True. Doing a bit of reading on Secret Projects, I also noticed that normal loaded weight given for Soviet/Russian aircraft is typically not at full internal fuel. Take the Su-27, for instance. It’s normal loaded weight is at roughly 56% fuel. I suppose this makes sense since the Su-27 was allegedly designed to have massive internal fuel capacity for both range (Russia is large) and to get rid of the need for external fuel tanks. The Flanker is apparently a poor dogfighter at higher fuel loads, and I’ve heard that certain fuel tanks aren’t rated at 9 g. Only when those tanks are empty and fuel loads are at 50% or lower does it become quite an animal. Again, makes sense since the Su-27 can act as a long range fighter interceptor and by the time it arrived at combat it would’ve burned enough fuel to be at its cited normal loaded weight. I’m wondering if the T-50 has the same philosophy in its design, and if so, certainly structures and fuel tanks don’t have to be designed for 9 g, which can save some weight in structure.
Out of curiosity, I’m wondering how fast the T-50 will be at sea level. Panavia Tornado and F-111 were quite the aircraft at low altitude, and the F-22 is apparently quite a speedster and can do Mach 1.4 on the deck.
Probably somewhere in the region of Mach 1-1.5 as the PAK-FA T-50 is supposed to be better than the F-22.
Sign In
