating. If it is strengthened then it would cause overweight.



https://sputniknews.com/russia/20170814 ... -computer/

“Each such plane becomes a computer center which is able to decide exactly what type of arms and ammo it needs for a specific combat mission. In the UAV mode, the plane can reach its target much faster with overloads of up to 15 G, while the maximum overload a pilot can endure does not exceed 10 G,” said Viktor Pryadka, the CEO of the Avintel Aviation Technologies Alliance."

How does its G rating compare to other aircraft?


Sputnik is Russian propaganda, not a reliable news source. 7-9g ratings are typical for modern fighters.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

fidgetspinner

Banned

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post23 May 2019, 16:07

is Viktor Pryadka a reliable source?
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 728
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post23 May 2019, 16:11

gta4 wrote:The structure strength is another X-factor of Su-57.
According to aviation week's interview, prototypes of Su-57 suffers from insufficient structure strength which limits its G rating. If it is strengthened then it would cause overweight.


That's not true anymore. Stage 1 prototypes had structural issues and needed strengthening but Stage 2 aircraft from T-50-6 has redesigned structure without this problem anymore.
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post23 May 2019, 16:24

gta4 wrote:The structure strength is another X-factor of Su-57.
According to aviation week's interview, prototypes of Su-57 suffers from insufficient structure strength which limits its G rating. If it is strengthened then it would cause overweight.


What AvWeek article?
Piotr Butowski referred to the structural issues of early prototypes in Jan 2016 “Combat aircraft”
T-50-1 had reworking, To-50-2 had frame modifications, T-50-6 and on are different structurally, frames redesigned. Was called “phase 2” structural improvements after weaknesses were identified.

Before the leaker inside the program was arrested, he gave updates on the reworking of early airframes, structural improvements. The later prototypes addressed the structural weaknesses identified. It isn’t uncommon to encounter structural issues early in a development program that require frames to be redesigned or materials changed. What was somewhat unique in the Pak-Fa program was that they rebuilt the early prototypes (including the one damaged by fire).
Offline

fbw

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 143
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2012, 02:47

Unread post23 May 2019, 16:26

disconnectedradical wrote:That's not true anymore. Stage 1 prototypes had structural issues and needed strengthening but Stage 2 aircraft from T-50-6 has redesigned structure without this problem anymore.


Haha, beat me to it by a few minutes!
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 728
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post23 May 2019, 17:30

fbw wrote:
gta4 wrote:The structure strength is another X-factor of Su-57.
According to aviation week's interview, prototypes of Su-57 suffers from insufficient structure strength which limits its G rating. If it is strengthened then it would cause overweight.


What AvWeek article?
Piotr Butowski referred to the structural issues of early prototypes in Jan 2016 “Combat aircraft”
T-50-1 had reworking, To-50-2 had frame modifications, T-50-6 and on are different structurally, frames redesigned. Was called “phase 2” structural improvements after weaknesses were identified.

Before the leaker inside the program was arrested, he gave updates on the reworking of early airframes, structural improvements. The later prototypes addressed the structural weaknesses identified. It isn’t uncommon to encounter structural issues early in a development program that require frames to be redesigned or materials changed. What was somewhat unique in the Pak-Fa program was that they rebuilt the early prototypes (including the one damaged by fire).


They didn’t rebuild the fire damaged airframe. They took parts that were usable and put them on an aircraft under construction and gave it same bort number to make it seem like it was repaired.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3437
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 May 2019, 13:43

disconnectedradical wrote:
fbw wrote:
gta4 wrote:The structure strength is another X-factor of Su-57.
According to aviation week's interview, prototypes of Su-57 suffers from insufficient structure strength which limits its G rating. If it is strengthened then it would cause overweight.


What AvWeek article?
Piotr Butowski referred to the structural issues of early prototypes in Jan 2016 “Combat aircraft”
T-50-1 had reworking, To-50-2 had frame modifications, T-50-6 and on are different structurally, frames redesigned. Was called “phase 2” structural improvements after weaknesses were identified.

Before the leaker inside the program was arrested, he gave updates on the reworking of early airframes, structural improvements. The later prototypes addressed the structural weaknesses identified. It isn’t uncommon to encounter structural issues early in a development program that require frames to be redesigned or materials changed. What was somewhat unique in the Pak-Fa program was that they rebuilt the early prototypes (including the one damaged by fire).


They didn’t rebuild the fire damaged airframe. They took parts that were usable and put them on an aircraft under construction and gave it same bort number to make it seem like it was repaired.


Why on earth would you do this? To save face??

They're testing the damn thing, and sh!t happens during flight testing. Engine fires, structural issues, engine flame out and crashes are (sadly) all a part of the process. The F-35 has had 2 crashes, but we didn't hide those. I just don't get why the Russians would do something like that. Vlad needs to embrace failure, it builds character. Plus, it's exactly how the SU-27 went down, and they eventually arrived at a hell of an aircraft in that instance.

There is no shame in falling down. There is much shame in not getting back up...
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 813
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post25 May 2019, 19:42

fbw wrote:It isn’t uncommon to encounter structural issues early in a development program that require frames to be redesigned or materials changed. What was somewhat unique in the Pak-Fa program was that they rebuilt the early prototypes (including the one damaged by fire).


Of course, I think there was shift from titanium bulkhead to aluminium bulkhead in JSF program, or maybe I am wrong? It create cracks in F-35B if I remember right.

Russians decide to use lot more aluminium in 57s then they did in Flanker family, they reduce amount of titanium noticeable. This is one reason why it could be realtive light for its size. But that create structural problems which they need to fix as they already reported (change in structural design)
Offline

awsome

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post26 May 2019, 01:12

Sputnik is Russian propaganda, not a reliable news source. 7-9g ratings are typical for modern fighters.[/quote]


The SU 57 is not a typical fighter... :wink:
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post26 May 2019, 01:24

Not a typical fighter, true.
If a mostly empty box counts as a fighter (are any of the subsystems even close to done?).
Russia stronk
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5400
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 May 2019, 03:10

awsome wrote:Sputnik is Russian propaganda, not a reliable news source. 7-9g ratings are typical for modern fighters.



The SU 57 is not a typical fighter... :wink:[/quote]

LOL sure sweetie.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8390
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 May 2019, 06:05

Switching to Aluminium from Titanium for the F-35B was part of the SWAT program (IIRC) as was reducing the G-Limit back to the spec vs the "hey, guess what we can deliver" numbers (like the F-35B with an internal 2k bomb).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post27 May 2019, 09:05

fidgetspinner wrote:

https://sputniknews.com/russia/20170814 ... -computer/

“Each such plane becomes a computer center which is able to decide exactly what type of arms and ammo it needs for a specific combat mission. In the UAV mode, the plane can reach its target much faster with overloads of up to 15 G, while the maximum overload a pilot can endure does not exceed 10 G,” said Viktor Pryadka, the CEO of the Avintel Aviation Technologies Alliance."

How does its G rating compare to other aircraft?


Well theres a difference between structural load limit. CLAWS limit and what the aircraft is actually capable of.
The F-16 is actually capable of more than 9Gs but CLAWS specially the Digital limiter has a hard limit to just 9Gs.
The Hornets have a limit to 7.6Gs but has a G override switch.
I think the Rafale is the one with the greatest CLAWS limit. 11Gs according to the Rafale pilot in the fighter pilot podcast.
The F-15C on the other hand has no limiter. I remember Capt Larry Pitz recounting his 12 G pull in a dogfight over Desert Storm.

Howver, while the Raptor may have a 9G limit, I believe it can reach this G limit easier and at a wider speed and altitude envelopes than most if not all planes. Including the Su-57
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1098
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post27 May 2019, 16:00

"G" limit is mostly a structural limit, but increasing it is not always desired.
The structural weight to pull more "G" is only a small fraction of the total picture.

The question is, do I really want to bleed all that energy? ? ? ? ?
Because drag goes up at a ridiculous rate, and how fast can I recover that lost energy??

Yes, you can spend it all, but you'd better be sure of your kill, or you are dead meat falling from the sky to recover.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron