Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #6

This info is official Russian embassy put up it confirms the next gen engine is known as AL-51 series and will be 18 T in Thrust class

I am assuming that this can be the export version they are giving instead of the domestic one. I am glad you provided the info but I have a little criticism that might ruin the reputation of that information provided and that is the flying range with the over 9% claim. F-22 12,000kg with 2 added fuel tanks gives a range of 3,000kms while the su-57 shows 10,700kg with its own internal fuel with a 3,500km range........This is not taking into account the flying range of the newer engine which sources have said will offer a longer range with better fuel efficiency.

Divide 3,500 by 3000 we get 1.16 or the su-57 being 16% higher than the F-22. This is not even taking into account that the Su-57 has 1,300kg lower fuel than the F-22 or what the new engine will bring which would set the performance parameters of the Su-57 being over 20% more of flight range instead of over 9%.

Austin wrote:This info is official Russian embassy put up it confirms the next gen engine is known as AL-51 series and will be 18 T in Thrust class

Russian official from different agencies has rush forward with the same 18T number before so its not as this is something new beside another confirmation of whats already being

said numerous times. That engine has passed designed and construction stage and now is at its end of the testing stage while production capacity is being assembled.

thegopnik wrote:I am assuming that this can be the export version they are giving instead of the domestic one. I am glad you provided the info but I have a little criticism that might ruin the reputation of that information provided and that is the flying range with the over 9% claim. F-22 12,000kg with 2 added fuel tanks gives a range of 3,000kms while the su-57 shows 10,700kg with its own internal fuel with a 3,500km range........This is not taking into account the flying range of the newer engine which sources have said will offer a longer range with better fuel efficiency.

Divide 3,500 by 3000 we get 1.16 or the su-57 being 16% higher than the F-22. This is not even taking into account that the Su-57 has 1,300kg lower fuel than the F-22 or what the new engine will bring which would set the performance parameters of the Su-57 being over 20% more of flight range instead of over 9%.

Numbers promised with the Al-51 could be much higher than 16% and we will wait and we will see but as of now I think presented Russian data refers to Su-57/AL-41 combo.

I suspect the numbers given will not be for Russian Su-57s, but for the export Su-57E model that customers can buy or invest in.

Think you guys are going to like this one

Terrible timing of Su-57 first serial crash.

Related to 5th generation development but not to su57. I put it here however because it is interesting to know that germans once again did better than US. They developed this jet in 1975 and was cancelled due to US pressure. They wanted to be the only ones with a 5th jet with their f-117.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae

Isos wrote:Related to 5th generation development but not to su57. I put it here however because it is interesting to know that germans once again did better than US. They developed this jet in 1975 and was cancelled due to US pressure. They wanted to be the only ones with a 5th jet with their f-117.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae

I honestly it looks like it would of had poor flight performance, just like the F-117 Nighthawk. By cancelling they probably did themselves a favor.

I agree. They went overboard in the 1970s to apply the angular surface stealth panacea. As a result the flight characteristics went to Hell.

This should be a warning to all the stealth fanbois who think that the Su-57 is "inferior".

It was made in 1975... no computer design, no super materials ...

Soviet interceptors were terrible dogfighters too. That doesn't mean they were bad aircraft.

Back then there was no multirole capability.

Anyway it wasn't the goal of my post. I posted that here to show that US were not the only ones interested by stealth.

Actually I would say definitely computer design... games from the 1980s used similar polygon shapes to depict aircraft... in fact that image actually reminds me of what F-16 fighters looked like in computer games of the period... I would suspect they would be using slightly more powerful vastly more expensive computers for the calculations... using brute force main frames to compensate for slower processors and efficient algorythms...

And an interceptor is an interceptor and a dog fighter is something else... for instance a MiG-1 and MiG-3 were interceptors, while the Yak-3 and Yak-9 and La-5FN and La-7 were dog fighters.

WE HAVE LAUNCH

FFS took them long enough to show the goods, I want more next year with the first non-crashed serial.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1242633551113265152


SU-57 porn....hardcore. Man what a stunning machine!!!

That launch looks like the missile came from the wing mounted internal weapon bay...

Why there is exhaust smoke at that moment although it's not existed at the whole video

I guess if the engine reached near top shaft speed/power it can run , smoke will come out .

To accelerate at the fastest possible rate, it will add fuel to make the turbine engine faster and when the burner there , the smoke will disappear because the augmentor cleans up the exhaust of the engine .

Adding more fuel to the combustion chamber with a less efficient compressor (lower compression) then you will see the smoke .

Good Details

"Product 30". The first super-photo engine for the Su-57

https://naukatehnika.com/izdelie-30-dvigatel-dlya-su-57-pervoe-kachestvennoe-foto.html

Isos wrote:It was made in 1975... no computer design, no super materials ...  

Soviet interceptors were terrible dogfighters too. That doesn't mean they were bad aircraft.

Back then there was no multirole capability.

Anyway it wasn't the goal of my post. I posted that here to show that US were not the only ones interested by stealth.

You are making rubbish up. There were serious computers in the 1960s and 1970s which could be used
to design aircraft hulls. Specifically, ray tracing of EM scattering. According to you everything in industry
was being designed using slide rules. So those IBMs and similar Soviet machines were some sort of art
pieces aimed for display at museums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/370

Programming for science and engineering has zero to do with GUIs and 3D graphics cards.

ahmedfire wrote:I guess if the engine reached near top shaft speed/power it can run , smoke will come out .

To accelerate at the fastest possible rate, it will add fuel to make the turbine engine faster and when the burner there , the smoke will disappear because the augmentor cleans up the exhaust of the engine .

Adding more fuel to the combustion chamber with a less efficient compressor (lower compression) then you will see the smoke .

No jet turbine operates at optimal efficiency during take offs and landings. In fact, they are designed for high altitude flying so even
flying near the ground will result in poorer fuel combustion.

kvs wrote:

Isos wrote:It was made in 1975... no computer design, no super materials ...  

Soviet interceptors were terrible dogfighters too. That doesn't mean they were bad aircraft.

Back then there was no multirole capability.

Anyway it wasn't the goal of my post. I posted that here to show that US were not the only ones interested by stealth.

You are making rubbish up.   There were serious computers in the 1960s and 1970s which could be used
to design aircraft hulls.  Specifically, ray tracing of EM scattering.   According to you everything in industry
was being designed using slide rules.   So those IBMs and similar Soviet machines were some sort of art
pieces aimed for display at museums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/370

Programming for science and engineering has zero to do with GUIs and 3D graphics cards.

There was no multirole jets back then. Any jet was specialized in one role. Interceptors were flying fast and firing big missiles. Air supremacy jets were manoeuvrable and had medium/short range missiles, bombers were only bomber ...

This aircraft was design to be a stealth aircraft. So it was a good design with a better stealth than f117 which was a very hard target for soviet air defences.

No jet turbine operates at optimal efficiency during take offs and landings. In fact, they are designed for high altitude flying so even
flying near the ground will result in poorer fuel combustion.

In the video , the pilot seems he was landing but went up again and the smoke disappeared .

This means the pilot used a more power and the smoke will subside when the throttle is reduced or using the after burner .

kvs wrote:

Isos wrote:It was made in 1975... no computer design, no super materials ...  

Soviet interceptors were terrible dogfighters too. That doesn't mean they were bad aircraft.

Back then there was no multirole capability.

Anyway it wasn't the goal of my post. I posted that here to show that US were not the only ones interested by stealth.

You are making rubbish up.   There were serious computers in the 1960s and 1970s which could be used
to design aircraft hulls.  Specifically, ray tracing of EM scattering.   According to you everything in industry
was being designed using slide rules.   So those IBMs and similar Soviet machines were some sort of art
pieces aimed for display at museums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/370

Programming for science and engineering has zero to do with GUIs and 3D graphics cards.

Isos is right and you are right...both! Calculations for aerodynamic and EM scattering ("stealth") were done mostly manual. It was a mix of paperwork and calculations with computer. But the big great modelization of concepts were done with pen and paper. And today it's not different!!! Comptersimulations are ONLY used to prove a existing concept as good or bad, so you can reduce the risk of a practical failure. And of course computers helps saving manpower, time and the result of it...money! That's why we have so many funny but bad concepts in the past, for tanks, aircraft, spaceships, etc. The refinement of a concept is the work of engineers and their brains The rate of failure is today less, that's true.

A single human brain has more calculation power, than all computers and supercomputers combined. Computers are used to make the calculation of models easier and a lot faster. As far as I know only 1 technical concept was created with computer power...it's a twisted fusion ring for Tokamak reactors, that's the first concept that resulted only from calculation power.

Isos is right in the meaning of "multirole". During cold war the aircrafts were highly specialized, but not due less computer power...it was because specialzed aircraft are simply better in their job! And old aircraft with up to date modern avionic are still very deadly. Multirole comes into play in times of cost reduction. And this was the only reason for the F-35...it was a political decision, not a solution prefered by US Military.

Compters only save time! Everything that I can do in my laboratory at the compter in 5 minutes (analyzing data) I could do without a computer...but takes me 1 day instead of 5 minutes.

Isos wrote:Related to 5th generation development but not to su57. I put it here however because it is interesting to know that germans once again did better than US. They developed this jet in 1975 and was cancelled due to US pressure. They wanted to be the only ones with a 5th jet with their f-117.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBB_Lampyridae

MBB was good company, with a lot of interesting concepts...both military and civilian. Were was a concept of a reusable spaceship called "Sänger", really interesting

MBB was a really visionary company, but only a few concepts were really built ;D Now MBB is part of EADS. And EADS is not a company with visionary concepts, it's now only a boring company with profit in their agenda

In the video , the pilot seems he was landing but went up again and the smoke disappeared .

This means the pilot used a more power and the smoke will subside when the throttle is reduced or using the after burner .

If you watch any aircraft manouvering around sometimes certain throttle settings will result in a bit of smoke no matter what engine is being used... western jet engines included.

Isos is right and you are right...both! Calculations for aerodynamic and EM scattering ("stealth") were done mostly manual. It was a mix of paperwork and calculations with computer. But the big great modelization of concepts were done with pen and paper. And today it's not different!!! Comptersimulations are ONLY used to prove a existing concept as good or bad, so you can reduce the risk of a practical failure. And of course computers helps saving manpower, time and the result of it...money! That's why we have so many funny but bad concepts in the past, for tanks, aircraft, spaceships, etc. The refinement of a concept is the work of engineers and their brains Wink The rate of failure is today less, that's true.

There were no home computers in the 1970s, but there were plenty of mainframe computers... computers the size of buildings... the sort of computers only financially well off organisations could afford... like the US military.

Computer modelling and design was a great way to do basic tests to see how a design might perform without going to the cost and time needed to build scale models and test them in wind tunnels.

With computer modelling you could test tens of thousands of weird and strange designs and fairly quickly eliminate the ones with fatal flaws, so while you are effectively trying an enormous variety of different solutions you can narrow them down to a few dozen designs that you can then test in a wind tunnel or a radar field to determine more solid ideas of what works and what does not.

In the 1970s NASA used computer models to define the ideal shape of the US Space Shuttle... it wasn't cheap... they spent about 2 billion dollars on it, but came up with something they could build at the time with the materials and technology available. The Soviets adopted the same basic shape because they knew pretty much what NASA had tried and tested and knew it was a waste of time trying to make something different.

Computers in aircraft at the time were simple analog hard wired models where you needed to upgrade the entire system to add new weapon types... it was slow and expensive and nothing like more modern plug and play type systems that just need software updates to add new sensors or weapons or other equipment.