Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)
- Thread starter A Bar Brother
- Start date
Because Flight test articles are precious, and at that time 051 and possibly 052 were also grounded due to structural cracking,, if you are NOT flying, you are NOT collecting/collating/analyzing data!
So 6-1 was pulled off the production line, and built up as 055R, using the salvaged wings, horizontals, and verticals from 055, and everything else they could "salvage"... 055R were an auto in Central Obamastan, it would have a "salvage" title..
and it was used because the -2 PAK-FA were the next aircraft built under a new engineering modifications necessary to "beef up" the areas where cracking was occurring in the -1s,,, so 6-1 was the last -1 fuselage available, and was therefor rebuilt as 055R to get the test fling back on schedule, as that fire put them at least 18 month behind,, so critical was the need for "flight test articles" that the -1s were pulled back into the shop and rebuilt themselves..
Static test articles are very important, but they are usually tested 24/7, and do not require an operator as they are placed in a "test frame" and given a real going over, sometimes to even to failure!
b787
Captain
Let us do that quote some one from Sukhoi and give the link, once you do that i will believe you.
You can use TV
see Alexei is in Komsomolsk-on-Amur production site (KnAAZ) and touches PAKFA if you find where he says what you say let me know
You are so funny !
on the one side You demand only to quote official sources You probably will never get as the only proof while in return You present claims as facts regardless how unlikely they are. If an A.320 - and we know that - stand's at Seattle, is that a hint or even proof that Boeing builds the A.320??
So please care to explain why You think so esp. if Salyut does not produce the Izd. 30, which is made at Saturn?
Yes, but even if Russian sources say so it, it makes that version at least more likely ... and IMO much more likely than still ignoring certain issues and waiting for an industrial report You probably never will get due to other (internal, political, industrial, PR, ... ) concerns.
Simply since it is the cheapest and easiest way to get that precious airframe back into the air again for further testing esp. if other prototypes were also modified due to several issues? Also building new parts takes additional time and that all in parallel to a cash-strapped and delayed project....
Last edited:
b787
Captain
The engine could be another one, I am open to that possibility, the Rostec Article does not say anything, what engine it is, well it does not say.
About the T-50-05 issue you have with me, let us say who said what.
I said Sukhoi said the T-50-5 was going to be repaired, the Sukhoi website press release said that.
You said that it was a written off aircraft, that it was not going to fly again.
Later you took the idea floating on the Russian internet, (i am member of several forums among them Paralay`s Stealth Forum and Airforce.ru forum) so i saw they called T-50R.
Was it official? no it was a gossip a forum gossip, it has never been confirmed by such as TV Star from Russia that regularly has TV programs airing programs with interviews at the Sukhoi workshops with pilots and engineers or Sukhoi it self
So that story well is not new to me.
Cannibalizing the airframe when they have the tools to make new parts? when the testbed for structural test already has some flights hours due to the treatment it has, by the way it does not matter it is the new parts once they are tested and they are rigorously tested they also weaken, of course they have limits and standards but a new piece is much better.
So in my opinion you have no official confirmation and is hardly convincing they could not build new parts, second unless you can tell me what parts were replaced, and why they could not build them on time, it does not make sense to me your support to that original idead floating in Russian aviation forums.
Yep, he's NEVER wrong,, he can not admit he doesn't have a clue?? after all, he was married to a Russian woman, so he must know everything about Russia.
anyway, thanks for trying,,,, its apparent after looking at photo's with the gear doors open that SU-57 does not have any side bays, there's simply no room...
that thin fuselage has likely caused them other issues as well, but even the main bays will end up being rather shallow, one reason they had to move the engines well outboard,,, which could cause a problem if you "lose" an engine with those tiny verts?
b787
Captain
I recommend you read about Hudson Taylor and what he said about Russia, remember blessing an aircraft only is good for the sake of the pilot, i disagree with war, i like both but i hate war.
Any way soon if the reports are right Izd 30 will fly on Su-57
Last edited:
Glad someone else is as skeptical of side bays in Su-57. Drop away sheaths are possible but even then, it's not simply an issue of does the volume in that space exceed the volume of a sraam. Missile require much more room for pylons, launching and control mechanisms, not to even mention hinges if they are doors or even mechanisms if they are drop away sheaths. Unless they've made super tiny sraams, su-57 does not have side bays. It also is unlikely to be able to carry 6 mraam as they claim. I have similar doubts about J-20's main bay carrying 6 mraams.
Many fanboys are still delusional about this to this day despite not having seen one official source confirming these claims or any actual photographs showing the ability. Unless China and Russia miniaturise they're mraams, their respective 5th gen fighters will carry fewer missiles than the raptor. This hugely disappointing for those of us who are cheering on China and Russia in their attempt at matching US military capability. China's J-20 is far closer to an F-22 competitor than Su-57 it seems on the surface. Having said that, I wonder what those protrusions are for. My bet is spacing for existing electronic warfare equipment, radar, or future modifications for those items or others.
Since he doesn't require official proof for these claims, then the rest should be treated similarly.