Russian aircraft design

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 1,966

Why is it even some of the newest designs (Su-34 Fullback) bear striking similarities with designs from the 70s and early 80s?

The Eurofighter looks totally different from the aircraft it is due to replace (Tornado), and the JSF from the F15 and F16s it will replace in America.

Is that general design really that good?

Original post

Member for

24 years 3 months

Posts: 1,437

No, the design isn't that good.

The talented men who designed the Su-27 like Vladimir Antonov, Oleg Samolovich and others are mostly retired. Most of the current crop of Sukhoi designers are post Soviet era and have practically no experience other than endlessly tinkering with the Su-27 in conditions of no money.

The T-50 is going to be another warmover of the Su-27 design.

Member for

24 years 3 months

Posts: 12,009

Well, to be honest, the Su-34 is a derivative of the Su-27, so the fact that it bears a striking resemblance to the FLANKER is no big shocker. And as far as pure aerodynamics are concerned, the FLANKER design is a very good design.

The T-50 is going to be another warmover of the Su-27 design.

Not entirely suprising, given that it will actually be a warmed-over Su-47, which was in fact built using a lot of Su-27 airframe components.

Member for

24 years 3 months

Posts: 1,437

Little known fact: Su-47 started out life as the naval Su-27KM project with FSW wings and canards intended to increase lift.

Member for

24 years 3 months

Posts: 12,009

Was that the original S-32 design with the 2-D nozzles?

Configuration wise the F-22 is just an F-15 with a stealthy shape and internal weapons... which means that the latest US wonder toy is a derivative of the Mig-25. :diablo:

Member for

24 years 3 months

Posts: 2,271

Configuration wise the F-22 is just an F-15 with a stealthy shape and internal weapons... which means that the latest US wonder toy is a derivative of the Mig-25. :diablo:

... or the A-5, which is even the better air superiority fighter ;)

The Eurofighter looks totally different from the aircraft it is due to replace (Tornado), and the JSF from the F15 and F16s it will replace in America.

But the Eurofighter was not designed to replace the Tornado, with completely different roles different looks (aerodynamics) shouldnt be a surprise.
JSF on the other hand has a very conventional layout, not much different to an Eagle.

Member for

17 years 10 months

Posts: 454

if MiG-25 was the first fighter/interceptor with twin-tail configuration and the McDonnell Douglas copied the Foxbat twin-tail configuration, not to mention twin-engines, what if the Foxbat designers copied the A-5 Vigilante and added two tails to correct stability problems? wasn't the Vigilante around before the Foxbat existed?

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 10,217

Configuration wise the F-22 is just an F-15 with a stealthy shape and internal weapons... which means that the latest US wonder toy is a derivative of the Mig-25. :diablo:

.. I am already waiting for someone coming with the 'which is a derivative of RA-5C' arguments.. ;)

edit: ah, there it is!!!!!

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 10,217

if MiG-25 was the first fighter/interceptor with twin-tail configuration and the McDonnell Douglas copied the Foxbat twin-tail configuration, not to mention twin-engines, what if the Foxbat designers copied the A-5 Vigilante and added two tails to correct stability problems? wasn't the Vigilante around before the Foxbat existed?

A-5 was a piece of crap, to be honest.. Ill-suited for a bomber, making it even worse recon aircraft. Due to large wing area and low wing loading, the photos Vigies took were seldom sharp enough to be really useful. No chance against the pics RF-4s took.

... or the A-5, which is even the better air superiority fighter

You mistakenly said IS. Currently the A-5 is vapourware. The A in its designation means it was primarily a ground pounder anyways.

The layout of the F-22 is nothing new. Unlike the YF-23 which actually was different from what had flown before, the F-22 is rather boring to look at in my opinion.

Member for

24 years 3 months

Posts: 12,009

the F-22 is rather boring to look at in my opinion

I have to agree. When you say "21st Century air combat" I aesthetically think of F-23s vs Su-47s :diablo:

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 4,674

The base Su-27 is probably the definitive answer to the question of the layout of fixed wing twin-engine heavy fighters. It is incredibly adaptable. Both Tornado and EF2000 are complex, overengineered, maxed-out designs without any growth capability left from the start.

The beauty of the Su-27 concept is its clarity. Once you've seen it you ask yourself how anybody could have ever designed some other configuration for a twin.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 81

The base Su-27 is probably the definitive answer to the question of the layout of fixed wing twin-engine heavy fighters. It is incredibly adaptable. Both Tornado and EF2000 are complex, overengineered, maxed-out designs without any growth capability left from the start.

The beauty of the Su-27 concept is its clarity. Once you've seen it you ask yourself how anybody could have ever designed some other configuration for a twin.

hmm did you leave the Rafale out for a reason? just curious what your thoughts are on there too

Member for

19 years

Posts: 1,189

Why is it even some of the newest designs (Su-34 Fullback) bear striking similarities with designs from the 70s and early 80s?

The Eurofighter looks totally different from the aircraft it is due to replace (Tornado), and the JSF from the F15 and F16s it will replace in America.

Is that general design really that good?


This is my "two cents worth" opinion. Designers have been constantly looking for ways to better the L/D ratio which is the most important factor affecting aircraft maneuverability during turning. Someone had to realize that most of air to air clashes in 60-s,70-s were carried out at speeds below Mach 1. They found out that by putting a curved plate in front of the main wing or by extending the delta shape with a high swept angle forewing known as a double-delta the lift continued to increase nonlinear at higher positive angles of attack. Therefore the seventies in aerodynamics were affected by non-linear lift theories. From this point of view I think the su-27(27M) has got one of the most advanced aft-tail designs ever built. The only one which outclasses it by now is the canarded FSW layout of the Su-47 Berkut. There is no wonder why the flanker familly is still growing while "non-experienced designers at the current Sukhoi bureau is endlessly tinkering the old design from seventies" at whatever conditions. Thanks God that we do have here such experts who know the designer stuff at Sukhoi and what they are working on. :(
Contrary to the seventies the projects which rolled out in 80-s and later were totally different. Their main assignment field was to operate at supersonic where choosing the right wing shape is no brainer at all. They were focusing on delta wings used in initial ATF studies, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen, Lavi and the soviet MFI while drawbacks of deltas at subsonic have been reduced with help of canards. The US designers quickly realized that by applying canard-delta design, they will have problems to fullfil the stealth requirements(RCS), what explains why they got stuck with a common aft-tail design. The F-22 inherited less design features from seventies and eighties, basically it is a tweaked 60th design. No blended wing-body design, no real LERXs exploiting the non-linear lift as on the F-16,F-18, Mig-29, Su-27, no delta wings with sweep angle around 60deg suited for supersonic flight and maneuvering as Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen.. etc. When lacking the TVC the aircraft would be almost considered as the F-15.

M

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 10,217

hmm did you leave the Rafale out for a reason? just curious what your thoughts are on there too

Try to adapt Rafale for an armored tactical bomber with side-by-side cockpit arrangement... Got his point now? Rafale is a neat bird but the flexibility of its design is rather poor, you cannot tweak it much more than you got in the basic version. Whereas, Su-27 design and its modifications cover the wide spectrum from a pure air superiority fighter to a Tu-22M-3 replacement. I find Flankers a bit boring nowadays, but I have to agree, the design itself is incredibly adaptable..

Member for

19 years

Posts: 9,683

Configuration wise the F-22 is just an F-15 with a stealthy shape and internal weapons... which means that the latest US wonder toy is a derivative of the Mig-25. :diablo:

Which I guess would make it a derivative of the A-5 Vigilante.

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 10,217

Which I guess would make it a derivative of the A-5 Vigilante.
.. which was a real piece of crap..

Member for

19 years

Posts: 9,683

A-5 was a piece of crap, to be honest.. Ill-suited for a bomber, making it even worse recon aircraft. Due to large wing area and low wing loading, the photos Vigies took were seldom sharp enough to be really useful. No chance against the pics RF-4s took.

The design itself was excellent from an aerodynamic standpoint. It's how they tried to use it that caused the problems (Tunnel bomb bay for starters)

Member for

20 years 8 months

Posts: 10,217

The design itself was excellent from an aerodynamic standpoint. It's how they tried to use it that caused the problems (Tunnel bomb bay for starters)

It wasn't. You don't design a low wing loading design for a recon aircraft, do you? Yes, it was fast but what result does it bring if you don't recognize a sh!t on the photos?

Member for

19 years

Posts: 9,683

Configuration wise the F-22 is just an F-15 with a stealthy shape and internal weapons... which means that the latest US wonder toy is a derivative of the Mig-25. :diablo:

I'll admit I've use the phrase "It's like a stealthy F-15" more than once. In it's most basic form it is (two tails, two engines, a wing, and a pointy front end) similar to an F-15 but that's all. Kinda like saying a Su-24 is simply a Mig-23 clone.