Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)

[Deino]

You really do not want to understand !?? Won't You ?

The external lines of an airframe do not really have to do with the structure. If they had to add reinforcement stripes on certain parts of the tail or the rear fuselage, if the change the material or add a few mm of material to strengthen a certain part, then these changes are related to "structural issues".

That does not mean You have to change to whole external appearance of an aircraft .... and in mind of the Su-27-prototypes, these changes were not necessary due to structural issues, but most of all due to aerodynamic inefficiencies.

But ok. ... You are correct, no Russian source confirmed my claims so they must be wrong. The T50 is a perfect design, everything proceeds according to the original plan, no issues, no mishap ... reports claiming the opposite are all faked trolling-propaganda made by ignorant Western forum posters like that strange guy Deino.

As such the T50 is 100% in serial production, since three prototypes have been flown with weapons and radar sets completed ...


Better this way ?

Deino

 

[b787]

You really do not want to understand !?? Won't You ?

The external lines of an airframe do not really have to do with the structure. If they had to add reinforcement stripes on certain parts of the tail or the rear fuselage, if the change the material or add a few mm of material to strengthen a certain part, then these changes are related to "structural issues".

That does not mean You have to change to whole external appearance of an aircraft .... and in mind of the Su-27-prototypes, these changes were not necessary due to structural issues, but most of all due to aerodynamic inefficiencies.




Better this way ?

Deino

you are dodging the issue, the load bearing parts in the fuselage are of two types longitudinal and in cross section, the skin does not bear much of the loads although it does bear some torsional forces, it is like the skin of a person, the bones are bulkheads and stringers, these are really bearing the force the structure has to bear, PAKFA has not changed its cross section longitudinally, except by the tail stings.

there you can see the bulkheads and formers of PAKFA

If you add parts internally you reduce space for other equipment, also before the aircraft ever flies it has static structural test where the parts are put to test.

Now see the funny part you claim it has structural problems but they cannibalized the 06-1 that has the same design and parts, would not be better design and make new parts? you are claiming its structure was defective in 05, so why you are going to use the same parts?

 

[Deino]

...
Now see the funny part you claim it has structural problems but they cannibalized the 06-1 that has the same design and parts, would not be better design and make new parts? you are claiming its structure was defective in 05, so why you are going to use the same parts?

The funny part is that You don't understand: It was possible to cannibalize T50-6-1 since it was the final old "first" stage prototype configuration as the crashed T50-5 ... the modified strengthened parts will only be included in their definitive form in the subsequent aircraft.

As such 056 flies now structurally in the same modified configuration like 052, 053, 54 and 055R.

 

[siegecrossbow]

On a related note, do we have photographic confirmation that the "pods" below the LERXes are miniature missile compartments?

 

[b787]

The funny part is that You don't understand: It was possible to cannibalize T50-6-1 since it was the final old "first" stage prototype configuration as the crashed T50-5 ... the modified strengthened parts will only be included in their definitive form in the subsequent aircraft.

As such 056 flies now structurally in the same modified configuration like 052, 053, 54 and 055R.

okay let me see 06-1 was designed upon the accident? or why not design the same parts for 05? so what happened to 06-1 was it dumped into a trash can?

All this story does not make sense 06-1 cost money, they are not going to cannibalize it to leave it to rotten,

all of this needs to be proven by pictures where is 06-1?
show me a picture of it?

Yuri Beley never mentions 06 as 06-2, he only says the sixth prototype, 06-1 is not going to be left incompleted .

Anyway there is no official report that supports your theory, the first flight of 06 was confirmed officially by Kret and later pictures appeared on russian.planes.net. Yuri Beley also confirmed in November 5, 2015, that the 06 prototype existed.

When something is true, it is sooner or later confirmed, if your claims are true, in few years they will say them, but up to now, they are not confirmed and as such it is an urban legend unless they are confirmed by official sources

 

[Deino]

O.k. ... as such we are again:

You are correct, no Russian source confirmed my claims so they must be wrong. The T50 is a perfect design, everything proceeds according to the original plan, no issues, no mishap ... reports claiming the opposite are all faked trolling-propaganda made by ignorant Western forum posters like that strange guy Deino.

As such the T50 is 100% in serial production, since three prototypes have been flown with weapons and radar sets completed ...

Better this way ?

Deino

 

[Air Force Brat]

O.k. ... as such we are again:



Better this way ?

Deino

B-787, the Scriptures in 1 Peter 5:5 states "likewise you younger, submit yourself unto your elders", Deino writes with authority for Combat Aviation Monthly, his work is peer reviewed, and found to be "authoritative" and "accurate" enough to be published, in one of the premier publications on combat aircraft. I myself am a pilot, I flew the day before yesterday, and received a very nice complement from an observer that I flew very well, a mechanic, working on our own aircraft under the supervision of an AI. We had to replace seat rails because the steel pins, had worn the aluminum seat rails and elongated the holes, risking the seat becoming dislodged and causing the operator to lose control.

where there is cracking, a hole is stop-drilled to hopefully stop the propagation of that crack, or extra material is riveted in as "gusseting". Your own assertion that the skin carries no load is utter "nonsense", as all modern aircraft utilize "monocoque" construction, and the skin carries all the loads, supported and shaped by stringers, bulkheads, spars, and ribs, either riveted or bonded to the skin??

It is a very simple matter in carbon fibre to add another layer of cloth in a week area to increase the thickness of the skin or of a rib or bulkhead, or in metal to add a few thousandths of addition material, and there is NO WAY that you could ever see that difference externally, it simply is not done.

I am not only your brother in the Lord, I am a Pastor/Teacher, master Deino is a teacher, the scriptures encourage us to heed "wise counsel". Master Deino is among the most knowledgeable posters on the Sino Defense Forum, yet his humility and patience are exemplary!

I am often wrong, but I also frequently offer up the truth, and an acknowledgement of my errors, that's what true scholars do, more importantly Gentlemen are able to graciously accept truth, and change their practices to reflect that truth?

 

[taxiya]

PAKFA only possible structural problem is the weapons bays since the weapons bay doors will open, this could potentially mean weakness, so the aircraft needs a strong longitudinal back and spine and aft fuselage fairing, such changes are not visible, if the aircraft has had changes are internal and not visible, the back of an aircraft that opens its rear door such a C-5 or An-124 requires a strong roof at the top of the fuselage and the same are the weapons bays of the T-50.

If the T-50 has a trouble the weapons are the likely cause since there is a empty area that open its bay doors, the solution will be change the structure and architecture of the aircraft entirely and integrate potentially new and stronger materials, in few words the bulkheads will be needed to re-modified and re-design and that will change most likely the external physical appearance, such changes are not seen in PAKGA, regardless you believe the forum posters of LTD key aviation
I leave you these picture so you can visualize what i am saying

I brought up this concern in posts: #794, #806 and #808 which you rejected in post #797 by referring to "No official Sukhoi statement".

I honestly do not intend to "embarrass" you be digging the past, but I'd appreciate that you do realize that a blank rejection of other's idea is not working, taking some time to consider is the best.

 

[b787]

O.k. ... as such we are again:



Better this way ?

Deino

Let me give you my last point, i am not a proud person, i acknowledged you were right on the rumour, Azohei said in airforce ru the flight was held on 27th April, 2017, i knew the 06 did indeed exist. i knew because take.off.ru Magazine has interviews with Russian officials from the aerospace Industry and in the Issue of November 2015 Yuri Bely confirmed they had a sixth prototype with all the set of radars and it was going to fly soon. however remember i said if it is true, in less than a month you will have pictures and official confirmation, and yes it happened that way, i know the Russians are not like people claim, they have honest people too, i know that because like any country the first year they will not admit things but after years they do admit the problems in their aircraft programs.

If you are right, then wait is not like here we go again, it is simply you have to admit the cracks or what ever structural problem claims are forum opinions, there is no official confirmation of such problem.
The main structure of PAKFA is the stringers, formers and bulkheads, which make most of the torsion bearing structure, if that part is okay, the aircraft is sound structurally, there is not need to redesign it.

All the prototypes are basically identical except by few minor changes in sensors, the only very big structural change is in the tail stings,

If you read take.off ru you will see, many times the Russians acknowledge what are the problems and hurdles they find

 

[b787]

I brought up this concern in posts: #794, #806 and #808 which you rejected in post #797 by referring to "No official Sukhoi statement".

I honestly do not intend to "embarrass" you be digging the past, but I'd appreciate that you do realize that a blank rejection of other's idea is not working, taking some time to consider is the best.

A rumor is not a fact

B-787, the Scriptures in 1 Peter 5:5 states "likewise you younger, submit yourself unto your elders", Deino writes with authority for Combat Aviation Monthly, his work is peer reviewed, and found to be "authoritative" and "accurate" enough to be published, in one of the premier publications on combat aircraft. I myself am a pilot, I flew the day before yesterday, and received a very nice complement from an observer that I flew very well, a mechanic, working on our own aircraft under the supervision of an AI. We had to replace seat rails because the steel pins, had worn the aluminum seat rails and elongated the holes, risking the seat becoming dislodged and causing the operator to lose control.

where there is cracking, a hole is stop-drilled to hopefully stop the propagation of that crack, or extra material is riveted in as "gusseting". Your own assertion that the skin carries no load is utter "nonsense", as all modern aircraft utilize "monocoque" construction, and the skin carries all the loads, supported and shaped by stringers, bulkheads, spars, and ribs, either riveted or bonded to the skin??

It is a very simple matter in carbon fibre to add another layer of cloth in a week area to increase the thickness of the skin or of a rib or bulkhead, or in metal to add a few thousandths of addition material, and there is NO WAY that you could ever see that difference externally, it simply is not done.

I am not only your brother in the Lord, I am a Pastor/Teacher, master Deino is a teacher, the scriptures encourage us to heed "wise counsel". Master Deino is among the most knowledgeable posters on the Sino Defense Forum, yet his humility and patience are exemplary!

I am often wrong, but I also frequently offer up the truth, and an acknowledgement of my errors, that's what true scholars do, more importantly Gentlemen are able to graciously accept truth, and change their practices to reflect that truth?

Sorry i will be blunt to you, who is right is not based upon authority, but upon who is right, simple like that.
, remember the scripture says
Proverbs 27:2Contemporary English Version (CEV)
2 Don’t brag about yourself—
let others praise you.
and remember friendship is to be honest too not only to praise
Proverbs 27:6King James Version (KJV)
6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Now i know skin bears some stress, but is not the main part, specially since they are thin sheets of metal or composites, structurally the main structure are the bulkheads, formers and stringers that work like the pillars of bridges, and by making compartments in the monocoque structure architecture reduce the stress the skin bears.

PAKFA is made of 70 per cent composite in the fuselage skin, can have some troubles the skin, yes it could, but it does not mean the aircraft has an internal structural problem of design, but a problem in the composition of the composite itself, however the material could have been changed does it mean it was because it has some structural problems, yes , but also it could have been many other reason, perhaps they made a breakthrough in materials and so on, the theory it has problems has not been confirmed.

And contrary, to your assertion, 055 did fly, 056 flew and in that i was wrong, but i acknowledge when i was wrong.

forum gossips are not always true, and you have to see that when something is true sooner or later it is known, so if the skin of the T-50 has some issues, it will be know, sooner or later and by that i mean officially.