MiG 1.44 flew only twice for a total flying time of around 90 minutes – not a lot of time for any plasma stealth experiments.

I too was under the impression that the Cv 990 was the fastest subsonic airliner. I never knew about it until I discovered a reference to it in edition 7 of the BAC/Sud Concorde Flight News. issued on 6 Octber 1969.

Course it’s the fastest, it’s essentially propelled along by the same powerplant which powered the B-58 Hustler and F-104…:cool:

I’m sure that when the second prototype joins the programme in the next few weeks, things will pick up.

It’s probably not correct to compare the 2.5 year figure of the F-35 with the single T-50 flying over 10 months.

I guess your right, 10 months is perhaps still to early to make a conclusion on the ‘punctuality’ of the test programme but it’s still interesting to compare. Here’s something I found on the Eurofighter’s flight test programme.

The first development aircraft (there were no prototypes as such), the German-built DA1 (98+29), did not fly until March 27th 1994, with Peter Weger at the controls. The flight, from Manching, lasted 45 minutes…

…The first UK prototype, DA2 (ZH588) flew on April 6th 1994, with Chris Yeo in the cockpit. Both DA1 and DA2 had Turbo-Union RB199 turbofans.

After nine flights each, both DA1 and DA2 were grounded for modifications. This meant that they were not available for the 1994 Farnborough Air Show, leaving the Rafale to steal the show.

Development flying resumed on May 17th 1995, when BAe CTP Chris Yeo took DA2 for an 80-minute flight from Warton. DA3 (MMX602) joined the program on June 4th 1995, making its maiden flight from Turin/Caselle. This was the first aircraft to fly with EJ200 engines.

By the end of 1995 DA1 had made twelve flights, DA2 sixty-seven and DA3 twenty-five, generating just over 100 hours between them…

…By the end of March 1996 the first three aircraft had accumulated about 150 hours, in 140 sorties. The EJ200 engines in DA3 had accumulated 120 hours during 40 trouble-free flights and ground runs. DA3’s engines were upgraded from 01A to 01C standard during early 1996.

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/typhoon/development.html

Eurofighter testing probably wasn’t any faster in the first 12 months either.

I found some sources that quoted around $30m for an Su-30MKI, but others as high as $70. Which is the more accurate figure?

The most recent quote for the Su-30MKI I’ve seen is 100 million apiece.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sub7vro0z-4&feature=player_embedded#

Austin, what you’re stating is applicable for all flight test programmes for all new aircraft. Some flight test programmes are more intensive or busy than others, packing in more test flights into a shorter time interval – the schedule of each and every test flight is decided months, if not years before flight begins. But like every carefully laid plan, sometimes something goes awry, or pear-shaped, and there are delays (it’s no surprise that the very circumstances that brought about ‘Murphy’s Law’ should come about during an aerospace test project).

But what is the test flight schedule for the T-50, and are they ahead or behind after 10 months in? And my question still stands, isn’t 40 flights still a bit low? If Sukhoi want a ‘conservative’ low tempo of testing for the T-50, well and good – but that’s going to affect the over lengh of time to complete the flight test programme, bringing in a delayed service entry date, won’t it?

It’s actually spread over a period of around 15 years. Making a foreign sale, which is equal to 1 month of Japan’s export sales is not something to scoff at. I’m just trying to make the point – that is one hugh sales coup…
It also makes me wonder, If the USA allowed the export of the F-22, how much would LM, etc, make in the first 5 to 10 years? I believe Japan, for starters, was always very interested in buying.

which Patrick, which Patrick???:confused::confused:

The SAAB A-36

Swedens planned (but thankfully never built) supersonic nuclear bomber.

Interesting, raises 2 questions in my mind, did Sweden actually plan to have a nuclear weapons programme in the past? I’m pretty sure the Swedes would have been up to it technologically, it might be a bit expensive for a country of 8 million people though (the Israeli weapons programme comes to mind).

Secondly, What sort of powerplant for propulsion – British Avon? American JT8D? But would these countries allow Sweden to use their powerplants on a ‘nuclear bomber’?