Su-57 Stealth Fighter: News #7

My argument was that whether or not they have a keyboard in front of them, most people use the mouse in alignment with their arm.

But in this situation the mouse is the buttons on MFDs on the displays.... the keyboard is the flight stick.

And even on most notebooks the mousepad is not to one side... it is front and centre so you can use either thumb or forefinger to operate it.

I am right-handed, so I use the mouse on the right side of the computer.

And I am left handed and I use the mouse on the right side of the computer so I can type or write with my left hand.

Are you telling me that you use your mouse directly in front of your chest? I find that hard to believe.

I generally use the keyboard with occasional movements and clicks of the mouse.

My keyboard slides away under the computer when not needed.

Who said anything about side sticks on the center console?

In a two seat side by side cockpit the side stick for the left seated crew member will be on the centre console.

If we are discussing large airliners or transport craft, and if they opt to use side sticks, then there will be a left-handed one for the left pilot at his left and vice versa for the right pilot.

Well that is just stupid... what if they both prefer to use their right hand to fly the plane?

Change seats?

That is what is implemented on Airbus planes, the SSJ-100 and now the MS-21. The center console remains the same with the traditional shared throttle set. How is this confusing?

It is not confusing it is just fucking stupid... why would an airliner need a joystick except for wankers.... pun intended.

I didn't say they were. You said the center stick arrangement allows for left handed pilots to fly the jet. How is it possible to use the left hand both for the stick and the throttle?

Airliners and transport planes have two crew with normally one crew many flying and the other operating the throttles.

Most of the time you set the throttle and don't need to change it for several minutes at a time if at all.

Why should things be different for the Russian industry?

Why should they be the same?

If Russian fighter pilots don't want side sticks why would any of their pilots need them?

The F-16 has a side stick because they are reclined backwards and probably couldn't reach a centre stick.

Not really a reason that applies to other aircraft.

But things are fast changing in that sector too, and they would nee to rethink things.

Yeah, because if you are not cool and hip you are nothing... NOT.

The best way to mitigate effects of a high acceleration maneuver would be, I presume, to have both arms resting on a support, such as the left at the throttle and the right at a right gyro-stick, and not with suspended arms holding a sensitive control between your legs.

It is not a question of how well supported your arms are, but whether you are physically able to apply the necessary force to the control stick to perform the required manouver... and having both hands makes that easier.

How many high performance race cars have joystick side stick control?

You talk about cranes and diggers but they are primarily involved in all sorts of things that have nothing to do with manouvering and moving in space, and everything to do with moving or manipulating things... which might be great for side stick controllers, but for driving or flying or even sailing a submarine the wheel or flight stick in front of you makes sense and is the dominant interface of choice.

Dude you have seen nothing, check out this masterpiece

What an asshole.

Feel free not to post any more of this dicks posts on here thanks.

we now have plenty of oil & liquified gas to sell, besides grain & civil/mil. aircraft.

Your civil and military aircraft have titanium components that are pretty critical to their design... how are you going to buy Titanium from Russia when they don't accept worthless US dollars?

Selling out to make a buck... the American way...

But that is why they have such a big economy... his product is bullshit and he probably makes good money selling it, but it has not value to society... in fact it just creates a false sense of security which in the end is going to bite them in the ass and make the retreat from Kabul like like fun time at disney world...

They count what he does as commerce, well it has zero value to their society... a continuation of their yes man society.

Exactly zero value for us.

owais.usmani wrote:Dude you have seen nothing, check out this masterpiece:

OMG.... I have lost the will to live. Kill me now...

How can one nation have so many wretched idiots?

Big_Gazza wrote:

owais.usmani wrote:Dude you have seen nothing, check out this masterpiece:

OMG....  I have lost the will to live. Kill me now...  

How can one nation have so many wretched idiots?

Mental inadequacy breeds insecurity which begets fantasy projection.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Going to come a time when those dollars are no longer accepted ..

we now have plenty of oil & liquified gas to sell, besides grain & civil/mil. aircraft. With the UK & its former empire, "who cares what the price of rice in China?"

Have you noticed just how fast tight oil production is falling? Or how well Russian grain production is doing?

Not sure were the UK fits in here.

Im trying to search for the reason why the Su-75 has a two piece canopy instead of a 1 piece bubble canopy, but so far I have found nothing. There must be some kind of logic behind it. Ease of manufacture perhaps?

Also Im guessing there is little rear visibility because (sensor fused)external cameras and UV sensors are superior to mk.1 eyeball in detecting aircraft and missiles in WVR, and also for extra space for the DIRCM.

Little rear visibility?

Until this idiots video I've never heard anyone criticise the Su-57 cockpit visibility. These retards will use any excuse to justify their endless criticisms. Whats next? No expresso machine, or the flight computers won't run the Grindr app?

Big_Gazza wrote:Little rear visibility?

Until this idiots video I've never heard anyone criticise the Su-57 cockpit visibility.  These retards will use any excuse to justify their endless criticisms.  Whats next?  No expresso machine, or the flight computers won't run the Grindr app?

It's a Lamborghini Countach from the 1980s where to reverse you have to open the driver door and look down the side.

limb wrote:Im trying to search for the reason why the Su-75 has a two piece canopy instead of a 1 piece bubble canopy, but so far I have found nothing. There must be some kind of logic behind it. Ease of manufacture perhaps?

Also Im guessing there is little rear visibility because (sensor fused)external cameras and UV sensors are superior to mk.1 eyeball in detecting aircraft and missiles in WVR, and also for extra space for the DIRCM.

Reuse parts from Su-57, I would say. Also, as of last year technically each piece of the 2 piece canopy that you said consists of 3 smaller pieces (3 layers of glass), which was hard to produce, so ease of manufacture might be a thing. They changed to a monolithic piece, but I dont know if it's installed in serial models yet.

And it's not like you can simply turn your head around and see an approaching plane. If that's the case, you'd be dead anyway. But I'd imagine that they still have rear-facing mirrors (like those on Su-35) to aid dogfighting in addition to rear-facing cameras.

Also, I've found this interesting pic which kinda show that the radar domes on Checkmate and Su-57 have similar size. Maybe someone could check and normalize the scaling of each image to be sure?

Lennox wrote:

limb wrote:Im trying to search for the reason why the Su-75 has a two piece canopy instead of a 1 piece bubble canopy, but so far I have found nothing. There must be some kind of logic behind it. Ease of manufacture perhaps?

Also Im guessing there is little rear visibility because (sensor fused)external cameras and UV sensors are superior to mk.1 eyeball in detecting aircraft and missiles in WVR, and also for extra space for the DIRCM.

Reuse parts from Su-57, I would say. Also, as of last year technically each piece of the 2 piece canopy that you said consists of 3 smaller pieces (3 layers of glass), which was hard to produce, so ease of manufacture might be a thing. They changed to a monolithic piece, but I dont know if it's installed in serial models yet.

And it's not like you can simply turn your head around and see an approaching plane. If that's the case, you'd be dead anyway. But I'd imagine that they still have rear-facing mirrors (like those on Su-35) to aid dogfighting in addition to rear-facing cameras.

Also, I've found this interesting pic which kinda show that the radar domes on Checkmate and Su-57 have similar size. Maybe someone could check and normalize the scaling of each image to be sure?

Sorry I mistyped, I meant why did the su57 have a 2 piece canopy in the first place. The bar between pieces obviously reduces visibility. Also mirrors suck. Very limited FOV.

Big_Gazza wrote:Little rear visibility?

Until this idiots video I've never heard anyone criticise the Su-57 cockpit visibility.  These retards will use any excuse to justify their endless criticisms.  Whats next?  No expresso machine, or the flight computers won't run the Grindr app?

I suspect its because if they criticize poor rearwards visibility on the Su-57 theyd be criticising the F-35's visibility. The F-22 really does have unmatched cockpit visibility because its a single piece bubble canopy.

limb wrote:

Lennox wrote:

limb wrote:Im trying to search for the reason why the Su-75 has a two piece canopy instead of a 1 piece bubble canopy, but so far I have found nothing. There must be some kind of logic behind it. Ease of manufacture perhaps?

Also Im guessing there is little rear visibility because (sensor fused)external cameras and UV sensors are superior to mk.1 eyeball in detecting aircraft and missiles in WVR, and also for extra space for the DIRCM.

Reuse parts from Su-57, I would say. Also, as of last year technically each piece of the 2 piece canopy that you said consists of 3 smaller pieces (3 layers of glass), which was hard to produce, so ease of manufacture might be a thing. They changed to a monolithic piece, but I dont know if it's installed in serial models yet.

And it's not like you can simply turn your head around and see an approaching plane. If that's the case, you'd be dead anyway. But I'd imagine that they still have rear-facing mirrors (like those on Su-35) to aid dogfighting in addition to rear-facing cameras.

Also, I've found this interesting pic which kinda show that the radar domes on Checkmate and Su-57 have similar size. Maybe someone could check and normalize the scaling of each image to be sure?

Sorry I mistyped, I meant why did the su57 have a 2 piece canopy in the first place. The bar between pieces obviously reduces visibility. Also mirrors suck. Very limited FOV.

Big_Gazza wrote:Little rear visibility?

Until this idiots video I've never heard anyone criticise the Su-57 cockpit visibility.  These retards will use any excuse to justify their endless criticisms.  Whats next?  No expresso machine, or the flight computers won't run the Grindr app?

I suspect its because if they criticize poor rearwards visibility on the Su-57 theyd be criticising the F-35's visibility. The F-22 really does have unmatched cockpit visibility because its a single piece bubble canopy.

Well for one thing, the Su-57 original canopy was made from polyurethane, which was super hard to make correctly, so I would imagine using a 2-piece one would simplify the process. For another, the front piece of the canopy is intended to be a windshield as well and so it has an extra layer of glass. If you make a single-piece canopy, you have to incorporate this layer of glass into the frame, which adds complexity. Additionally, suppose for some reason the canopy malfunctions and jettisons itself, on the su-57 only the second piece would be blown away and the first piece remains there as a windshield (if you take into account the fact that the Su-57 will have a 2-pilot version, it would make more sense tbh). On the F-35, if I recall correctly, they also only place shaped charge at the rear half of the canopy for this reason, but I'm not very sure.

As for the bubble canopy, the Su-57 does have a bubble canopy. Bubble canopy is when the canopy is situated higher than the top of the fuselage. It's just that on the Su-57, the "bubble" isnt that prominent. If it sits higher, it would create a suction area (area of low pressure) behind the cockpit, which increases drag. A way to prevent this, like designs from 4th gen aircraft, is to change the aircraft's nose shape to be more efficient, which isnt that easy for 5th gen considering they also have to take into account reducing radar signature.

Also, a single-piece bubble canopy is extremely extremely hard to produce. GD struggled so hard to produce the F-16 canopy because of this, and the cost to produce the canopy was just insane (and this is coming from GD itself). At least to my point of view (which really does not have any experience with this matter), the extra cost doesnt justify extra visibility.

Anyway, there are some pics of the Su-57 with cameras on the sides. I dont see why they cant add another one facing rearward.

Actually, on the first prototype of the PAK-FA in canopy was in three pieces (the rear one divided by a central bar. It was then replaced by the current one. In my experience, I see that the Russians are always (and rightly) very cautious in their handling of flight: example are backup presentation screens, but this happens in other weapon systems too. Let's say it's a rule to better ensure operability. I also remember that they did (and there are videos) a flight test without the rear canopy, demonstrating that you can land safely.

The unwritten rule also applies here: everyone follows their own guidelines, and not necessarily the most famous or celebrated ones are the best.

The F-22 really does have unmatched cockpit visibility because its a single piece bubble canopy.

No it doesn't.

The canopy thickness is required to survive bird strikes and similar incidents so a single piece bubble canopy is enormously thick and enormously heavy... the alternative is variable thickness at the front compared with sides and back which will result in the view of the world being distorted.

With a small frame like many aircraft have the thickness of the frame is maybe 50mm or so... bobbing your head means you can see in those areas and of course for their IRSTs and radar these frames do not effect the view at all.

Next generation helmet mounted sights will incorporate the views from DAS systems that give a full 360 degree view around the aircraft including right through the cockpit and aircraft itself... but you will still be relying on cues from your IRST and radar as well as your EW suite and communications system for target information anyway.

Once you have located a target you fly the plane so you can manouver to keep the target in view...

Anyway, there are some pics of the Su-57 with cameras on the sides. I dont see why they cant add another one facing rearward.

The self defence suite includes optical (IR and laser) sensors to detect threats... they have it on helicopters already and the views of these cameras can be stitched together to form a virtual view of the airspace around the aircraft... they are developing helmet mounted sights that can display this real time view to the crew of armoured vehicles and aircraft so the crew can see the world around their vehicle through armour and structure and cockpits etc etc.

BTW it is amusing the single piece canopy of the F-22 is so critical because the French Rafale has beaten it in WVR combat and it has a three piece canopy and a fixed inflight refuelling probe blocking its pilots view... did they use a blind pilot and he beat him by touch and Braille?

Are we forgetting that the helmet sight of the Su-57 in sync with the all round vision system do allow the pilot to see through the cockpit?

Some nice pics.



This is quickly becoming my favorite color schematic for this aircraft.

LMFS wrote:https://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/next-generation-engine-work-points-future-u-s-fighter-designs

Finally got around to reading this.
It is interesting but I think the interesting bits need a bit of extra info to make proper sense.

There are a bunch of references to 6Gen being high fineness (it gives you a flatter drag hump), context: F-35 is too fat to supercruise & I think the implication is F-22 is also fatter than would be ideal.
Notably Su-57 is rather slender/flat & thin & the elongated sharp radome of Su-75 has been pointed out, I think these are for same reason.

Also references to Supercruise being high-fuel cost & importance of enabling high-bypass ratio for subsonic efficiency because high-exhaust velocity is bad efficiency, context: F-22 engines have tiny bypass ratio, which was done to give it the required supercruise performance ie F-22 subsonic cruise efficiency/loiter endurance is probably very bad.
As I understand the AL-41F-1S/117S has pretty conventional military plane bypass ratio so while it lacks the dry thrust for high supercruise performance it will be much more efficient subsonic.

The US has built a proof-of-concept fully functioning variable bypass engine but its huge, mechanically complex & heavy -> not actually able to be put in a plane so they're doing follow up programs to try to shrink & simplify it.
Meanwhile the original AL-41F for MiG 1.44 was apparently functional, lighter & simpler than a conventional engine of same power ...in the '80s

I'm kinda confused about Al-41F/AL-41F-1S relationship, supposedly the latter uses the original tech but with AL-31 core instead of whatever core the AL-41F had.
If it has that variable cycle tech already what extra stuff is the Izd. 30 engine bringing?

Atmosphere wrote:Are we forgetting that the helmet sight of the Su-57 in sync with the all round vision system do allow the pilot to see through the cockpit?

Do you have more details on this?

hoom wrote:Also references to Supercruise being high-fuel cost & importance of enabling high-bypass ratio for subsonic efficiency because high-exhaust velocity is bad efficiency, context: F-22 engines have tiny bypass ratio, which was done to give it the required supercruise performance ie F-22 subsonic cruise efficiency/loiter endurance is probably very bad.

Knowledgeable people estimate SFC 0.8, not brilliant at all. I don't know if that is including installed losses due to spillage for instance.

As I understand the AL-41F-1S/117S has pretty conventional military plane bypass ratio so while it lacks the dry thrust for high supercruise performance it will be much more efficient subsonic.

Relatively high bypass yes, SFC similar to AL-31F (0.67)

The US has built a proof-of-concept fully functioning variable bypass engine but its huge, mechanically complex & heavy -> not actually able to be put in a plane so they're doing follow up programs to try to shrink & simplify it.
Meanwhile the original AL-41F for MiG 1.44 was apparently functional, lighter & simpler than a conventional engine of same power ...in the '80s

All indicates it is US that is closer to deploying 3 streams adaptive engines, maybe before the end of the decade. The original AL-41F was very ambitious and allowed to make a lot of progress, but it never really worked as intended, from what we know. It seems it was a simpler VCE with just two streams.

I'm kinda confused about Al-41F/AL-41F-1S relationship, supposedly the latter uses the original tech but with AL-31 core instead of whatever core the AL-41F had.
If it has that variable cycle tech already what extra stuff is the Izd. 30 engine bringing?

AL-41F-1S and AL-41F-1 are both based on the AL-31F (same stage count and basic layout) with modifications like materials, aero design, control, compressor area and so on, and they apparently have little to do with the original AL-41. They are in any case are fixed bypass, the possibility that izd. 30 is a VCE is not yet confirmed but is seems logical. Then, we know that there is a 3 streams engine in development base in the core technology of izd. 30, but I have not seen any reference to the planed dates for it.

Ah I think that clears things up a bit.

So 117S engine is conventional cycle but using better materials/manufacturing to achieve the targets that origina 80s Al-41F was supposed to reach (but didn't?).

Then Izd. 30 should be bringing in properly working variable cycle & some other refinements.

hoom wrote:Ah I think that clears things up a bit.

So 117S engine is conventional cycle but using better materials/manufacturing to achieve the targets that origina 80s Al-41F was supposed to reach (but didn't?).

Then Izd. 30 should be bringing in properly working variable cycle & some other refinements.

117S is the engine of the Su-35, a modernization of the AL-31F. The 117 is the first stage engine of the Su-57, with FADEC and 5G materials but the same layout of the AL-31F too. The real successor to the original AL-41F (izd. 20) is the izd. 30, with brand new design not any more based on the AL-31F family and expected to be the basis of the Russian military engines for the next 40-50 years, according to Lyulka

owais.usmani wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:
What a knob-end. What an arrogant condescending know-it-all f*cking moron...

Dude you have seen nothing, check out this masterpiece:

There's something about Yanks shitting on the Checkmate that doesn't feel as insulting as the su 57. The su 57 is a masterpiece. And they should shut tf up and stop making up shit about it.

This idiot made me laugh a little bit. He knows he has to insult it for the crowd but he doesn't go full retard