In general there is a lot of food for thought in the comments by UAC/Sukhoi, some of them apply to the Su-57 too like the "transitional" nozzle
A nice piece here, too:
https://aviation21.ru/lyogkij-takticheskij-istrebitel-suxogo-su-75-checkmate/
the deflected thrust vector of the engine provide the fighter with a distance on takeoff and run after landing 400-500 meters.
I cannot fathom that it is still debated weather the plane is real or not right After being confirmed by the creators to be an actual prototype
I don't think it is a fair comparison
Tell me one operational case
They can always trust in US to instruct their vassals not to buy the LTS, as it is to be expected from the "free world"
Oh boy, full denial red flag for you
Very restrictive and unlikely if you ask me, but possible.
Roll control in stall states is your last concern in terms of controllability, and those elements you say dot not help in that regard either.
The sophists are already hedging their bets and calling it vaporeware even if it flies.
So did they maybe devise a way to do one of these slow rolling takeoffs similar to what the F-35 does ?
GarryB likes this post
miketheterrible dislikes this post
Backman wrote:So did they maybe devise a way to do one of these slow rolling takeoffs similar to what the F-35 does ?
GarryB wrote:Modifying a design for a new distinct and different role is not new... at the end of WWII lots of the first jet powered planes that actually made it into service were simply propeller driven planes with their old engines replaced with jet engines... it is the cheapest quickest easiest design option... of course not always ideal, but can be better in some other ways like speed or economic reasons.
Yeah, but will that last forever?
Don't be a dick, I am trying to explain SSs position that this design is not a design yet and that it could only be a design when it enters serial production with at least 3,500 orders for aircraft... and obviously failing because this is clearly a design, and a much better looking one than the F-35 design.
Su-57 for the poor puts the aviation industry in a risky position
JohninMK wrote:Gomig-21 wrote:
That was the first thing I noticed too when I first saw that cut diagram by Backman. Actually it wads the affirmation of the duct pushing up the way it does when we were talking about it needing to do exactly that in order to make room for the forward landing gear to tuck up in there when retracting. Sure enough, that'd exactly what it shows and the other is how much space and room there is for tons of fuel, especially in that spinal run,
I think I read somewhere that the F-35 used its fuel as a coolant for its electronics, giving it problems when operating in high ambient temperatures.
Could the Su-75 be doing similar but with the airduct cooling the fuel? Also, does running cooler fuel into the engine have any effect on performance?
Kiko wrote:
In the videos of Rostec, beating the name Checkmate, the pilots of the Indian, Vietnamese and Argentine air forces appear. And India looks like the most promising client for a variety of reasons. Not only because it is traditionally the largest customer of the Russian military aviation, but also because it has long been looking for a replacement for the Soviet single-engine MiG-21. Of course, the Indians are negotiating with all the leading manufacturers of military aircraft and are actively developing their own aircraft. However, both tradition and reputation may well influence their choice in favor of a Russian fighter.
But whoever this mysterious "anchor customer" is, it is highly likely that they will not be. And this, unfortunately, is the Russian Aerospace Forces.
Yeah. I am just wondering if they found a way to do a similar take off with the delta type wing plus the thrust vectoring. Maybe with an adjustable front strut + vectoring. Point it up like a Concorde then use the TVC.GarryB wrote:I cannot fathom that it is still debated weather the plane is real or not right After being confirmed by the creators to be an actual prototype
That big thing behind the cockpit that looks like an airbrake is the air intake for the lift fan... which the Checkmate wont have if it is lucky.
Gomig-21 and LMFS like this post
Backman wrote:From ^that article
the deflected thrust vector of the engine provide the fighter with a distance on takeoff and run after landing 400-500 meters.
So did they maybe devise a way to do one of these slow rolling takeoffs similar to what the F-35 does ?
Backman wrote:Just imagine that Lockheed took one engine , the wings , cockpit , gear and tail section from the F-22 and made the F-35 out of it. That's probably what they should have done.
GarryB and TMA1 like this post
Gomig-21, Backman and TMA1 like this post
Backman wrote:Yeah. I am just wondering if they found a way to do a similar take off with the delta type wing plus the thrust vectoring. Maybe with an adjustable front strut + vectoring. Point it up like a Concorde then use the TVC.
They must have something up their sleeve if they are claiming it has shorter take offs than the average for a plane this size
Scorpius wrote:One more small detail: do you notice any interesting colors on the engine nozzle?
PapaDragon, TMA1 and Finty like this post
LMFS wrote:Scorpius wrote:One more small detail: do you notice any interesting colors on the engine nozzle?
Do you mean that the engine has been already turned on?
hoom likes this post
dino00 and TMA1 like this post
Backman wrote:Just imagine that Lockheed took one engine , the wings , cockpit , gear and tail section from the F-22 and made the F-35 out of it. That's probably what they should have done.
Backman and Mir like this post
Scorpius wrote:Perhaps this is a bench copy that has passed through autonomous tests. Or perhaps-the engine has already been tested as part of the aircraft.
Atmosphere wrote:I'm more interested in the holes drilled along.
Aerosol injection
Scorpius wrote:LMFS wrote:Scorpius wrote:One more small detail: do you notice any interesting colors on the engine nozzle?
Do you mean that the engine has been already turned on?
Perhaps this is a bench copy that has passed through autonomous tests. Or perhaps-the engine has already been tested as part of the aircraft.
kvs wrote:There is video of the engine firing already. It was shown in the promo clip. It was not an Su-57 or some other jet, it was the Su-75.
Gomig-21 wrote:kvs wrote:There is video of the engine firing already. It was shown in the promo clip. It was not an Su-57 or some other jet, it was the Su-75.
Where did Sukhoi or Rostec or UAC officially name this aircraft the designation Su-75?!? I'm curious when and who gave it that designation when we all knew it to be The Checkmate? anyone know?
Gomig-21 likes this post
TMA1 wrote:Gomig-21 wrote:kvs wrote:There is video of the engine firing already. It was shown in the promo clip. It was not an Su-57 or some other jet, it was the Su-75.
Where did Sukhoi or Rostec or UAC officially name this aircraft the designation Su-75?!? I'm curious when and who gave it that designation when we all knew it to be The Checkmate? anyone know?
They didn't. It's like people calling the izd 30 the al 51. Are we even sure it has the experimental wing name of t-75?
TMA1 likes this post
Gomig-21 and TMA1 like this post