“Almost completely burned out”: some details of the crash of the Su-57 are announced


Some details of the crash with the fifth-generation fighter Su-57 (T-50), which was tested on December 24 in the Komsomolsk-on-Amur region, continue to be published. We are talking about a combat fighter, which they were going to be the first to deliver to the Russian Aerospace Forces before the end of this year.


According to the latest information, the plane was flown by an experienced test pilot Aleksey Gorshkov. It was he who conducted the acceptance test, lifting the Su-57 into the air from the Dzemgi airfield.

The reports say that having raised the fighter to a height of about 10 thousand meters, the pilot was faced with a loss of control. He reported this "tower". Uncontrolled by the pilot began to decrease in height, after which the plane fell into a tailspin, being at an altitude of up to 8 thousand meters. The test pilot took all measures to stabilize the flight, but this could not be done. As a result, he fulfilled the command for the implementation of the bailout. An ejection took place at an altitude of about 2 km above the uninhabited area.

It is known that as a result of the contact of the combat vehicle with the ground, the aircraft completely destroyed. A fire broke out, as a result of which what was left of the Su-57 after the attack burned out almost completely.

Experts, based on information about the fall of the Su-57, believe that the cause of the crash could be problems with the tail.

At the moment, a special commission is working in the Khabarovsk Territory, which also includes developers of the fifth generation fighter. The Commission is studying the flight parameters in order to make a possible adjustment to the design of other Su-57s, preparing to be put into service with the Russian Air Force.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

103 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 06: 59 New
    • 22
    • 10
    +12
    well done pilot, survived, then they will find a reason from his words.
    1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 07: 01 New
      • 15
      • 9
      +6
      The Commission is studying flight parameters in order to make possible adjustments to other Su-57s, which are being prepared for deployment to the Russian Air Force.
      not "adjustment" but not serviceability will be eliminated .. journalists ... a working plane, flies like an angel. there are no equal on aerobatics.
      1. Lynx-z 27 December 2019 09: 02 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        the fact that the plane crashed means that it had a malfunction, but does not mean that all aircraft of this type are malfunctioning ..
        but there is a likelihood of the same malfunction occurring under certain conditions, therefore, it is necessary to find out the cause and possibly (!) make an adjustment to the design
        1. Mar.Tirah 27 December 2019 10: 01 New
          • 21
          • 3
          +18
          Based on the fact that: "Now the representatives of the Ministry of Defense are at the plant who, apparently, were just about to accept the fallen fighter," there are good reasons to believe: 1. That there were no transcendental loads. All these loads are done at the stage of static testing, maximum on prototypes, but certainly not on serial machines. This is equivalent to the fact that the manager of a car dealership will “hammer” a car at all corners or poles with a potential buyer. 2. The factory workers were "in the know" that on the 25th they had to solemnly pass the first serial. For this, the appropriate delegation arrived in advance. The aircraft was naturally prepared according to all relevant requirements, about a week “drove” at the airport, flew in the air for more than one hour, including initially with an accompanying one. All this at the airport was recorded by a video operator, for a clear purpose. And here at the very end it is! In the morning, the aircraft was properly prepared and, at the end of these procedures, it briskly took off in the north direction. They began to suspect that something had happened with the plane, after a short time later the emergency rescue helicopter, on duty, took off and “left” in the same direction. Fortunately, they managed to pre-prepare him to take off in such a frost about minus 40 degrees. So what happened there we can only guess. But I'm inclined to factory marriage. A very big load fell on KnAAZ. And SU-57, and Superjets. And everywhere there is a lag in schedules.
          1. Voyager 27 December 2019 10: 10 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            And everywhere there is a lag in schedules.

            Where is it everywhere?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Alexey Sommer 27 December 2019 13: 48 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              Quote: Voyager
              And everywhere there is a lag in schedules.

              Where is it everywhere?

              Yes, you re-read the comment. Everything is in Russian, clearly written.
              1. Voyager 27 December 2019 15: 17 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                Yes, you re-read the comment. Everything is in Russian, clearly written.

                That’s why I’m clarifying, because I don’t remember that the same Su-35 deliveries are behind schedule, and there are many such examples. This is far from "everywhere."
        2. orionvitt 27 December 2019 10: 58 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Lynx-Z
          need to find out the reason

          To do this, before acceptance and conduct tests. so I don’t see much tragedy. They’ll figure it out, and it’s not like that in history. Some SU-24, only during the test lost 12 pcs., Not to mention the problems in the units. And MIG-24, how much it was modified already in the process of operation. And such examples are the sea. So they’ll solve the problem.
          1. Piramidon 27 December 2019 12: 23 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Quote: orionvitt
            А MIG-24how much has been modified already during operation

            Probably meant MiG-25?
            1. orionvitt 27 December 2019 16: 57 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Piramidon
              Probably meant MiG-25?

              Exactly, of course, the 25th. A hand missed the key. request
    2. aszzz888 27 December 2019 07: 05 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Aerodrome (Aerodrom) Today, 06: 59 NEW
      0
      well done pilot, survived, then they will find a reason from his words.

      Of course, thank God! that the pilot is alive and will give certain evidence. But without boxes, this will not be a complete vision of the disaster. And even more so, according to information, there is little left of the plane, which will even more complicate the conclusions of the commission.
      1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 08: 13 New
        • 5
        • 4
        +1
        Quote: aszzz888
        thank God! that the pilot is alive and will give certain evidence.

        yesat least by indirect signs, specialists will be able to understand the reason. and yes ... glory to Catapult.
    3. Sky strike fighter 27 December 2019 10: 25 New
      • 2
      • 17
      -15
      Quote: Aerodrome
      well done pilot, survived, then they will find a reason from his words.

      The pilot is very suspicious. He already crashed the Su-30 once during the test, and now the Su-57. Does it work for the enemy?
      1. NN52 27 December 2019 12: 25 New
        • 14
        • 2
        +12
        Sky strike fighter

        Is this such a joke from you about the pilot? Smiley forgot to put?
        You probably saw that video from the Su 30, from what position and with what overload the pilots “left” the plane before the bailout.
        Joker .... Christmas tree sticks ...
      2. K-36 27 December 2019 18: 49 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Sky Strike fighter "Very suspicious pilot"

        Do not consider it such an unbearable labor and read these thoughts-memoirs of the test pilot of the MiG Design Bureau of the Hero of Russia Alexander Garnayev. "Pilot error".
        https://vk.com/topic-58037357_30803172
        You will learn a lot of information: a) what failures are encountered by pilots in flight; b) the pilot's assessment of the hazard class of failure; c) the development by the pilot of an individual plan to combat this failure (relying on his own head, flight experience and physical capabilities); d) development by the pilot of the final intuitive solution (fight to the end or catapult in the presence of an ejection seat).
        In the same story you can find out when and under what circumstances Roman Taskaev first catapulted (along with General Fedotov, by the way). I sincerely hope that your views on the accident with the Su-57 will undergo a radical rethinking on your part.
        hi
    4. Nyrobsky 27 December 2019 13: 27 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Aerodrome
      well done pilot, survived

      And not for the first time. In 2012, he was part of the crew of the SU-30MK2 crashed in February at 130 km. from Komsomolsk-on-Amur (this time the plane fell 110 km). So now he has three birthdays.
  2. aszzz888 27 December 2019 07: 03 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The Commission is studying flight parameters in order to make possible adjustments to other Su-57s, which are being prepared for deployment to the Russian Air Force.

    Very, very bad situation. Will specialists be able to determine the exact cause of the disaster? request
    1. Alexander Suvorov 27 December 2019 08: 16 New
      • 18
      • 3
      +15
      If, as they say, problems could arise with the tail, then something like that was on the Mig-25 tests. At certain modes and at a certain speed, the aircraft began to rotate with a transition to an uncontrolled fall. When identifying this reason, test pilot Oleg Vasilievich Gudkov died.
      So the emergency situations were, are and will be, there is no getting anywhere from this. It’s good that the pilot survived. Test pilots are piece copies (yes they will forgive me for copies), they will make one more car, but you will not return the dead pilot!
      1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 09: 33 New
        • 4
        • 8
        -4
        Quote: Alexander Suvorov
        If, as they say, problems could arise with the tail, then something like that was on the Mig-25 tests. At certain modes and at a certain speed, the aircraft began to rotate with a transition to an uncontrolled fall. When identifying this reason, test pilot Oleg Vasilievich Gudkov died.
        So the emergency situations were, are and will be, there is no getting anywhere from this. It’s good that the pilot survived. Test pilots are piece copies (yes they will forgive me for copies), they will make one more car, but you will not return the dead pilot!

        it is not correct to compare a missile interceptor with a highly maneuverable fighter, which, in principle, is supercontrolled by an all-terrain engine. there are already new problems. rather related to the elemental base.
        1. Alexander Suvorov 27 December 2019 09: 46 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Airfield (Airfield)
          not correctly comparing a missile interceptor with a highly maneuverable fighter

          Where did you see the comparison? I just pointed out that when testing a new technology, various emergency situations can arise, nothing more!
          there are already new problems. rather related to the elemental base.
          Here we must wait for the conclusions of the expert commission, before that all our reasoning, the essence of fortune-telling on coffee grounds.
    2. bar
      bar 27 December 2019 08: 20 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Are there any reasonable doubts?
    3. Galleon 27 December 2019 09: 56 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      I may have a naive question: why not embed the recording unit for parameters and negotiations (black box) in the pilot's seat? When bailout, all records would be saved. It's like taking a logbook with you.
      1. voyaka uh 27 December 2019 12: 59 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Sensible idea, by the way! good
        1. Harry.km 27 December 2019 13: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Sensible idea, by the way!

          After the bailout, the plane still flies and the recorders write ...
          1. voyaka uh 27 December 2019 13: 53 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            This is true ... But usually when the pilot catapults, the reason is already clear.
            But black boxes are not always found. And sometimes they find and hide
            what they found if they want to confuse the investigation.
            But if the box is built into the chair, they will definitely find it and all sorts of excuses will not work.
            1. bober1982 27 December 2019 14: 14 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: voyaka uh
              But usually, when the pilot catapults, the reason is already clear.

              An interesting thought, what does it mean - usually? and even more so about the reason, which is clear.
              It is also unclear who exactly wants to confuse the investigation.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              But if the box is built into the chair, they will definitely find it and all sorts of excuses will not work.

              What box, and how, and why should it (box) be built into the chair? After all, the pilot lands separately from the seat, the pilot “leaves” the plane with the seat, but then “everyone” moves along their trajectories.
              Quote: voyaka uh
              But usually

              That's just the point that it is still necessary to be able to catapult.
              Why not read it.
              1. venik 28 December 2019 21: 41 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: bober1982
                After all, the pilot lands separately from the seat, the pilot “leaves” the plane with the seat, but then “everyone” moves along their trajectories.

                ========
                Well, it’s not so!
                If you take the most common perfect Soviet / Russian seat K-36DM (used on the vast majority of modern Russian aircraft), it just uses a slightly different scheme:
                ......
                After 0,8 seconds (after shooting a chair, at low speeds the headrest is shot, separation with a chair and parachute is launched. At high speeds, this happens after braking to an acceptable speed. Pilot comes down in a special seatunder which there is an oxygen system and a box with a portable emergency reserve (NAZ) (about 10 kg). 4 seconds after the separation with the chair, the NAZ detaches and hangs from below on the cable.
                Well, WHAT prevents either in the "sitting" or in the NAZ to put, if not in the "NAZ box" or even in the pilot's helmet or pocket, a portable storage device (tight and shockproof (at the level of a watch) - something like a "flash drive") duplicate information from the "black boxes" ???
                - Firstly, it would greatly simplify, reduce the cost and speed up the removal of information (if the pilot survived, then the information goes to decryption - almost immediately after its rescue);
                - Secondly, in case of damage to the "black boxes" - it would make it possible to supplement the information about LTP;
                - Thirdly - a similar "innovation" (unless of course it is not yet) - doesn’t look either too expensive or extremely complicated !!!
          2. Lynx33 28 December 2019 07: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            So you need two recorders, but the backup one should be easier in fact in the pilot's seat.
            1. venik 28 December 2019 20: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Lynx33
              So you need two recorders, but the backup one should be easier in fact in the pilot's seat.

              =========
              drinks Or even in the pilot’s pocket! Something like a "flash drive"!
        2. venik 27 December 2019 15: 59 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Sensible idea, by the way! good

          =======
          good I also had a question - WHY not to build the “black box” into the ejected seat, or, well, “to the extreme” - not to “shoot” it with the pilot (even if WITHOUT a parachute - the “black box” - not a person - will withstand and hit the ground (unless of course there is a fire) !!! drinks
      2. NN52 27 December 2019 14: 59 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Galleon
        And if a disaster? The pilot did not have time to eject?
        Usually nothing remains from the cab ..... And the tail part (keel, etc.), according to the "statistics" ... remains "more or less" not damaged (if you say so softly and figuratively ..). But sometimes nothing is left at all ...
        1. Galleon 27 December 2019 16: 11 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes, everything is advisable. Thank.
        2. lelik613 27 December 2019 18: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          If duplicated, then there will be no harm.
          1. not main 27 December 2019 22: 35 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: lelik613
            If duplicated, then there will be no harm.

            Will be! Firstly, overweight, secondly hundreds of meters extra wiring, thirdly squibs and the possibility of shooting, in the end the opportunity to find this unit! If about the "beacon", then how long will the battery last? Large batteries are again overweight. The pilot is not immediately found, but you are talking about some kind of "box".
        3. Petrix 28 December 2019 00: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: NN52
          And if a disaster? The pilot did not have time to eject?

          Leave the boxes as they were, but attach a flash drive in an armchair or suit. It does not need to be protected from overloads and other factors, and, accordingly, the weight is minimal.
  3. Kostyar 27 December 2019 07: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    That's why they are tests, they will study, research, correct!
    1. Avior 27 December 2019 07: 15 New
      • 20
      • 3
      +17
      If this is acceptance-acceptance, then not everything is so simple.
      It is assumed that the aircraft should not have such defects, if it was allowed before the series
      1. lucul 27 December 2019 07: 34 New
        • 12
        • 11
        +1
        If this is acceptance-acceptance, then not everything is so simple.
        It is assumed that the aircraft should not have such defects, if it was allowed before the series

        And no one canceled the version of intentional sabotage .....
        1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 08: 44 New
          • 8
          • 6
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          And no one canceled the version of intentional sabotage ....

          yes, we love this thing ... a hole from a drill of a hand drill in the ISS ..., yes, I agree, a conspiracy. (Cho are silent about the hole by the way?
          1. sledak 27 December 2019 14: 19 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Aerodrome
            ... (Cho about the hole, by the way, are they silent? brewed?


            No, they say Rogozin's saliva "life-giving" her (hole) tightened. A special flight to the ISS was delivered ... of course we were not informed about this
    2. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 08: 16 New
      • 6
      • 4
      +2
      Quote: Bone
      That’s why they are tested,

      if they are not a test series. and then the "cant" is constructive, or "elemental" which is worse at times.
  4. Amateur 27 December 2019 07: 09 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    And where are the details?
    1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 08: 23 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Amateur
      And where are the details?

      this is for you at the government commission to investigate the crash of LA.
      1. Amateur 27 December 2019 08: 35 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        this is for you at the government commission to investigate the crash of LA.

        And to you - the title of the article.
        “Almost burnt out”: voiced some Details crash of the Su-57
        drinks
        1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 08: 38 New
          • 2
          • 6
          -4
          Quote: Amateur
          this is for you at the government commission to investigate the crash of LA.

          And to you - the title of the article.
          “Almost burnt out”: voiced some Details crash of the Su-57
          drinks

          that is, "completely burned out" is not enough for you? you need details: how it burned, how the composites melted, how aluminum burned out, what gas when burning came from the wiring and composite materials? laughing drinks
          1. Amateur 27 December 2019 08: 45 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            The fact that he crashed and burned down the news was December 24.12.2019, 27.12.2019, and the article is today (December XNUMX, XNUMX). The editorial staff finally "got it" or all the same, "What's the news?"
            1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 08: 47 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Amateur
              .

              The reports say that having raised the fighter to a height of about 10 thousand meters, the pilot was faced with a loss of control. He reported this "tower". Uncontrolled by the pilot began to decrease in height, after which the plane fell into a tailspin, being at an altitude of up to 8 thousand meters. The test pilot took all measures to stabilize the flight, but this could not be done. As a result, he fulfilled the command for the implementation of the bailout. An ejection took place at an altitude of about 2 km above the uninhabited area. in this, apparently, .... "loss of control" ... and earlier they wondered about ... everything ....request
  5. Avior 27 December 2019 07: 13 New
    • 6
    • 4
    +2
    A problem that may affect the issue and sale
    There are no conclusions yet, but theoretically there are three such
    1 independent of the aircraft. Weather or a pilot’s mistake, in this case it will affect the production minimally, the flight instructions will correct, someone will be punished, not very much
    2 manufacturing defects in manufacturing
    It will be reflected, but to a much greater extent
    Something there at the plant will be corrected in quality, reported, time will be spent on changing production
    3 fundamental defect in aircraft construction.
    In this case, the delay can be serious
    1. mark1 27 December 2019 07: 27 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Quote: Avior
      Weather or pilot error

      On this type of aircraft, neither a mistake (and even at such an altitude) nor the weather should affect.
      Quote: Avior
      manufacturing defects

      Too early for marriage. The first production model, almost experimental after 10 flight copies.
      Quote: Avior
      fundamental defect in aircraft construction.

      On 10 prototypes it didn’t appear, but on the first production one it got out - miracles!
      All these reasons are not so typical that they can be, but you have to be very guilty before God.
      1. Avior 27 December 2019 07: 37 New
        • 6
        • 3
        +3
        And what is your possible version that does not fit into these three?
        There must be a reason
        Do not offer diversion.
        1. mark1 27 December 2019 07: 45 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          That's just her, darling, I propose yesterday and today. And not a single argument has been given convincing me otherwise (the disadvantages are not arguments, but an expression of emotions)
          1. Victoria-V 27 December 2019 09: 55 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            They say the SU-57 was shot down by the ukrobanderovsky SU-24. Local residents saw how they fired 2 RS-2-US missiles. One accidentally hit.
            1. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 27 December 2019 10: 11 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              What do we use ??? winked barbiturates, canabioids or opiates ?? Maybe methamphetamines ?? Or salt with zimbura ??
              1. Victoria-V 27 December 2019 10: 19 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                Didn't guess) Just different cannabinoids.
                1. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 29 December 2019 15: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Hmm winked they are different ??))
            2. mark1 27 December 2019 10: 12 New
              • 1
              • 4
              -3
              Quote: Victoria-In
              ... ukrobanderovsky ....

              Given the percentage of Ukrainians working in our ship-aircraft-rocket production and in the oil and gas industry, your version is not groundless.
            3. Mar.Tirah 27 December 2019 10: 26 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Victoria-In
              They say the SU-57 was shot down by the ukrobanderovsky SU-24. Locals saw

              But read what the locals really saw during the tests. Nick Comsophile
              - "Really kapets!
              Once sitting and relaxing on the Silinka river, bearing the name Silina, I saw how the guys on a combat plane make freaks for everyone to see.
              It will definitely fall if it continues to show off, I said. Thank God it’s not for the city.
              And yes! Beautifully and at times I thought that they didn’t put the pilot there, as it was clear that the overloads were unbelievable.
              The main thing is that people are alive, and we are still riveting a piece of iron! "
          2. Avior 27 December 2019 11: 25 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            why do you think such a thing about sabotage?
            and other confirmed cases of sabotage in relation to a mass-produced aircraft in the conditions of the manufacturer recently can you bring?
            Just not someone’s fantasies, but really well-known, confirmed cases of sabotage against combat aircraft produced in Russia at a factory for, say, the last ten years, can you bring?
            I admit, I can’t remember a single one, and you?
            If not, then why should we invent non-existent, if there are probably real reasons?
            1. mark1 27 December 2019 15: 07 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Avior
              and other confirmed cases of sabotage in relation to a mass-produced aircraft in a factory -

              Well, why do you think so narrowly? What does the disaster of the first production copy of the Su-57 mean? - tarnished reputation, delayed access to the world market, on which the Americans (first of all) and the Chinese are already (the queue, as it were, was not even the first ...)
              Do you need other examples of sabotage? You are welcome;
              - “Proton” set the sensor for 50 years as it should and suddenly on you upside down (well, of course by accident)
              - "Union" with its holes (probably the drunken installer has screwed up ...)
              - a strange series of fires on ships and submarines being repaired and on conservation (of course, the sailors of the PPB did not know, unlike the Bolsheviks in the 20s, then only one battleship was burned)
              - by and large, the situation with Nord Stream 2 is an example of competent sabotage
              Yes, there’s a lot more ... this is when the case is single, you can refer to sloppiness and in our case it’s someone’s methodical painstaking work.
              1. Avior 27 December 2019 17: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                None of the above cases is recognized diversion
                As I understand it, not a single such case is not that in aviation or in another industry
                I don’t think they need to be invented, other explanations are enough
                Do not multiply entities beyond necessity
                hi
                1. eskulap 12 February 2020 03: 06 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  stubbornly push back the sabotage version - who are you defending? who paid you?
                  If the gopher is not visible, this does not mean that it is not.
        2. igor67 27 December 2019 08: 39 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: Avior
          And what is your possible version that does not fit into these three?
          There must be a reason
          Do not offer diversion.

          From my experience, 15 years repairing turntables, from 85-2000, before NG, rush begins, turn in cars and close the quarter and year, they worked in NG, and another problem was before in Soviet times, we were given alcohol for overtime work, without alcohol could not go on a business trip
          1. Avior 27 December 2019 12: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Of course, we don’t know the reason, at least for now, but more is believed in your version than in mythical sabotage ....
      2. bar
        bar 27 December 2019 08: 23 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        On 10 prototypes it didn’t appear, but on the first production one it got out - miracles!

        No miracles. Experienced products are collected by other people. And the transfer to the series is rarely without problems.
        1. mark1 27 December 2019 08: 36 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: bar
          Experienced products are collected by other people.

          Something tells me that the first serial was assembled with the participation of the same people (they are from the same enterprise).
          Quote: bar
          And the transfer to the series is rarely without problems.

          Do not give statistics of factory flight accidents of the first production copies?
          1. bar
            bar 27 December 2019 08: 47 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Do not give statistics of factory flight accidents of the first production copies?

            I won’t bring it. That's about the huge number of problems when setting up a series of new cars that have passed all the tests, brought and certified, I can tell. Of course, there is a lot of specificity in aviation, but there is also much in common with the automotive industry.
      3. Pathos 27 December 2019 09: 58 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        for a moment 25 the identity did not show a bite defect of the elevator until the planes began to fall in combat units and the la was already taken into service, here it was already described in comments and the mode turned out to be insidious not even supersonic the defect was not immediately found in which modes it just did not drive died the earth’s tester rest in peace, but how many lives were saved in the future, and so if this is the final version without prototypes, went into series with the accident they will now drive him to blue and green brooms laughing they will find the reason and the car will become operational good
      4. Petrix 28 December 2019 00: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: mark1
        Too early for marriage. The first production model, almost experimental after 10 flight copies.

        Just the time for mistakes. If other people begin to produce a new technique for themselves. Is all the documentation ready for the series? Usually she catches up with iron.
    2. bober1982 27 December 2019 07: 50 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Avior
      There are no conclusions yet, but theoretically there are three such

      Agree, it’s somehow absurd for all of us to draw any conclusions here, and the very topic of the Su-57 crash got tired of it.
      By the way, it happens that there is no fault in the plane crash, neither the pilot, nor the representatives of the manufacturer, and it happens. To distract ourselves, one can recall the Tu-4 crash at the Kuibyshev Aviation Plant N18 (August 18, 1951)
      The plane was rolled out, not yet painted with LIS, and prepared for a test flight to practice firing and bombing, there were 15 (fifteen) people on board. After working at the training ground, when approaching Kuibyshev, the crew lost contact. The plane crashed, on board everyone died.
      The conclusions of the commission, under the leadership of Colonel General Gromov - there is no fault of the crew and the manufacturer. Before making such conclusions, a great and thorough work was carried out with the involvement of the Air Force Research Institute and the MAP.
      1. Aerodrome 27 December 2019 08: 26 New
        • 3
        • 6
        -3
        the scent is such that all the same electronics ... is our weak everything.
        1. Pavlov Sergey Alexandrovich 27 December 2019 10: 13 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          What sney should be wrong in terms of reliability ?? After all, we fly into space complex systems; we create on its basis really reliability failed ?? I can’t believe it.
      2. Avior 27 December 2019 11: 30 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        I by no means blame the pilot or technicians, or anyone else, but there must be one or another reason for the crash of the plane; didn’t it just so fall?
        It’s just that I have grouped all the real possible causes into three main groups according to the possibility of delaying the production of aircraft, and the commission decides, here you are completely right.
        There is a truth, and the fourth, they found no reason, which is also not very good from the point of view of production delays, especially, if God forbid, a similar situation will happen again.
        hi
    3. Liam 27 December 2019 09: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      Weather

      At 10.000 meters the weather is monotonous)
    4. Good_Anonymous 27 December 2019 12: 27 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Avior
      3 fundamental defect in aircraft construction.


      The plane has been flying for 10 years. It is hard to believe that they missed something fundamental. I would rather believe in a manufacturing defect.
      1. Avior 27 December 2019 12: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        anything can happen.
        F-35 and more flew, and the fuel pipe changed after a big flight hours
        It is possible that the defect does not appear on all copies
        I think it's too early to guess, I just formed, in principle, how this can affect production delays
        1. Good_Anonymous 27 December 2019 13: 41 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I would not call the defect in the fuel line pipe fundamental.
          1. Avior 27 December 2019 13: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            not principal, and appears only on a small part of the sides
            but nevertheless, there are some nuances that appear only after a sufficient flight hours
            And the F-35 in this respect, as you know, had a lot more raid
            therefore, any reason theoretically could be
            we will wait for information
    5. venik 27 December 2019 16: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Avior
      There are no conclusions yet, but theoretically there are three such

      =======
      I personally “put” (9 to 1) the conclusion No. 2 - the factory “jamb”. And - NOT MANDATORY of the manufacturer! - there are hundreds of "subcontractors" - one of the component parts - could pass the tests, but could not stand the flight!
      WHY think so ?:
      - 1) Pilot - EXPERIENCED! ("pilot error" is not very realistic!) ...
      - 2) TEN! .....
      - 3) The option is that on the First SERIAL aircraft some “innovations” were applied that have not passed the test before - “I DO NOT BELIEVE !!!” .....

      It remains - the "jamb" or the manufacturer, or (most likely) - the "subcontractors" - all the more so the plane is already the 11th! (could "relax") ....

      But this is my personal "trench trick" (note - NOT CLAIMING for the "ultimate truth")! request
      1. Petrix 28 December 2019 01: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: venik
        The option that on the First SERIAL aircraft was applied some "innovations" that did not pass the test earlier - "I DO NOT BELIEVE !!!" ..

        It could even be. Experienced workshop and serial, if in this case they are not combined, have different technological principles and, accordingly, equipment. On new equipment, it is necessary to master a technical process different from the experimental one and usually many adjustments are made.
        Note - the same part from different factories may differ, not in the main parameters of course. Even within the same production batch may vary. This is not to mention errors in the process that are more difficult to detect than explicit marriage.
  6. Skubudu 27 December 2019 09: 02 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Strange ... for 8 years of testing, there were no similar problems.
    Diversion along the way.
  7. Esaul 27 December 2019 09: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Due to the fact that one tongue is jammed, a billion burned, tin
    1. Petrix 28 December 2019 01: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Esaul
      Due to the fact that one tongue is jammed, a billion burned, tin

      Little things do not exist! The sheet pile is jammed because the size is out of tolerance. And the size was checked at the wrong air temperature. And the thermometer was not near the part where the draft happened (someone came in at that moment). In addition, the mating part with the maximum tolerance for the worse came across. ....
  8. Voyager 27 December 2019 10: 12 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    And yet this is not a disaster, as it is written in the news.
    1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 14: 18 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      No - it's just a manufacturing defect or a short-hand assembly. That it would be necessary to try to fill up the first production car on tests, but now the plant will build a new aircraft at its own expense - as the customer in the person of MO is not obliged to pay for the manufacturer’s jambs and loss of production.
  9. Mar.Tirah 27 December 2019 10: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Voyager
    And everywhere there is a lag in schedules.

    Where is it everywhere?

    Komsomolsk-on-Amur. KnAAZ
    1. Voyager 27 December 2019 15: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      KnAAZ produces not only the above aircraft. He also delivers Su-35S at least on time, and it happens that ahead of schedule. So this is not "everywhere" at all.
      1. Mar.Tirah 27 December 2019 17: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Voyager
        So this is not "everywhere" at all.

        I didn’t write about other LAs. I wrote about these two. Su-57s and Superjet. And I emphasized what might happen as a result of rutting. And I hope that you are not lagging behind the lag? Understand me correctly, I’m not saying that everything is bad , I am for building up the technical capabilities and capacities of the military-industrial complex in this area and not only on the part of the state. And it turns out like this, the Moscow Region says, “Here we gave you an order for production, please kindly jump out of your skin but give us what we need it is necessary, and how we do not care "They want to eat fish and Serdyukov with Vasilyeva feed.
  10. Captain45 27 December 2019 13: 00 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    There is one positive point in this whole story, just don’t throw your slippers - It is known that as a result of the contact of the combat vehicle with the ground, the aircraft completely destroyed. A fire broke out, as a result of which what was left of the Su-57 after the attack burned out almost completely.(C).
    This means that in the event that the adversary will not get anything, he will not have to learn our new equipment from the wreckage. Everything will burn, let him pick it in the ashes.
  11. Carib 27 December 2019 13: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Aerodrome
    the scent is such that all the same electronics ... is our weak everything.

    On such aircraft tripling, fivefolding, the probability is small .... but something mechanical fell into the gap and blocked (limited movement) it really is likely ....
  12. Carib 27 December 2019 13: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Esaul
    Due to the fact that one tongue is jammed, a billion burned, tin

    Oh no, what a billion, a couple of hundred million $, yes, ......
    1. Good_Anonymous 27 December 2019 14: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      $ 200M, even the F-22 was not worth it.
      1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 14: 20 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        In the region of 2,5 billion rubles, Su 57 is definitely worth it.
        1. Good_Anonymous 27 December 2019 14: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But this is not $ 200M, but $ 38M. True, I unreasonably believe that it costs 2 times more expensive, but still not nearly $ 200M.
          1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 17: 22 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            2,5 billion rubles - for Russia this is a decent amount, with this money you can open an average plant.
  13. spectr 27 December 2019 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Let them search. If not complete fools, they will not overwhelm the project. So far, Russia has the 2nd place in the ranking of armies. If our elite “drowns” several such high-tech projects, then the positions may shift and they can look at Russia differently, including in trade relations.
    1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 17: 36 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Not a single project has been drowned - but this one is suddenly drowned.
      1. spectr 27 December 2019 17: 54 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Now, probably, TAM in private conversation was not the only one who spoke about the suspension of the order. If this happens, then this may be enough to drown the project.
        1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 18: 01 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          It’s not for that that they start it - to suspend it all the more so it is a private office.
          1. spectr 29 December 2019 14: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Here the question is no longer in effectiveness, but in whose team is the “player” (developer).
            If the Sukhoi Design Bureau crossed someone's path, they concoct a document where they will stick out the flaws of the aircraft, inflate them to gigantic proportions and justify the need for a new development by Mig-a or Yak-a.
            The Su-57 had problems with the order, but someone managed to give the project a kick and he got to Putin. A plane crash can cross out everything and even add problems to this accelerator.
  14. Durman_54 27 December 2019 18: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Lord, some kind of sabotage is being invented. The plant, as usual, was supposed to hand over the plane to the People, Party and Leader by the new year. Of course, completed in the rump. Of course, it turned out as usual.
    The only thing that can be called a diversion here is the practice that had begun since the union to hand over the equipment on November 7, the birthday of the Secretary General, new year etc.
  15. Victor March 47 27 December 2019 23: 15 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Quote: Aerodrome
    well done pilot, survived, then they will find a reason from his words.

    The pilot is very suspicious. He already crashed the Su-30 once during the test, and now the Su-57. Does it work for the enemy?

    And I see in your message the intrigue of the enemy. This flyer HOW MUCH AIRPLANES DIDN'T CRASH! But, in fact, had such an opportunity. Enemies don’t do that. There is more harm from your message than from the pilot.
  16. Chingachguk 28 December 2019 11: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And where should problems come to light if not in trials? In real battle? Where is the real combat mission posed, on which the lives and outcomes of the battles depend? Or maybe planes should fall with people like the latest unfinished boeing? Do not say stupid gentlemen.
    1. Vadim237 28 December 2019 22: 57 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      This is the first serial machine for the Air Force - all technical tests have already been completed on the previous 12 machines. Vienna in a disaster or in a manufacturing defect or in a short-hand assembly - there is no third.