Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

popcorn wrote:

johnwill wrote:

popcorn wrote:

http://www.defencetalk.com/sukhoi-t-50-stealth-fighter-completes-tanker-plug-trial-44288/

Apparently, they've managed to fix the structural problems that plagued PAK-FA #1.

Quite possibly they have, but the tests described in the link do not require high g maneuvering. Until we know what the maneuver limits are, we don't really know if the problems have been solved or not.

From the linked article :
...The first prototype, T-50-1, is undertaking preparation for a flight test program involving flight at super-critical angles of attack and super-maneuverability...

Presumably this aspect of testing will stress,the aircraft significantly . Any significant differences in the way the Russians approach development and testing vs. the West?

It does seem like a press blurb, but if true then it represents a pretty quick turnaround from the detection of cracking, to a fix, to a continuation of the test program. Do we have any idea of how serious an issue this was in the first place?

F-16.net Sponsor

Flateric on the Key Publishing forums seems pretty close to the program and has hinted that they are NEAR a solution but having some issues. The issue was bad enough to have grounded aircraft 51 for more than a year and prompt them to do a major structural design change on the upcoming 54 jet.

I originally wanted to move this topic when it was first created, but when I saw that some good members posted responses as related to the F-22, I decided that it would remain in the "F-22 Forum".

However, the last time the F-22 was mentioned on this topic was on 18 July. Get this topic back as related to the F-22 or:

1) See posts that are not related to the F-22, but rather on the T-50 be deleted because after all, if you want to talk about that aircraft exclusively, you could create a topic for it in the correct forum like "Modern Military Aircraft Forum" or...

2) If you don't see this topic in the "F-22 Raptor Forum" anymore, guess which forum you think it would be in, or...

3) See this topic shut down.

popcorn wrote:

johnwill wrote:

popcorn wrote:

http://www.defencetalk.com/sukhoi-t-50-stealth-fighter-completes-tanker-plug-trial-44288/

Apparently, they've managed to fix the structural problems that plagued PAK-FA #1.

Quite possibly they have, but the tests described in the link do not require high g maneuvering. Until we know what the maneuver limits are, we don't really know if the problems have been solved or not.

From the linked article :
...The first prototype, T-50-1, is undertaking preparation for a flight test program involving flight at super-critical angles of attack and super-maneuverability...

Presumably this aspect of testing will stress,the aircraft significantly . Any significant differences in the way the Russians approach development and testing vs. the West?

Your presumption seems wrong to me. High AoA and supermaneuverability are all flown at very low speeds, incapable of producing high load factors (g) or high pitch / roll accelerations. Low airspeeds equal low structural loads. But since I don't know where the structure is cracking, I don't know what kind of structural load is causing the cracks.

I would never assume the Russian technical capability for development and testing is less than Western methods. If it is less robust, it would have to be for budgetary reasons only. And I am certain their concern for safety is comparable.

johnwill wrote:

popcorn wrote:

johnwill wrote:

popcorn wrote:

http://www.defencetalk.com/sukhoi-t-50-stealth-fighter-completes-tanker-plug-trial-44288/

Apparently, they've managed to fix the structural problems that plagued PAK-FA #1.

Quite possibly they have, but the tests described in the link do not require high g maneuvering. Until we know what the maneuver limits are, we don't really know if the problems have been solved or not.

From the linked article :
...The first prototype, T-50-1, is undertaking preparation for a flight test program involving flight at super-critical angles of attack and super-maneuverability...

Presumably this aspect of testing will stress,the aircraft significantly . Any significant differences in the way the Russians approach development and testing vs. the West?

Your presumption seems wrong to me. High AoA and supermaneuverability are all flown at very low speeds, incapable of producing high load factors (g) or high pitch / roll accelerations. Low airspeeds equal low structural loads. But since I don't know where the structure is cracking, I don't know what kind of structural load is causing the cracks.

I would never assume the Russian technical capability for development and testing is less than Western methods. If it is less robust, it would have to be for budgetary reasons only. And I am certain their concern for safety is comparable.

I defer to your expertise johnwill..had assumed that supermaneuverability could occur at high speeds,and therefore implied high G loads. Is supermaneuvability the same as post-stall maneuvering?

Here's a definition of supermaneuverability I found-

http://www.defenceaviation.com/2008/03/ ... ility.html

In an aircraft possessing supermaneuverability, the pilot is able to maintain a high degree of maneuverability below corner velocity, and at least limited attitude control without altitude loss below stall speed. Such an aircraft is capable of maneuvers that are impossible with a purely aerodynamic design.

At speeds below corner velocity, an airplane is unable to reach max g due to limited lift at low airspeeds, including post-stall.

There is an 6 page article about the T-50 "Spanker" in the latest Airforces Monthly here in the US, but as there is no related web article I can't refer to any url. Another strange thing is that the magazine I received in the mail is not listed as the current or past magazine on their web site.

Spanker, hilarious!

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

PAK FA will "remove the advantage held for decades"