Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

velocity264c

Quote:

All i see is an Su-27 with smoother surfaces and a giant exhaust screaming at missiles that can lock unto IR signatures "shoot me, I'm ready to go down now" if they don't crash 1st.

So why you are trying be as ingorant as PowerRussia Youtube-troll?

PAK-FA/T-50 airframe is nothing to with a Su-27/T-10 airframe. It's completely new design.
"Giant exhaust" is in your fantasy.

F-16.net Sponsor

primorsky wrote:

velocity264c

Quote:

All i see is an Su-27 with smoother surfaces and a giant exhaust screaming at missiles that can lock unto IR signatures "shoot me, I'm ready to go down now" if they don't crash 1st.

So why you are trying be as ingorant as PowerRussia Youtube-troll?

PAK-FA/T-50 airframe is nothing to with a Su-27/T-10 airframe. It's completely new design.
"Giant exhaust" is in your fantasy.

ok down to barney style. The T-50 is still using a Su-27 design, its modified though, it is just using a more smoother streamline from front to rear and side to side even though the rear of this aricraft is by far the worst fail I've ever seen for a small RCS. And for giant exhaust, in order to make it show up as a small plume on an IR signature of any kind of IR Avionics, you require to use rectangular shaped exhaust, guess what the T-50 uses, the simply never going to go away circle shaped exhaust which will regardless of what you think, say or know, will give off a large plume heat signature, it is another of the T-50s epic failures. This aircraft lacks a future in the stealth aircraft family.

I still see many similarities between the T-50 and Flanker series too. Unfortunatly some cannot see such blindingly obvious and clear similarities for some very very strange, possibly nationalistic reason.

The exhausts aren't to smart at the moment on it either, hardly Saturn 5 exhausts but not stealthy. I guess it's another feature that will be changed half way through its service life in a decade or so like its engines will be.

velocity264c wrote:

ok down to barney style. The T-50 is still using a Su-27 design, its modified though, it is just using a more smoother streamline from front to rear and side to side even though the rear of this aricraft is by far the worst fail I've ever seen for a small RCS. And for giant exhaust, in order to make it show up as a small plume on an IR signature of any kind of IR Avionics, you require to use rectangular shaped exhaust, guess what the T-50 uses, the simply never going to go away circle shaped exhaust which will regardless of what you think, say or know, will give off a large plume heat signature, it is another of the T-50s epic failures. This aircraft lacks a future in the stealth aircraft family.

Ever heard of LOAN?

The T-50 is about as similar to the Su-27 as that airplane is to an F-14- widely separated engines, large lifting body... you get the picture. Swing wings and internal bays? Just details...

We're really just looking at a more advanced tech demonstrator for the moment, who knows what the production type will be like.

velocity264c

Quote:

The T-50 is still using a Su-27 design, its modified though, it is just using a more smoother streamline from front to rear and side to side

Ohhh... Really? Have you ever seen both aircraft? Have you tried to compare them?

There's numerous discrepant features and different design/engineering solutions used on both Sukhoi's aircraft families such as: shape of planform, shape of wings, control surfaces (with a particular differences in implementation and functioning in T-50), intake design, engine layout, nose cone, cockpit design, landing gear, internal fuel tanks, internals bays, meterials, hydraulic and electrical system etc. Most of these differences are very radical.
The only similarities between T-50 and T-10(Flanker) family are widely separated engines and the extended fuselage aft (tail "stinger"). But these features are far from being identical in both designs anyway.

T-50 is not just a redesigned Flanker. It's new aircraft made with a new airframe designed from scratch. It's a clearly obvious fact.

Quote:

even though the rear of this aricraft is by far the worst fail I've ever seen for a small RCS.

You missed the point, that it's not engine of the final design. Non-stealthy rear design should gone with a future engine.

Quote:

And for giant exhaust, in order to make it show up as a small plume on an IR signature of any kind of IR Avionics, you require to use rectangular shaped exhaust, guess what the T-50 uses, the simply never going to go away circle shaped exhaust which will regardless of what you think, say or know, will give off a large plume heat signature, it is another of the T-50s epic failures. This aircraft lacks a future in the stealth aircraft family.

Bashing the first flying prototype (bulit to airframe/FCS tests in objective flight evaluation) for being "non-stealth"? It is not smart move.

Have you ever seen F-22@afterburner in IR? It could be described as a "giant exhaust".

Ok. Have I seen the IR, now what does nearly every website thats reliable say about rectangular exhaust reducing IR and not circles. Well thats why you asked that.

The design is generally the same, meaning its shape, cockpit in same area, engines underneath fuselage, round exhaust, with 3d if not 2d if any thrust vectoring.

If it was not going to be there in the future, and will have different engines, then I might as well call it a small RCS 4.5 Gen fighter then.

Sure it should be gone, in the future the project should fail, the Su-35 should be cheaper, I should be a millionaire. I should be at home a sleep or back in Fort Hood instead of Iraq.

Trying to defend the T-50 yet you lack information on how a stealth aircraft should be in the beginning, including prototype phase.

shep1978 wrote:

primorsky wrote:

The only similarities between T-50 and T-10(Flanker) family are widely separated engines and the extended fuselage aft (tail "stinger"). But these features are far from being identical in both designs anyway.

I don't think anyone would claim they were identical but one was most certainly based on the other. A five year old could see it it's so obvious. Its like saying the F-2 wasn't based on the F-16 design!

The F-2 and F-16 are not comparable to the T-50 and the Su-27 series... there are some aerodynamic similarities, but they massively different in detail.

T-50 differences include:
-Fuselage and engines are mid-set compared to the wing
-Much wider flattened fuselage
-Different wing planform
-Engines diverge (are not parallel)
-Angled all-moving vertical tail
-Moving LERXes
-Chines

The T-50 is obviously a new design utilizing a pretty common aerodynamic feature- a wide fuselage that provides extra lift- which it happens to share with the MiG-29, F-14, and Su-27 series.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

velocity264c wrote:

ok down to barney style. The T-50 is still using a Su-27 design, its modified though, it is just using a more smoother streamline from front to rear and side to side even though the rear of this aricraft is by far the worst fail I've ever seen for a small RCS. And for giant exhaust, in order to make it show up as a small plume on an IR signature of any kind of IR Avionics, you require to use rectangular shaped exhaust, guess what the T-50 uses, the simply never going to go away circle shaped exhaust which will regardless of what you think, say or know, will give off a large plume heat signature, it is another of the T-50s epic failures. This aircraft lacks a future in the stealth aircraft family.

Ever heard of LOAN?

The T-50 is about as similar to the Su-27 as that airplane is to an F-14- widely separated engines, large lifting body... you get the picture. Swing wings and internal bays? Just details...

We're really just looking at a more advanced tech demonstrator for the moment, who knows what the production type will be like.

I get your point.

velocity264c wrote:

Ok. Have I seen the IR, now what does nearly every website thats reliable say about rectangular exhaust reducing IR and not circles. Well thats why you asked that.

1. Rectangular exhaust is not the only way to reduce IR.
2. T-50's engine with a round nozzles is provisional design.

Quote:

The design is generally the same, meaning its shape, cockpit in same area, engines underneath fuselage, round exhaust, with 3d if not 2d if any thrust vectoring.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The shapes of wings and planform are all different. Cockpit is the same area... don't make me laugh.
"Round exhaust"? Does it make F-35 into a aircraft which is based on F-16?
T-50 and T-10 are all different aircraft. Accept it, deal with it.

Quote:

If it was not going to be there in the future, and will have different engines, then I might as well call it a small RCS 4.5 Gen fighter then.

Another self-constituted "RCS expert" here?

Quote:

Sure it should be gone, in the future the project should fail

Bad attempt, Mr. Nostradamus.

Quote:

Trying to defend the T-50 yet you lack information on how a stealth aircraft should be in the beginning, including prototype phase.

This information is publicly unknown.
First flying prototype known as T-50-1 is nothing to with a testing of stealth. It's confirmed by Sukhoy CEO. But stealth technology was in design from the beginning(materials, airframe etc.) at the phase of research and initial design. It's also confirmed by Sukhoy Officials.

primorsky wrote:

velocity264c wrote:

Ok. Have I seen the IR, now what does nearly every website thats reliable say about rectangular exhaust reducing IR and not circles. Well thats why you asked that.

1. Rectangular exhaust is not the only way to reduce IR.
2. T-50's engine with a round nozzles is provisional design.

Quote:

The design is generally the same, meaning its shape, cockpit in same area, engines underneath fuselage, round exhaust, with 3d if not 2d if any thrust vectoring.

You have no clue what you are talking about. The shapes of wings and planform are all different. Cockpit is the same area... don't make me laugh.
"Round exhaust"? Does it make F-35 into a aircraft which is based on F-16?
T-50 and T-10 are all different aircraft. Accept it, deal with it.

Quote:

If it was not going to be there in the future, and will have different engines, then I might as well call it a small RCS 4.5 Gen fighter then.

Another self-constituted "RCS expert" here?

Quote:

Sure it should be gone, in the future the project should fail

Bad attempt, Mr. Nostradamus.

Quote:

Trying to defend the T-50 yet you lack information on how a stealth aircraft should be in the beginning, including prototype phase.

This information is publicly unknown.
First flying prototype known as T-50-1 is nothing to with a testing of stealth. It's confirmed by Sukhoy CEO. But stealth technology was in design from the beginning(materials, airframe etc.) at the phase of research and initial design. It's also confirmed by Sukhoy Officials.

Oh my bad, its another Su-47. I should have seen that at first considering that price is virtually impossible to be the real price of a beginning stealth aircraft. Again, round nozzles will not reduce plume.

Quote:

1. Rectangular exhaust is not the only way to reduce IR.
2. T-50's engine with a round nozzles is provisional design.

Still not good enough. expecially the rear exhaust itself will not reduce a signature. If I have to explain to you this as well the round overall external shape will not decrease its RCS either. Sukhoi is going to make me laugh my self to death one day.

Quote:

1. Rectangular exhaust is not the only way to reduce IR.
2. T-50's engine with a round nozzles is provisional design.

its design does not decrease signature still. Do i have to see it on IR camera? No I don't.

velocity264,

A round nozzle can indeed have a reduced IR signature. Prinz Eugn already mentioned LOAN:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article20.html

Quote:

Developed under the Joint Strike Fighter 'BAA 94-2' program to evaluate advanced, affordable technologies applicable to the JSF, the LOAN provides a significant reduction in radar cross section and infrared signature emissions from the engine, as well as the potential for reduced maintenance costs.

You can apply LOAN technology to any size/shape nozzle.

It didn't decrease the IR of the plume, but cooled the exhaust nozzle temperatures. By 'injecting' the nozzle assembly with cool air, the nozzle assembly didn't get 'hot' when the engine was at higher thrust settings; chopping the throttle would be more effective in reducing IR with since the 'cooled' nozzle didn't act as a huge heat sink.

The RCS gains can be applied to any shape given they're designed into the nozzle. Look at the F135's nozzle and it is amazingly similar to the F100 LOAN.

PS, no amount of 'cool stealth stuff' will reduce an augmentor plume! Slap

TEG

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

You can apply LOAN technology to any size/shape nozzle.

It didn't decrease the IR of the plume, but cooled the exhaust nozzle temperatures. By 'injecting' the nozzle assembly with cool air, the nozzle assembly didn't get 'hot' when the engine was at higher thrust settings; chopping the throttle would be more effective in reducing IR with since the 'cooled' nozzle didn't act as a huge heat sink.

The RCS gains can be applied to any shape given they're designed into the nozzle. Look at the F135's nozzle and it is amazingly similar to the F100 LOAN.

PS, no amount of 'cool stealth stuff' will reduce an augmentor plume! Slap

TEG

I'm curious TEG, how is it pratical possible to add additional cooled air to(inside) the nozzles Question

Wouldn't there be some compromize here, if there is several cooling channels/tubes and additional compressor pump for feeding the coold air--more weight--more volume--more complex nozzles-- less time between overhauls?
Last but not least much more expensive..
Even far worse if its a liquid cooled system Wink

In a way the nozzles of modern fighters today are in it self an heat zink to the outside elements(Titanium alloy etc), so how much more can this heat zink effectivly get.. Question

Lets say the nozzles emitting something of 250deg, with additional cooling its down to 220 deg--is it really worth the hazzle?

Not sure if anyone else has seen this video of the T-50, so it may be a re-post. It was new to me when I found it.

Has some good looks at the control surfaces moving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-as2so ... grec_index

2nd Prototype has flown. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/

Nice new pictures of the flight here- http://sukhoi.org/gallery/?gallery_id=1 ... ry_id=156?

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Sukhoi T-50