Military Review

Research and technology: Su-47 as the predecessor of the fifth generation

77
This year, as part of the static exposition of the MAKS air show, a very interesting specimen was present - the experimental Su-47 Berkut fighter. This aircraft was once created to search for new solutions and develop promising technologies. He was not able to get rid of the status of a purely experimental machine, but a number of developments found application in the following projects and positively influenced the development of our aviation.


Research and technology: Su-47 as the predecessor of the fifth generation
The only Su-47 in the process of rolling out onto the MAX-2019 platform. Photo Vpk.name


New wing and new challenges


The main goal of the Su-47 project, with which all other searches were directly related, was to study the so-called reverse sweep wings (CBS). Domestic aircraft designers began to study this topic in the mid-eighties, and soon a preliminary draft of a fighter with a CBS called C-22 appeared. Subsequently, he "grew up" in the new C-32 project, and in the early nineties work began on the C-37 aircraft, also known by the Su-47 index and the name "Golden Eagle".

Already at the stage of theoretical research, it became clear that the aircraft with CBS needs a new optimized aerodynamic design. In addition, new approaches and materials are needed to design a glider under special stress. The reserve for the future was also worked out in the context of increasing maneuverability by various means. To control the new machine required special on-board systems.

As a result, by the mid-nineties, the C-22 / 32 / 37 project acquired a special scale. Work was carried out in the fields of aerodynamics, materials science, electronics, etc. Their result was the creation of a number of new components and technologies necessary for the "Golden Eagle" and suitable for use in new projects. Part of the developments on the C-37 was used to create new models of equipment - primarily the fifth-generation fighter PAK FA / T-50 / Su-57.


The first public demonstration of C-37 at MAX-2001. Wikimedia Commons Photos


It should be noted that the bulk of technical information on the Su-47 and Su-57 is still closed, and this seriously complicates the search for similarities and differences. However, the available data on modern projects still allow us to determine which innovations of the Berkut proved useful, and which remained at the level of experiments.

Glider and its features


The Su-47 glider is built according to the scheme of a longitudinal triplane - it has a front horizontal tail, a CBS and a tail stabilizer. Such a scheme, otherwise implemented, has been repeatedly used on Sukhoi aircraft as part of the Su-27 family. At the same time, there are no direct “successors” of the Su-47 from the point of view of the scheme, because we did not build new aircraft with CBS. As for the Su-57, it received other equipment. In particular, instead of the PGO, it carries deviating socks of the influx of the wing.

The main difficulty in creating CBS is to ensure the strength parameters of the structure. Such a wing is prone to so-called elastic divergence: under the influence of aerodynamic forces, the plane twists, which can lead to its destruction. Strengthening the design by traditional methods leads to mass growth and other problems. In this regard, a brand new wing made of composite materials based on carbon fiber was developed for C-37. It combined the required stiffness and strength with an acceptable weight.


Composite wing panel. Photo by Paralay.com


Various composites were used not only in the wing of the "Golden Eagle". Panels of this kind were present on the fuselage and plumage. The total proportion of composites in the construction was 13%. At the same time, the wing had 90% of compositional details.

Developments in the field of composites directly influenced all new projects in aviation technology. So, in a Su-57 aircraft, composites account for 25% dry weight and 70% external surface. However, the types and grades of the materials used are unknown, which does not allow us to draw more serious conclusions about the continuity of the two structures.

On-board equipment


According to early plans, the C-37 was to be equipped with a fully digital remote control system with several redundant channels. Due to such equipment, it was planned to ensure the stability of the aircraft of a special scheme and to simplify the work of the pilot. Automation could take on the job of stabilizing the aircraft, while a person could only control the flight. Similar principles, but at a new technical level, have been implemented in other promising projects.

The basis of the aiming and navigation complex was to become a radar station with an active phased antenna array. Now such equipment is considered mandatory for modern fighters. An interesting feature of the "Golden Eagle" was the presence of a pair of radar antennas in the rear of the fuselage to view the rear hemisphere in order to increase situational awareness.


A characteristic feature of the "Golden Eagle" is the developed mechanization of the planes. Photo Airwar.ru


Similar ideas were developed and led to interesting results. According to open data, on the Su-57 there is not only a nasal AFAR radar. Other antenna devices and sensors are distributed along the glider, which simultaneously collect data from all directions.

In general, the electronic equipment of the experimental fighter was to be based on modern components that were at the forefront of science and technology in the nineties. A number of such technologies remain relevant until now.

Unused engines


An experienced C-37 / Su-47 received a pair of dual-circuit turbojet engines D-30Ф6. The entire flight test cycle was carried out with such products, and on the MAX-2019 the fighter is present in such a configuration. Nevertheless, in the past there were reports of a possible replacement of engines, including with the introduction of new technologies.


Su-Xnumx in flight, the cargo bay arms open. Photo Airwar.ru


In some reports of past years, the possibility of replacing the D-30F6 with AL-41F engines with a controlled thrust vector was mentioned. The latter was originally developed for the MiG 1.44 fighter, but was not brought to the series. In this regard, there were suggestions about the possible use of such an engine in a promising project from Sukhoi.

The Golden Eagle did not receive engines with UVT, but this function was introduced on later fighters. At the same time, the AL-41F engine was again complete. On its basis, new products AL-41Ф1 and AL-41Ф1С were created, which are distinguished by high technical characteristics and having a number of characteristic features. AL-41F1 / C engines are used on two modern fighters - Su-35С and Su-57. They provide the equipment with both high flight performance and super maneuverability due to the shock wave.

Weapons issues


Su-47 has never been demonstrated with any weapons. However, the general considerations of the designers in this context were clear. At the bottom of the fuselage was a large hatch of the internal cargo bay. Thus, the fighter could transport missile and bomb weapons inside the fuselage, improving aerodynamics and reducing visibility for the radar.


Developments of Sukhoi in flight, 2005. Photo by Wikimedia Commons


The latest Su-57 is also capable of transporting weapon in the internal compartments, which helps to protect them from radiation and thereby reduce the radar visibility of the aircraft. At the same time, it remains possible to install external pylons. It is noteworthy that the Su-47 and Su-57 are so far the only modern Russian front-line aircraft with internal combat load compartments.

Flying lab


Initially, the C-37 / Su-47 was a flying laboratory for testing the reverse sweep wing and related technologies. The project also introduced promising avionics components and other new products. As such, Berkut underwent comprehensive tests, the results of which determined the real prospects of all implemented innovations.

According to various sources, in the 2000s - after the tests were completed - the experienced Su-47 was involved in the PAK FA project. Certain positive qualities of this aircraft were useful in finding optimal solutions for the future fifth-generation fighter. "Golden eagle" again became a flying laboratory that solves scientific problems.

Despite all the expectations, forecasts and hopes, the S-37 / Su-47 "Golden Eagle" did not go into production and did not enter service. This car was left in a single copy, playing the role of an experimental sample. Nevertheless, and in this form, a unique aircraft fulfilled its tasks and contributed to the development of our combat aviation - important research and new technologies.
Author:
77 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 2 September 2019 06: 17
    +4
    The basis of the aiming and navigation complex was to become a radar station with an active phased antenna array. Now such equipment is considered mandatory for modern fighters.
    Do not exaggerate ... we have a lot with AFAR?
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 2 September 2019 07: 30
      -4
      Quote: Aerodrome
      Do not exaggerate ... we have a lot with AFAR?

      The slowness of the creation and subsequent installation of AFAR on the SU-30/34/35, I think, is due to the fact that the development of ROFAR is in full swing. And apparently, we will have a serial ROFAR in the near future (3-5 years). And then the question arises, why should we buy expensive AFAR and equip all the listed dryers with it, so that later on “change” everything in ROFAR?
      1. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 2 September 2019 07: 57
        +7
        Quote: NEXUS
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Do not exaggerate ... we have a lot with AFAR?

        The slowness of the creation and subsequent installation of AFAR on the SU-30/34/35, I think, is due to the fact that the development of ROFAR is in full swing. And apparently, we will have a serial ROFAR in the near future (3-5 years). And then the question arises, why should we buy expensive AFAR and equip all the listed dryers with it, so that later on “change” everything in ROFAR?

        yes yes yes dear friend, we have been hearing this for the last ten years, and we will wait another ten years ... uh-huh. and thank God that there is no war ... otherwise they would "wait" ... as if during the creation of ROFAR, a new idea did not come with more advanced technologies, quantum, or even hell knows what, otherwise the time will be postponed for another twenty years ...
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 2 September 2019 08: 04
          -5
          Quote: Aerodrome
          yes yes yes dear friend, we have been hearing this for the last ten years, and we will wait another ten years ... uh-huh. and thank God that there is no war ... otherwise they would have "waited" ... as if during the creation of ROFAR, a new idea did not come with more advanced technologies, quantum, or even hell knows what, otherwise the time will be postponed for another twenty years

          You will be the first to resent the unreasonable waste of money. At the expense of the war, you apparently didn’t think about it without thinking. Show me a country that wants to openly fight with a nuclear power in an open military conflict. I am talking about a real war using all means of destruction.
          1. Aerodrome
            Aerodrome 2 September 2019 08: 07
            +8
            Quote: NEXUS
            You will be the first to resent the unreasonable waste of money.

            what? where does this data come from?
            Quote: NEXUS
            At the expense of the war, you apparently didn’t think about it without thinking. Show me a country that wants to openly fight with a nuclear power in an open military conflict

            Evo ... how does it mean to anyone and ROFARS? we are nuclear! ? ak cho, then we have enough of these ... gee ... wink
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 September 2019 08: 10
              -9
              Quote: Aerodrome
              Evo ... how does it mean to anyone and ROFARS? we are nuclear! ? ak cho, then we have enough of these ... gee ...

              And against dushmans and PFAR enough. Therefore, in order to catch up with the West, we have to jump, like mountain saigas, through some technologies. And I think this is correct, since sitting and doing nothing for 30 years must somehow catch up.
              1. Aerodrome
                Aerodrome 2 September 2019 08: 12
                +5
                Quote: NEXUS
                And against dushmans and PFAR enough.

                Andrei, I almost never challenged your competencies .. but ... hell .. dushmans and PFAR? as? cryingif only on "Toyota" shit ...
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 2 September 2019 08: 20
                  -4
                  Quote: Aerodrome
                  Andrey, I almost never challenged your competence .. but ... damn it .. spooks and PFAR? as? if only on "Toyota" shit ...

                  And dushmans already started to ride on something else? Did someone sell them tanks and fighters?
                  1. Aerodrome
                    Aerodrome 2 September 2019 08: 21
                    +4
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Quote: Aerodrome
                    Andrey, I almost never challenged your competence .. but ... damn it .. spooks and PFAR? as? if only on "Toyota" shit ...

                    And dushmans already started to ride on something else? Did someone sell them tanks and fighters?

                    Well, yes ... then we have enough and "great headlight" ... yes
        2. Good_Anonymous
          Good_Anonymous 19 November 2019 23: 36
          -1
          Quote: Aerodrome
          as if during the creation of ROFAR, a new idea did not come with more advanced technologies, quantum


          Already: https://warspot.ru/15413-ocherednoy-pervyy-v-mire-kvantovyy-radar
      2. TARSUS
        TARSUS 2 September 2019 10: 38
        0
        Maybe it's time to take off the pink glasses?
        1. armata_armata
          armata_armata 2 September 2019 15: 24
          0
          Maybe it's time to take off the pink glasses?

          They don’t pay for this.
      3. silver_roman
        silver_roman 2 September 2019 23: 02
        +1
        you know the saying: "good is the enemy of the best."
        I don’t remember who exactly, but someone from the commander of the US Navy, when he took office, ordered the saturation of the fleet with proven proven technologies. There was an article on VO about him.
        This is just before they introduced Arly Berke, the Tikanderoids and a whole series of different submarines. That is, the bottom line is that they did not chase the spherical horses in a vacuum, but introduced a lot, often and quickly, of what was already good and so.
        I just remember your comments on the T50, when you firmly believed in the statements of officials like Borisov and waited for the Su-57 squadron in 2015.
        We must put on the conveyor what we already have and build, build, build. Then upgrade. How many stages of modernization of the same F-16?
  2. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 2 September 2019 06: 21
    +1
    It is noteworthy that the Su-47 and Su-57 are so far the only modern Russian front-line aircraft with internal compartments of the combat load. And the Tu-22M ... what? When the United States became obsessed with the USSR about the range of the Tu-22M ..., the Soviet Union quickly "cut off" the fuel receivers and declared the "carcass" "front-line aviation"! yes Actually, there is one more "sadness" from the "pre-crash" period of the USSR ... Approximately, "on par" with the Su-47, the original Sh-90 attack aircraft was created! It should carry weapons both "externally" and in internal "bomb bays" ... By the way, it had a forward swept wing ... By 1989, all the documentation for the production of prototypes was ready ... in the 90s, the attack aircraft should to be adopted, but the Union "ended" and much in the country went to dust.
    1. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 2 September 2019 08: 01
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      attack aircraft Sh-90

      the scheme is interesting, but dubious ... for the attack aircraft there is no visual view, neither for the pilot, nor for the navigator ... only work on instruments? "dead child" IMHO.
    2. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 02
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      By 1989, all the documentation for the production of prototypes was ready ...

      Yes, there was nothing ready for either 1989 or 1991! This is E.P. Grunin complains about the untimely past.
      And by the way, the pictures that he uploads, and you are posting here, are by no means the final version: "by 1989" everything looked very different. But the KOS and the compartment for weapons, however, were.
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 2 September 2019 13: 37
      0
      It’s a bad idea for an attack aircraft: a damaged reverse sweep wing will be destroyed by an air stream.
      1. Mephody
        Mephody 6 September 2019 11: 56
        0
        And even if it isn’t destroyed, how, interestingly, the authors of this nonsense planned to repair the composite wing in the TEC AP?
        And generally speaking. What "bright head" came the idea to equip the KOS attack aircraft? KOS gives an advantage at high angles of attack due to the peculiarities of the flow from the tips to the root of the wing. Why does an attack aircraft need angles of attack close to critical? He needs survivability in the first place, in the second response time and time in the air, in the third combat load. Therefore, nothing fundamentally new from the point of view of the airframe has appeared since the creation of the Su-25 and A-10.
  3. Ka-52
    Ka-52 2 September 2019 07: 59
    +6
    Glider Su-47 is built according to the scheme of a longitudinal triplane - it has a front horizontal tail, a CBS and a tail stabilizer

    probably speak correctly horizontal tail stabilizer. Because the stabilizer can be vertical. Namely, longitudinal triplanes are aircraft with additional horizontal plumage. And here it doesn’t even matter in what place it is this additional plumage. Wing consoles + PGO is also a longitudinal triplane.
    In this regard, a fundamentally new wing made of composite materials based on carbon fiber was developed for the S-37. It combined the required stiffness and strength with an acceptable weight.

    Yes, they did not solve the problem of increasing deformations in any way. The problem of CBS is that its aerodynamic focus (you can call it the center of the wing pressure) is much ahead of the stiffness axis of the wing, with respect to which the torsional deformation occurs. At low speeds (with a small free flow velocity), the aerodynamic force is balanced by the moment of elasticity of the wing structure. But with an increase in speed (and an increase in velocity head), the elastic force of the wing can no longer cope with the increment of the twisting moment. Therefore, the Su-47 can fly very well at low speeds, but planes will fly off in the NW.
    In addition, the composite wing is not repairable. It will not work, but you will have to change the entire console.
    sample - experimental fighter Su-47 "Golden Eagle". This aircraft was once created to search for new solutions and develop promising technologies.

    it is not said about the additional effect of CBS - a decrease in visibility in the radio spectrum. Because the wave is reflected from the burner edge and goes towards the body. Where multiple re-reflection occurs, the wave is partially absorbed, partially scattered. And the wing in the UPU is largely turned off from the overall EPR of the aircraft
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 2 September 2019 08: 14
      +4
      At low speeds (at a low speed of incident flow), the aerodynamic force is balanced by the moment of elasticity of the wing structure.

      did not have time to finish. In principle, the “elastic divergence” itself is not to blame for the destruction of the wing. It serves as the key to the appearance of the flutter phenomenon, that is, when, under the combined influence of divergence forces, elasticity and kinetic energy, the wing begins to bend with an ever-increasing amplitude. Until the moment when the strength of the structure is not enough to ensure its integrity.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 22
        -3
        Quote: Ka-52
        At low speeds (at a low speed of incident flow), the aerodynamic force is balanced by the moment of elasticity of the wing structure.

        did not have time to finish. In principle, the “elastic divergence” itself is not to blame for the destruction of the wing. It serves as the key to the appearance of the flutter phenomenon, that is, when, under the combined influence of divergence forces, elasticity and kinetic energy, the wing begins to bend with an ever-increasing amplitude. Until the moment when the strength of the structure is not enough to ensure its integrity.

        You, my friend, are fantasizing ... Read books!
    2. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 08
      +1
      Quote: Ka-52
      probably say horizontal tail stabilizer

      No. So they do not say: they are either "tail" or "horizontal", since the vertical tail is never called a "stabilizer", and "in the nose" - PGO (front horizontal tail).
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 2 September 2019 10: 18
        +1
        so as the vertical tail is never called "stabilizer"

        not true. the horizontal stabilizer ensures the longitudinal stability of the aircraft in flight. Vertical - to ensure the directional and lateral stability of the aircraft in flight. The basis is always the purpose, and not the "pretty word"
        1. PilotS37
          PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 34
          -3
          Quote: Ka-52
          not true. the horizontal stabilizer ensures the longitudinal stability of the aircraft in flight. Vertical - to ensure the directional and lateral stability of the aircraft in flight. The basis is always the purpose, and not the "pretty word"

          The "expert" is immediately visible!
    3. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 13
      0
      Quote: Ka-52
      And here it doesn’t even matter in what place it is this additional plumage. Wing consoles + PGO is also a longitudinal triplane.

      Wing + PGO is not a triplane! This is a duck.
      The important thing is not where the additional HE is located, but the very fact of its appearance: the Su-30 has an "additional" PGO, since the original T-10 did not have it.
      For the Su-47, the situation is more complicated: it is quite possible that it was originally conceived by a triplane (I don't know), but if you look at the X-29 (and there is no doubt that the S-22 family was created under the impression) here it turns out exactly the tail fin (the American had only "flaps" on the influx).
    4. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 17
      0
      Quote: Ka-52
      Therefore, the Su-47 can fly very well at low speeds, but planes will fly off in the NW.

      Where does this information come from: X-29 went to supersonic, but not big, but I don’t have such information about Su-47, but supposed tothat he can fly there, and it’s quite normal.
      1. Ka-52
        Ka-52 2 September 2019 11: 02
        0
        but it was assumed that he could fly there, and quite normal.

        assume further. you do it best
        1. PilotS37
          PilotS37 2 September 2019 11: 24
          0
          Quote: Ka-52
          assume further. you do it best

          Hamite, my friend! Why?
    5. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 19
      0
      Quote: Ka-52
      it is not said about the additional effect of CBS - a decrease in visibility in the radio spectrum. Because the wave is reflected from the burner edge and goes towards the body. Where multiple re-reflection occurs, the wave is partially absorbed, partially scattered. And the wing in the UPU is largely turned off from the overall EPR of the aircraft

      This is where you read this, about "multiple reflections"?
    6. Mephody
      Mephody 6 September 2019 12: 11
      0
      All my life the "vertical stabilizer" was called the keel. "Wing consoles + PGO" is a "duck" scheme. No?
      The rest I agree. About the fact that I did not overcome the divergence of CBS on S-32 for the first time I hear. And the fact that the topic was stillborn, even the developers themselves said. At first they wanted to make a purely experimental car based on the Su-17, then I wanted to sell it to the military. And this is a heavy board. So two engines. And off we go. The last straw was associated with a low landing speed, which means the possibility of landing on the deck.
  4. Ali Kokand
    Ali Kokand 2 September 2019 08: 05
    +3
    The plane is beautiful, brutally beautiful. Maybe with the development of relevant materials, we can return to this scheme. As one designer said, beautiful planes fly well.
    1. Red_Baron
      Red_Baron 2 September 2019 15: 47
      0
      Quote: Ali Kokand
      As one designer said, beautiful planes fly well.

      He meant a little different. :)
      The beauty that the designer sees in the right model.
      A purely visual, anything can be. For example, I really like the American A-10 Warthogs. And how do designers feel sick of them?
      1. Mephody
        Mephody 6 September 2019 12: 16
        0
        Can the names of those who are sick of the A-10? Outwardly, I like him much more than the primitivistic Su-25. I’m not talking about the concept. Oversized weapons and insufficient speed. But with the look, everything is fine, IMHO.
        1. Red_Baron
          Red_Baron 6 September 2019 14: 35
          0
          I will not name my surname, but I read several articles and there is an American documentary about him and there it is ruthlessly voiced.
          1. Mephody
            Mephody 5 November 2019 16: 37
            -2
            The opinion of the authors of the film does not coincide with the common sense and opinion of Russian designers. Take it easy.
    2. Mephody
      Mephody 6 September 2019 12: 13
      0
      You are trying to quote not "one constructor", but A.N. Tupolev. Unfortunately, the time for beautiful aircraft has passed. Stealth makes its own adjustments. And the beauty of the Su-47 is a conditional thing. I hope there will be no more such schemes. The reverse sweep did not justify itself. All its benefits are realized in other ways. No side effects.
  5. PilotS37
    PilotS37 2 September 2019 09: 21
    +2
    special glider

    No "special" loads glider plane with CBS does not test! It's all about the features reaction CBS power set for the traditional range of loads.
    We are talking about divergence, which is weakly manifested in wings with a straight sweep and therefore easily "treated".
    In CBS, divergence arises at supersonic speeds and requires such structural reinforcement that the metal wing is unreasonably heavy. But the composite CBS by mass passes quite well (they use in a certain way the selected orientation of the material layers for a more optimal perception of the loads by them).
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 2 September 2019 11: 09
      +3
      In CBS, divergence occurs at supersonic speeds.

      yeah, comrade "you are all dreamers, and my mom is smart," divergence can occur at speeds less than supersonic, starting from 0,6M, and not just supersonic. It depends not only on the speed of the incoming flow, but also on the elastic coefficient of the wing.
      critical speed of divergence: Ma = Mupr, where Ma is the moment of aerodynamic forces, Mupr is the moment of elastic forces.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 September 2019 12: 48
        -1
        Quote: Ka-52
        yeah, comrade "you are all dreamers, and my mom is smart," divergence can occur at speeds less than supersonic, starting from 0,6M, and not just supersonic. It depends not only on the speed of the incoming flow, but also on the elastic coefficient of the wing.
        critical speed of divergence: Ma = Mupr, where Ma is the moment of aerodynamic forces, Mupr is the moment of elastic forces.

        A reference to the source can be?
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 2 September 2019 12: 56
          +8
          A reference to the source can be?

          yes please. As the saying goes: "Seek, and you will find, push, and it will be opened" yes

          Antseliovich L.L. Reliability, safety and survivability of the aircraft: A textbook for university students studying in the specialty "Aircraft construction". - M .: Mechanical engineering, 1985 .-- 296 p.
          Volodin V.V., Liseitsev N.K., Maksimovich V.Z. Features of the design of jet aircraft of vertical take-off and landing / Ed. S.M. Eger. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1985 .-- 224 p.
          Gimmelfarb A.L. Fundamentals of design in aircraft construction: Textbook. manual for higher aviation educational institutions / Ed. A.V. Kozhina. - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. - M.: Engineering, 1980 .-- 367 p.
          Glagolev A.N., Goldinov M.Ya., Grigorenko S.M. The design of the aircraft. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1975 .-- 480 p.
          Eger S.M. Aircraft design. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1964 .-- 452 p.
          Eger S.M., Shatalov I.A. Introduction to the specialty: (For the specialty "Engineer-mechanical engineer for aircraft construction" and the specialization "Mechanical engineer for the design and construction of aircraft": Textbook). - M .: MAI, 1983 .-- 184 p.
          Zhitomirsky G.I. Aircraft design: A textbook for students of aviation specialties of universities. - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1995 .-- 416 p.
          Zonshayn S.I. Aerodynamics and design of aircraft: A textbook for non-aircraft specialties of aviation universities. - M .: Higher. school, 1968 .-- 364 p.
          Kalachev G.S. Indicators of maneuverability, controllability and stability of aircraft. - M .: Oborongiz, 1958. - 132 p.
          Kan S.N., Sverdlov I.A. Calculation of the aircraft for strength. - 5th ed. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1966. - 519 p.
          Kerber L.L. The layout of equipment on airplanes. - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1976. - 303 p.
          Kondrashov N.A. Construction of the chassis, controls and mechanisms. - M .: MAI, 1979. - 56 p.
          The design and strength of the aircraft. - 2nd ed. / V.N. Zaitsev, V.L. Rudakov Kiev .: Vishcha school, 1978.- 488 p.
          Monitoring the technical health of aircraft and helicopters: a Handbook / Ed. V.G. Alexandrov. - M .: Transport, 1976. - 360 p.
          Kosourov K.F. The theoretical basis of hydroaviation. M .: Military Publishing House, 1961 .-- 596 p.
          Fundamentals of aviation technology and airport equipment: Textbook for universities / V.I. Blokhin, E.A. Bakanov, V.T. Bogatyr et al. Ed. V.I. Blokhin. - M .: Transport, 1985 .-- 255 p.
          Fundamentals of designing aircraft: (Transport systems): Textbook for technical universities / V.P. Mishin, V.K. Bezverbyy, B.M. Pankratov and others; Ed. V.P. Mishina. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1985 .-- 360 p.
          Pashkovsky I.M. Stability and controllability of the aircraft. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1975 .-- 328 p.
          Polytechnical Dictionary / Ch. ed. Acad. A.Yu. Ishlinsky. - 2nd ed. - M .: Owls. Encyclopedia, 1980 .-- 656 p.
          Designing aircraft structures: A textbook for university students enrolled in the specialty "Aircraft-building" / E.S. Voit, A.I. Endogur, Z.A. Melik-Sargsyan, I.M. Alyav-din. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1987. - 416 p.
          Aircraft Design: Textbook for universities / S.M. Eger, V.F. Mishin, N.K. Liseytsev et al. / Ed. S.M. Eger. - 3rd ed., Re-slave. and add. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1983.- 616 p.
          Aircraft equipment systems: Textbook for students of higher technical educational institutions / M.G. Akopov, V.I. Bekasov, A.S. Evseev, etc. / Ed. A.M. Matveenko and V.I. Bekasov. - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1995 .-- 496 p.
          Sklyansky F.I. Flight dynamics and handling of heavy jets. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1976. - 208 p.
          Aircraft manufacturing technology. - 2nd ed., Revised. and add. / Under the total. ed. A.L. Abibova. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1982. - 551 p.
          Torenbik E. Design of subsonic aircraft / Per. from English E.P. Golubkov. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1983.- 648 p.
          Shatalov I.A. Elements of the layout and design of the aircraft: Textbook. allowance. - M .: MAI, 1987 .-- 68 p.
          Shulzhenko M.N. Aircraft Design: A textbook for students of aviation higher education institutions. - 3rd ed., Revised. and add. - M.: Mechanical Engineering, 1971. - 416 p.
          hi
          1. PilotS37
            PilotS37 2 September 2019 13: 50
            -1
            Thank! I'll look at your leisure.
          2. Grits
            Grits 3 September 2019 13: 38
            0
            Quote: Ka-52
            yes please. As the saying goes: "Seek, and you will find, push, and it will be opened"

            Decent answer by reference. good
            As I understand it, you have posted a list of literature of your thesis
            1. Mephody
              Mephody 6 September 2019 12: 23
              0
              This is a list of literature for the summer of student 1 of the MAI faculty))))))
          3. Mephody
            Mephody 6 September 2019 12: 22
            0
            Familiar surnames)) I remembered the verb "otdendoguril", although Yegondogur was far from the strictest teacher. It's just a surname))
  6. PilotS37
    PilotS37 2 September 2019 09: 28
    +1
    To control the new machine required special on-board systems.

    Strictly speaking, nothing "special" was required by that time.
    Yes, like the X-29, S-22 and others like it were unstable in the longitudinal channel, but also the serial by that time Su-27 was conceived unstable (but in the end it turned out to be neutral). Again, variants of the T-10 with PGO (T-10M, T-10K ...), which fully possessed static instability, were already flying.
    So by the time work began on the S-22, "special onboard systems" had already been created and flown.
  7. PilotS37
    PilotS37 2 September 2019 09: 51
    0
    Despite all the expectations, forecasts and hopes, the S-37 / Su-47 Berkut did not go into production and did not enter service.

    KOS even from the composite did not justify itself: the X-29 also did not go into production (which in this case was not supposed to be) and did not have direct "heirs".
    The value of the KOS is that there the flow stall occurs at the root, and not at the ends, as in "ordinary" wings. This - in principle - was to increase the stability and controllability of the aircraft at high angles of attack. But in the end, the loss of efficiency of the ailerons was compensated for by the differential deviation of the OBT.
    CBS, on the other hand basically cannot have large leading edge sweep angles, and this is bad news for a supersonic car.
    At the same time, the fully composite wing providing flight at supersonic speeds turned out to be a very complex and expensive design: as you can see, on the Su-57 composites are used mainly in the skin, and not in the power pack. The same can be said about the F-22 and F- 35. There are no whole-composite caissons in combat aviation yet.
    So KOS is another "sheepskin" that is "not worth the candle." The Americans tried it and were convinced.
    And our godlessly delayed and complicated this program: instead of a purely experimental aircraft (which we were talking about from the very beginning), they began to create a full-fledged combat aircraft with an aim "to the deck" ...
    Alas, the Su-47 is one of the typical adventures of M.P. Simonova (and how many of them have died before they reached the incarnation in metal ...).
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 2 September 2019 10: 07
      0
      Now imagine that material science will make the leap and the problems of strength, resilience and maintainability will be solved. At least a variable sweep of the leading edge from a large plus to a moderate minus. The knowledge gained when working with 47 will allow you not to start from scratch but to develop existing ones. Su 47 is the case when the accumulation of knowledge may be justified in the future.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 33
        -1
        Quote: garri-lin
        Now imagine that material science will make the leap and the problems of strength, resilience and maintainability will be solved. At least a variable sweep of the leading edge from a large plus to a moderate minus.

        You, my friend, are a dreamer! And it doesn’t work out for me, because I know how scanty wins and difficult problems are there.
        In my opinion, a person who has suffered a lot from these CBSs, the only case where CBS can be of real benefit is on aerobatic and training machines. Type SR-10:
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 2 September 2019 10: 45
          -2
          I think on the 6th generation they can return to variable hemetry. And to the variable geometry of the profile of the wing can come. They can attend to long work at near-zero speeds. KOS has pluses. They are less than originally calculated but are.
      2. Mephody
        Mephody 6 September 2019 12: 29
        0
        I’m wondering how can a person with such a terrible level of literacy seriously talk about complex technical topics? Believe me, I have nothing against you personally. Just wondering. You are not a native speaker?
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 6 September 2019 12: 36
          0
          No, I'm not Russian by nationality. Although at school I studied well, but over the years I lost it. Alas, I'm degrading.
          1. Mephody
            Mephody 6 September 2019 13: 10
            0
            Calm down. This is not degradation, but rather understandable weathering from memory. For a non-native speaker is quite normal. I will write in English even worse)) In short, the claim is withdrawn)))
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 2 September 2019 10: 58
      +2
      On the other hand, CBS, in principle, cannot have large sweep angles of the leading edge, and this is bad news for a supersonic machine.

      can. Moreover, a wing with a negative sweep at near and supersonic (0,95-1,15M) has a lower drag coefficient than a positive sweep. So what's the "bad news"? The problem of CBS is not in the characteristic impedance, but in the twisting deformation described above.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 September 2019 11: 12
        -1
        Quote: Ka-52
        The problem of CBS is not wave impedance, but the torsional deformation described above.

        On X-29, the maximum that they were able to achieve was 1 km / h.
        By modern standards, this is not enough.
        I don’t have information about the Su-47 (one colleague here claims that the Su-47 cannot fly at supersonic sound at all, but I think that it is very mistaken).
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 2 September 2019 11: 43
          +1
          On X-29, the maximum that they were able to achieve was 1 km / h.

          What does it have to do with it? The problem of the X-29go was exactly the same as that of all aircraft with CBS - vibration and shaking. Despite the fact that they seriously strengthened the wing for resistance to twisting and worked through mechanization.
          1. PilotS37
            PilotS37 2 September 2019 12: 55
            -2
            Quote: Ka-52

            On X-29, the maximum that they were able to achieve was 1 km / h.

            What does it have to do with it? The problem of the X-29go was exactly the same as that of all aircraft with CBS - vibration and shaking. Despite the fact that they seriously strengthened the wing for resistance to twisting and worked through mechanization.

            Colleague, you are already confused. First say that
            The problem of CBS is not wave impedance, but the torsional deformation described above.
            and now it turns out that the whole thing is shaking ...
            In fact, initially there was always a problem of "twisting", but when it was solved with the help of an all-composite wing and the X-29 flew, it turned out that there was also shaking (but on Sukhoi, of course, they learned about this much later; they thought that they will win, but it did not work out ...).
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 2 September 2019 14: 42
              +3
              Colleague, you are already confused.

              I'm glad that I grew up from a visionary and expert in quotation marks to a colleague feel
              The problem of CBS is not wave impedance, but the torsional deformation described above.
              and now it turns out that the whole thing is shaking ...
              In fact, initially there was always a problem of "twisting", but when it was solved with the help of an all-composite wing and the X-29 flew, it turned out that there was also shaking (but on Sukhoi, of course, they learned about this much later; they thought that they will win, but it did not work out ...).

              We discussed various physical aspects in terms of aerodynamics. On the one hand, the aerodynamic characteristics for the wing of direct and reverse sweep, namely parasitic drags that affect the achievement of maximum speed at N applied power. And just the experiments at TsAGI showed that the resistance data on the subsound of both are approximately equal, and starting from a speed of 0,95M, the performance of the reverse sweep wing is getting better. These are calculated and experimental data.
              And on the other hand, with reference to specifically to x29 and su47, as far as I understand it, the occurrence of converging vortex flows causes shaking and this is due to the wing structure itself.
              Therefore, I was not confused, but a discussion of two points at the same time caused a misunderstanding. hi
      2. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 September 2019 11: 19
        -1
        Quote: Ka-52

        On the other hand, CBS, in principle, cannot have large sweep angles of the leading edge, and this is bad news for a supersonic machine.

        can. Moreover, for a wing with negative sweep near and supersonic (0,95-1,15 M), the drag coefficients of the wing are less than for positive sweep.

        Well, draw a wing with a sweep of -45 along the leading edge and a narrowing of at least 5!
        And about the lower resistance of the CBS to the NW link, discard it, please!
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 2 September 2019 12: 00
          +4
          Well, draw a wing with a sweep of -45 along the leading edge and a narrowing of at least 5!
          And about the lower resistance of the CBS to the NW link, discard it, please!

          I will not draw, but read about the resistance as you advised me "little books". Let me give you a hint - the calculations are based on experiments at TsAGI. Or will you call the Zhukovites "dreamers" too?
          ps by the way, in experiments in a wind tunnel, a model with a sweep along the leading edge of 44 g and 38,5 g in the rear was blown.
          1. PilotS37
            PilotS37 2 September 2019 13: 03
            -1
            Quote: Ka-52
            I will not draw, but read about the resistance as you advised me "little books". Let me give you a hint - the calculations are based on experiments at TsAGI. Or will you call the Zhukovites "dreamers" too?
            ps by the way, in experiments in a wind tunnel, a model with a sweep along the leading edge of 44 g and 38,5 g in the rear was blown.

            That is, they were wings with a narrowing of less than 1. These were placed on our missiles (R-27, for example), but it is unlikely that such a wing can be put on an airplane. This is the first.
            Attention! that on such peculiar wings and receive a decrease in wave resistance. But you have to look what exactly they purged there. I haven’t seen such information in open sources, but you don’t want to give me a link ...
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 2 September 2019 15: 01
              +2
              But you have to look what exactly they purged there

              yes no problem, for always please.
              sweep angles I wrote earlier

              1. PilotS37
                PilotS37 2 September 2019 15: 31
                -1
                Quote: Ka-52
                a model with sweep along the leading edge of 44g and 38,5g along the rear.

                Oops! But in the picture, it's the other way around: -38,5 along the leading edge and -44 along the rear!
                And I would like to see how plane with such a wing, it will climb to supersonic ... (The model is a solid "piece of iron" - it's all about the drum, but a real wing with an aspect ratio of more than 4 and a narrowing of 1,5 ... and even with a reverse sweep ...) ...
                But the result is very interesting and not obvious: in theory, on the contrary, it should be ...
                Need to think!
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 3 September 2019 04: 33
                  +1
                  Oops! And in the picture, it's the opposite

                  yeah, wrote from memory. Your, well, knocked off pantaliku yes
                  Well, draw a wing with a sweep of -45
      3. AAK
        AAK 2 September 2019 12: 24
        +2
        Colleague Ka-52, I think your comments on this article are the most interesting and technically sound. In the early 2000s, after the demonstration of Su-47 at the MAKS, I read several interesting publications on a topic similar to the current discussion: what is so good / bad about the Su-47 and what to do next. Most commonly cited arguments:
        1. 47th is just a temporary and not very successful in terms of construction compilation of an experimental prototype (too many ready-made components were taken from other aircraft launched into production: cockpit, radar, emf, landing gear from Su, engines from MiG);
        2. The future of the Su-47 is to be a carrier-based fighter-bomber, but not a fighter for gaining air superiority. Arguments:
        - the scheme with CBS gives a significant advantage in take-off and landing characteristics on the AB even with a significant length (the picture shows that its fuselage is approximately 1,5-2 m longer and the 35th and 30th, taking into account the tail beams) and the mass of the aircraft;
        - a sharp bend of the CBS is convenient for a folding wing;
        - the design of the root flows of the CBS and the volumetric fuselage makes it possible to significantly increase the mass of fuel, primarily due to the tanks in the center section, i.e. the aircraft will have a considerable range, as well as form a significant internal armament compartment and be able to install pylons on the root flows of the KOS for suspension of heavy weapons (primarily RCC), because they will not have a noticeable effect on the bend of the wing;
        - the speed possible to achieve can be 1,5-1,7 M, which is quite enough for action at low and medium altitudes;
        3. Proposals for "improving" the 47th, taking into account its obvious shortcomings (significantly shifted forward aerodynamic focus, requiring compensation for balancing resistance, the risk of wing destruction at high speeds, significantly worse maintainability of a composite wing in comparison with a metal wing with combat damage):
        - cabin - double, in-line, as on the Su-27KUB, nose fairing - a variation on the theme of the Su-34, somewhat more angular rather than rounded fuselage shapes;
        - engines - a variation of AL-41F with anti-corrosion treatment and a digital control system, UVT and the function of emergency afterburner;
        - re-arrangement of the fuselage (some reduction in the total length and aerodynamic focus), change in the configuration of the wing with the general scheme of the CBS, as well as the PGO, increase the camber of the keels, be able to reduce the size of individual composite parts of the wing (as folding - it will already be made of smaller parts, plus - the possibility of "mosaic" arrangement of composite parts of the wing on the elements of the load-bearing frame);
        1. Mephody
          Mephody 6 September 2019 12: 59
          0
          I read the advice ... He smiled. IMHO, it will be easier and cheaper to make a 6th generation plane from scratch than to follow the recommendations of the ball bearings from aviation to bring the Su-47 to mind. Especially pleased with the advice "to make anticorrosive" and to re-arrange. Rearranging the plane is somewhat more difficult than neatly laying out boxes of seedlings so that they fit into the trunk of the Lada-Priora. Well, anticorrosive cannot be done in the nearest under-intake service. The rest is also extravaganza. Here's just a separate item: proposals for improving the Su-47 ...
  8. megadeth
    megadeth 2 September 2019 10: 01
    0
    Very beautiful bird ... !!!
  9. Zum
    Zum 2 September 2019 10: 10
    +2
    Whoever wrote what here, "Berkut" is a unique machine and it has already been inscribed in the history of the domestic aircraft industry. He will be remembered by both aviation specialists and amateurs.
    1. PilotS37
      PilotS37 2 September 2019 10: 25
      -1
      Quote: Zum
      "Berkut" is a unique machine and it has already been inscribed in the history of the domestic aircraft industry. He will be remembered by both aviation specialists and amateurs.

      Yes, as a constructive solution - it was very interesting and important experiment for its time.
  10. PilotS37
    PilotS37 2 September 2019 11: 21
    -1
    Here, by the way, that googled: [media = https: //www.popmech.ru/technologies/8844-krylo-s-obratnoy-strelovidnostyu-aerodinamika/#part1]. Very important and instructive.
    In short:
    The main disadvantage of the X-29 is unacceptable aerodynamic shaking. It arose at the meeting of two incident vortex flows: one from the toe of the wing, and the other from the near-fuselage influxes. To defeat the shaking was calculated using the technology of deflectable nose of the wing leading edge worked out on serial Su-27 and MiG-29, which was on the experimental fighter of the Sukhoi S-37 Design Bureau, better known as the "Golden Eagle", but was not on the X-29. The flight tests of the S-1997, which began in 37 and continued for several years, showed that, unfortunately, Sukhoi Design Bureau failed to cope with the shaking.

    It is written a little clumsily, but the essence is clear.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 2 September 2019 12: 24
      +1
      Here, by the way, that googled: [media = https: //www.popmech.ru/technologies/8844-krylo-s-obratnoy-strelovidnostyu-aerodinamika/#part1]. Very important and instructive.
      In short:

      heh, they might not shake Google - I wrote you the same above.
      1. PilotS37
        PilotS37 2 September 2019 13: 08
        -1
        Quote: Ka-52
        heh, they might not shake Google - I wrote you the same above.

        Well, I don’t know how to read other people's thoughts: I made my post 1 hour before yours. So, rather, you couldn’t write to me ...
        And, most importantly, I wrote it for everyone. And he gave a link where you can see.
  11. yehat
    yehat 2 September 2019 13: 39
    -1
    Quote: NEXUS
    we will have serial in the near future (3-5 years).

    come on, where will it come from?
    our AFARs have not been able to launch for more than 5 years, and for the flashlights a new element base is required, a lot of new things. You are too optimistic.
  12. E.S.
    E.S. 2 September 2019 18: 00
    +1
    [/ quote] The basis of the aiming and navigation complex was to become a radar station with an active phased antenna array. Now such equipment is considered mandatory for modern fighters. [Quote]

    This is certainly not the case.
    AFAR has its drawbacks.
    At the moment, radars with PFAR have more power, higher receiver sensitivity, therefore, a greater detection range, better resolution and a number of parameters by which they surpass AFAR.
  13. iouris
    iouris 5 September 2019 11: 52
    0
    It must be explained what is the key feature of the "fifth generation": wing, engine or AI. Nevermind.
    1. Mephody
      Mephody 6 September 2019 13: 06
      +1
      Key features of the 5th generation were stealth and cruising supersonic. Therefore, the plane of the 5th generation, strictly speaking, is only one. F-22.
  14. gridasov
    gridasov 14 October 2019 09: 25
    0
    Attempts to increase the strength of the airframe by using the back wing is very correct, but at the same time primitive. All this speaks at least of the absence of normal analysis technology, including mathematical, with complex effects on all parts of the body of the elastic air flow. Why does the hull and wing increase strength in the case of the reverse vector of the air flow incursion, namely to the hull, and not vice versa? Analysis can be carried out only on the basis of ionization processes. By the way, the author here let slip that at high speeds the wing of the usual direction undergoes the physical process of twisting, which means that it is impossible to achieve hyper speed due to the formation of dynamic magnetic fluxes of a certain direction. This confirms the impossibility of flying at hyper speeds without the use of a certain technology of the formation of magnetic forces on the aircraft hull. Which many deny because of outright illiteracy
  15. Eug
    Eug 30 October 2019 20: 44
    -1
    Composite parts are extremely unrepairable - only the whole part (plane) changes, the junction of the plane and the fuselage generated a whirlwind that hit the vertical tail unit at the used angles of attack and made it flutter (buffering), plus successes with electronics and computer software led to the fact that there were cheaper means of ensuring super-maneuverability, which contributed to the appearance of the second Su-35, simultaneously canceling the Su-33KUB with PGO.