Of those 27 Time-to-Climb records – is there one for “breaking the sound barrier in a vertical climb” ??? – I doubt it…
Ken
Not sure if you’re having trouble accessing the link, but page 23, bottom of centre column (Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker – WarbirdTech Vol 42 By Yefim Gordon):
I think the climb figure may be doable with the izd.30 engines, though I find it less likely with the interim ones. The T-50 is heavier than the Su-27 by at least 10% (18 tons vs 16.3 tons), with 27% more wing area, with only 20% thrust with the 117. But since such climb rate is well into the transsonic region, the T-50 may very well have better drag characteristics at those speeds since it’s optimized for supersonic performance. Accounts from Dozer several years back documented that the F-22 can reach 310 m/s with combat load and in less than ideal climb profile, so with definitive engines I think it’s possible for the T-50 to do something similar.
I don’t see how people arrive at that 18T figure. The Su-30 is 18.4T empty, yet dimensional differences are stark before we even get into composites’ weight saving over an all metal airframe (irrespective of ballast/avionics, increased wing area etc.):
The P-42’s T/Wr was 1.93 (13.598T x 2/14.1T MTOW*). For arguments sake, if one uses 18T for the T-50 (inclusive of fuel and a TOW 28% (!) greater than the P-42) with ‘overclocked’ 117 @ 16T, this gives a T/Wr of 1.78.
This would mean the T-50’s aerodynamic efficiency (particularly in the transonic regime) is significantly greater than the P-42 – which is to be expected.
However, if this record was indeed set then I would highly doubt the T-50 concerned was 28% heavier than the P-42.
IIrc, 330m/s is the widely accepted figure for the MiG-29.
‘052’, today, with a cream-coloured tail cone:
…I’ll raise your wind-tunnel T-103 model with a T-102 model:
Larger pic and ‘electronic wind-tunnel/FlowVision’ analysis:
http://tesis.com.ru/infocenter/downloads/flowvision/fv_es15_13.pdf
Sign In
