Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Three views of the T10-5 ('51 Blue’, /n 02-01),
‘showing the GRP radome attached to a metal
‘skirt, the IRST “ball and the splayed fins. The
aircraft carries a full oad of sic R-27T AMS and two
73s on the contretine, nacelle and wing pylons,
aaak
The T1045 takes off. The upper
hha of the radome has been
painted white for some reason.
Note the blue/arey camouflage
‘and the lack of the nacelle
pylons.
>
‘The same aircratt at a later date
with an allavhite radome and,
‘apparently, no pylons at
ss
ees
710-5 ('51 Blue’, t/n 02-01), T10-6 (fin 02-02),
710-9 (f/m 02-04), T10-10 ('10 Yellow’, fin 03-01)
and T10-11 ('11 Blue’, f/n 03-02). These aircraft
wate pee
sem cur
Bevageeto emmoat
wi urate
Sania hs
separately.)
Se peanennn
rarer merc ae
sienna
Wineeergebaceian
roma fafaoadere
cana ac
cA Ste oa
we go new
teem uma
rigrreeaeien ea
Saunas
3
cleared for flight test in October 1980 with
Yu. K. Kalintsev as engineer in charge. Yet the
10:6 never flew; on 25th October, when the alr-
craft was engine running at Zhukovskiy. a leaky
{uel fine caused a massive fire which destroyed
the fighter completely
In October 1980 KnAAPO test pilot
G. M. Matveyenko took the T10-9 up on its frst
flight from Komsomo!'sk-on-Amur/Dzemgi;
LG. Gladoon was the machine's engineer in
charge. That year the plant completed two more
aircraft—the T10-10 ('10 Yellow’) and the T10-11
(11 Blue); both aircraft were not flown on site
and were delivered to the OKB straight away for
coutfiting with the weapons control system. A. |
‘Yegorov and Yu. K. Kalinisev were assigned as
the two fighters’ engineers in charge. The
intended new avionics took a long time coming;
itwas not until two years later that the T10-10 and
T10-11 were finally ready to tly. "11 Blue’ took to
the air in February 1982 with Nikolay F.
Sadovnikov at the controls; trials of the Mech
radar on this aircraft began in July. ‘10 Yellow’
joined the programme in November that year,
piloted by OKB test pilot A. A. ivanov.
All five aircraft had eight weapons hard:
points instead of six (\wo under each wing, one
under each engine nacelle and two on the fuse-
lage centreline). The shape of the dielectric
radome varied from aircraft to aircraft; for
instance, the T10-5 and the T10-10 had sharply
tapered noses. /a T10-1, while the T10-9 and the
T10-11 featured fatter ogival radomes quite sim-
ilar to that of the definitive Su-27. The pitot boom
of the ‘type T10-5" aircraft was shorter than on
the first four prototypes.
KnAAPO also built a static test airframe (in
(02-08) and started manufacturing a further two
type T10-5' aircratt (tins 03-03 and 03-04); even:
tually, however, these were never completed.
Thus a total of nine flying FlankerA prototypes
(seven with AL-21F-3Al turbojets and two with
AL31F turbofans) and two static test articles had
been manufactured by 1982
Initially the prototype and pre-production
T-10s operated from the Lil's airfield in
Zhukovskiy, later moving to the GNIKI WS facil
ity at Viadimirovka AB where Stage A of the
Su-27's joint state acceptance trials began in
December 1979. (‘Joint’ means that the trials are
held jointly by the manufacturer and the cus
tomer — in this case, the Air Force.) Six aircraft
(the T10-3, T10-4, T10-5, T10-9, T10-10 and
10-11) participated in these trials ~ primarily as
avionics testbeds used for verifying the Su-27's
mmission systems. For example, in early 1981 the
T10-5 was sot aside for the isolated trials pro.ea
rm 1
gramme of the Su-27's OEPS-27 optoelectronic
targeting system (optixo-elektronnaya pritsel’-
raya sistema), being fitted out with the system's
initial version featuring an Argon-15 digital
processor. A while later the T10-11 was also
modified for testing the OEPS-27. The T10-10
‘served for verifying the NOOt Mech radar and the
armament, successfully destroying eleven target
‘rones over a target range near Akhtoobinsk.
The trials of the optoelectronic targeting sys-
tems early version continued until mid-1982,
‘whereupon it was decided to replace the unsat-
istactory Argon-15 processor with the more
refined T5100 digital processor; this, in tum,
required all the software for the OEPS-27 to be
doveloped anew. At the end of the year the
reworked system was fitted to the T10-11, which
‘was used in the joint tests of the S-27 weapons
control system comprising the RLPK-27 radar
targeting system (rahdiolokats-onnyy _prit-
‘se//nyy Kompleks) and the OEPS-27,
Trials of the NOO1 radar on the T10-4 and the
T10-10 revealed that the radar fell short of the
expectations on several important parameters.
As a result, the designers at NIIR decided to
abandon the original version of the radar and
develop a new mechanically scanned antenna
array for the NOO1, enlisting the help oftheir col-
leagues from MNIIP, NIITSEVT and GosNIl AS.
‘The new antenna was a scaled-up version of the
‘wist-Cassegrain antenna fitted to the MiG-29's
NO19 radar with a 50% larger ciameter, The sig-
nals processor was also replaced, with new soft-
aa ae
These photos show one of the
‘type T10.5' pre-production
aircraft (the tactical code is
either missing or illegible). Note
the sharply pointed radome.
<
Tho samo alreraft in tight with
the alrbrakes deployed.
a748
Fr <
40 Yellow’, the T10-10, shares
the flight line at Viadimirovka AB,
Akhtoobinsk, with other Su-27
prototypes, including the T1027
A closer took at the T10-10's
forward fuselage showing the
‘ fatter radome; the attachment
~ ‘skin’ appears to be unpainted,
‘Tho attending vehicles with van
bodies - the GAZ-66 four-wheel
egy drive cabover and the ZiL-131
{x6 conventional - probably
accommodate test anc
measurement equipment
aq
Sequence of stills showing the
10-10 launching an R-27 from
‘one of the centreline pylons.ee ea Lee
ware to go with it, and the result was effectively a
totally new radar with the same designation.
Prototypes of the revamped NOOi were
installed in the T10-10 and the T10-11, and as
early 2s March 1983 the RSD institutions
involved in the programme prepared a report
clearing the radar for fight tests on the T-10 as
part of the $27 WCS. Trials of the Su-27's
(7-10'5) armament and WCS were largely com-
pleted in early 1984; after some minor debu
ging of the sofware the system was
recommended for installation in the production
7-108 in 1985,
In 1980 the static tes airframe manufactured
by KnAAPO (Vn 02-08) completed stage A ofits
test programme.
Upon completion of the joint state accep
tance trials the machines of the pre-production
batches ended up as ground instructional ai
frames at various technical schools and acade-
mies of the Air Force and Air Defence Force.
‘Thus, in 1984 the T10-5 was relegatedto the PVO
Academy in Kalinin (now renamed back to
‘Tvor), while the T10-10 became ateaching aid at
the Kiev Military Aviation Engineering College
(KWAI - Kiy-ovskoye wyssheye voyennoye av
atsionnoye inzhenernoye oochilshiche). Also in
1984, the T10-9 was transferred to the Riga Mii
tary Aviation Engineering College (RVVAIU -
Rizhskoye vyssheve voyennoye aviaisionnoye
inzhenemoye cochilishche) and the T10-11
went to the Air Force Engineering Academy
named after Nikolay Ye. Zhukowskiy (VIA —
Voyenno-vozdooshnaya inzhenemeya akade-
miya) in Moscow. The T10-10 is currently on ais-
play at the Ukrainian Air Force Museum in
Lugansk (formerly Voroshilovgrad)
7-108 Interceptor
Tests of the T10-1 and 10-8 showed that in its
Ctiginal form the fighter did not meet the specit-
cations outiined in the Council of Ministers cirec-
tive. There were three main reasons for this
Firstly, the avionics designers had failed to meet
weight requirements, making the aircraft several
hundred kilograms over-weight. Generally the
TOW ota tactical aircraft has to grow by 10-12kg
(22-26 I) for every extra kilogram (22 Ib) of
avionics weight if performance figures are to be
49
a
After retirement the T10-10
became an instructional aletrame
at the Koy Air Force Engineering
College. itis now in the
Ukrainian Air Force Museum in
Lugansk.
Close-up of the T10-10's
starboard main gear unit with the
rear whee! well door removed,
showing the retraction ram, the
breaker steut and its actuator
Note the UAF insignia on the fin,
vas
Looking rather sorry for itself,
the T10-10 now resides at the
AF Museum in Lugansk. Note
the missing IRST “ball
The rear end of the T10-10 at
Lugansk. Note the burnt metal of
the engine nozzle shrouds, the
‘drooped flaps and the reinstated
starboard main gear door
Another view of the T10-10 at
Lugansk. The aircraft is begging
for restoration - and will hopefully
recelve it in due course,
veee le
met. Considering just how much weight the
avionics had added, however, this straighttor
‘ward approach was ruled out. The T-10 clearly
needed to goon a diet.
‘Secondly, the Lyuka engine design bureau
(OKB-165) had been overly optimistic regarding
the SFC of the new powerplant. The ALS1F was
‘an excellent engine but somewhat thirstier than
anticipated. Finally, the ogival wings and the
placement of the vertical tails atop the engine
nacelles was not the best solution after all and
did not give the T-10 an advantage over US fight-
ers in a dogfight
Regrettably, Soviet aviation history has many
cases when aircraft were pressed into service
‘without some serious shortcomings being elimi-
nated, or entered production and were operated
fora long time by the WS without ever being off
Cally included into the inventory (for instance,
the Tu-22 Blinder medium bomber). These were
some of the curious ‘side effects! of the Soviet
Union's state-planned economy. The ‘customer
(that is, the WS) demanded a new-generation
fighter with extremely high performance ~ better
than Western fighters, production and expert
mental alike, including the F-15A. Nobody made
any allowances forthe fact that Soviet avionics
‘wore heavier than Westem ones, and Sukhoi
‘were leftto cope with the task as best they could.
Yevgeniy A. Ivanov, who succeeded Pavel O
Sukhoi as General Designer, agreed with the
chiefs of the WS and MAP demanding a
redesign ofthe tighter. Sukhoi engineers knew
‘only 100 well that there was no simple remedy,
such as increasing intemal tue! volume to
improve range; more drastic measures were
needed. Designing the T-10's aerodynamics and
structure had taken nearly eight years; there was
1 time now to try and invent better layout
The situation was so dire that Ivanov and
Mikhail P. Simonov, who was appointed T-10
project chief in 1976, urged the engineers to
bringin new ideas. For once the OK leaders for-
{got their traditionally cautious approach; all
ideas were welcome, even the most daring and
‘crazy’ ones, Eight years of hard work were
‘scrapped and a sort of in-house competition for
the best ayout ensued. The task was to redesign
the aircratt s0 as to meet the VWS specifications
while staying within current dimensions and
‘weights. Ivanov took charge of the whole thing,
including organisational and financial aspects.
When working on the 'second-generation’T-10
the engineers relied much on foreign research,
including Nortnrop's experience with LERXes on
the F-20 Tigershark light fighter (a single-
engined upgraded derivative of the F-5 Tiger!
Freedom Fighter) and the experimental YF-17
(the precursor of the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18
Hornet shipboard fighter). SiDNIA drew up a list
of airframe elements that could be changed to
alleviate the current problems or eliminate them
altogether.
Virtually every aspect of the general arrange-
ment - the shape of the LERXes, the wing plan-
form, the planform and position of the
stabilators, the position of the vertical tails
became a subject of criticism. SibNIA tested
humerous versions of the LERXes in its wind tun:
nels; the objective was to increase lift apprecia-
bly while creating a sufficiently high pitch-down
force at any positive angle of attack.
One of the advantages of statically unstable
aircraft with the CG located well aft (which the
51
Aad 4a
The T10-11 ("14 Blue’ taxies out
at Zhukovskly and takes off past
waiting Yakoviev Yak-40
airtiner.
a
‘The T10-11 on final approach.
Two wing pylons are fited.52
‘The samo alreraft at iho PVO Academy in Tvor after the state acceptance trials
‘The same aircraft at an early stage of the manufacturer's fight tests =
‘The T10-10 (110 Yellow’)
The 710-11 (11 Blue’)T-40 was mean to be) is that the stabilators are
deflected downwards - thats, nose up’~athigh
alpha, augmenting wing ltt at the expense of
only a slight increase in drag. However, in this
case the stabilator ACA exceeds the wing AoA.
This causes early airflow departure trom the sta-
bilators, reducing the pitch-down force gener-
ated by them at full downward deflection and
limiting the aircraft's alpha range.
General Dynamics had experienced. the
same problem with the F-16. At a 60° AOA the
fighter ‘got stuck’ in this position because even
{ull forward movement of the slick was not
enough to bring it into level fight. To cure the
problem the company simply programmed the
control system computer, imposing an alpha
limit of 25°.
Placing the CG further forward (in other
words, making the aitcraft staticaly stable)
would take care of the problem. However, the
advantages of the statically unstable layout were
alLimportant for an agile fighter, so SIbNIA eng
neers started looking for a compromise solution.
Several unusual ways of increasing stabilator
authority at high alpha were found in the course
of wind tunnel tests.
Faced with the task of increasing the pitch-
down force on the wings curing manoeuvres in
order to enable recovery from extremely high
AoA, SibNIA engineers proposed recontouring
the wings (straightening the traling edge) and
increasing the wing area aft of the GG, Wind tun-
nel tests showed this decision was a good one.
Another objective was to delay airflow depar-
ture from the wings. The aerodynamics sections
of both Sukhoi and SibNIA were positive that the
T-0 needed leading-edge flaps. Once again,
experiments with wind tunnel models proved this
was correct. Stil, there was no knowing how the
definitive wings would work. To give the reader
some idea ofthe intensity ofthe work, 27 reports
on refining the T-10's wings had been published
by the end of 1977!
With Simonov as T-10 project chief, work on.
perfecting the fighter's aerodynamics really
speeded up. They say a new broom sweeps
clean, and Simonov's approach to design mat-
ters was totally diferent from the over-cautious
atttude of his predecessors. He believed in one
principle: if it works, use it. Unlike Ivanov,
Simonov was not shy to cooperate directly with
SIbNIA. The new head of the Sukhoi OKB's aero-
dynamics section, Oleg Kalibabchuk, also
played a major part inthe work.
Now the tempo ofthe work picked up speed.
The main task now was to expand the aircrat’s
alpha range ~ thal is, improve high-alpha han-
dling. More changes were made to the shape of
the LERXes, next, the engineers began experi-
menting with LE flap deflection angles and,
finally, with the position of the vertical tails. The
best solution, as it tumed out, was to place the
fins as far apart as possible — outboard of the
enginenacelles, ight against the roots ofthe sta-
bilators, This improved the efficiency of both the
vertical and horizontal tal. In a crosswind at
AAoAS in excess of 20° the windward fin and rud-
der were always affected by wake turbulence
generated by the windward wing but the leeward
fin and rudder stayed outside the turbulence,
ensuring good directional control
Simonov was well aware that the basic fea-
tures of the T-10-the BWBlayout with an aft CG,
the fly-by-wire controls and the undersiung
engines - would be retained but the acro-
dynamics needed a complete rework. He also
know how it would be done; the massive work
undertaken by SIbNIA gave ample indication. So
in 1976 completely revamped T-10 project was
developed under Simonov's leadership. An
important new feature was the introduction of
adaptive leading-edge and traling-edae devices
governed by the FBW control system. Coupled
with improvements in the powerplant and avion-
ics made in the meantime, this held great
promise
However, General Designer Yevgeniy ivanov
had different views. He stil hoped to get the
inal design to work asit should, despite the fact
that early test fights of the T-10 had revealed
serious shortcomings which, as many believed,
were incurable. He was not the only opposition;
the then Minister of Aircraft Industry V. Kazakov
hit the ceiling at Simonov's proposal to redesign
the T-10, denouncing it as an attempt to kill the
fighter. (This, of course, was nothing new:
searching for ‘internal enemies’ on which failures,
could be blamed was common practice in the
USSR in times past)
Sil, Simonov got his way and the “T-10 Jr.
entered the full-scale development stage. The
result was the aircraft that we know today as
Flanker, which gave rise to a whole famity of
excellent combat jets,
All of SIDNIA's fincings were based on exper-
iments inthe T:203 subsonic wind tunnel. How.
ever, subsequent research in supersonic tunnels,
and ‘lve’ tests showed that SibNIA's recommen
dations were applicable to supersonic speeds as
well
The institute's engineers draw up opera:
tional requirements for the redesigned T-10.
Duly approved by tst Deputy Minister of Aircrat
Industry ivan 8. Slayey, these stated that control54
‘Tho new Su-27 project chiet,
Mikhail P. Simonov. He was the
‘man behind the decision to
redesign the fighter completely.
>»
This drawing gives a very
‘graphic comparison of the
‘original 7-10 Flanker-A (yellow
sithouette) and the T-108,
Flanker-B. Note that the latter Is.
‘about the same size, although it
‘appears much largor than the
Flanker.
was to be retained at AoAs up to 90°. SibNIA built
several small-scale models of the aircraft, testing
them at AoAs right up to 180° (!). The tests
showed that the new wings indeed created a
huge pitch-down force even with the stabilators
deflected fully up; this later enabled the Su-27 to
perform the famous Pugachov Cobra manoeuvre
when the pilot retains full control at AAS that are
close to 120
Trials of the original T-10 revealed unaccept-
ably intense vibration at AoAs exceeding 8°. A
new and more precise method of predicting
vibration levels was needed. To this end the
‘Sukho OKB, SibNIA and LI held a joint research
rr
programme, measuring pressure distribution
over the wings bath on models in the T-203 tun-
nel and in actus tight on the 100L aecodynam-
ics testbed ~ a Su-9 interceptor ('61 Red’) with
modified wings converted under the T-4 bomber
programme. (100L. = (letayuschchaya] labora:
toriya dlya samoiyota sio — testbed for ‘aircraft
100' or T-4,) The results oblained on the 100L
confirmed the results ofthe wind tunnel ests.
‘Additional pressure fluctuation measure-
ments on the redesigned T-10 wings in the T-203
wind tunne| allowed the researchers to ascertain
the cause of the airflow pulsation. It transpired
that the new wing planform and recontoured
LERKes reduced airflow pulsation dramatically,
taking care of the vibration problem. The lead:
ing-edge tlaps made a major contribution to this.
Alf this was later proved inflight on production
Su2rs.
‘Alternative general arrangements of the T-10
were studied under Mikhail P. Simonoy, includ-
ing exotic ones with forward-swept wings and
canard foreplanes. Numerous experiments were
made with control surfaces and high-lft devices.
‘Aspecial ig was built test air intake operation.
SibNIA conducted a unique experiment in the
7-203 tunnel. A wheel vas pressed to a moving
belt to simulate te fghter’s nosewneel ring on
the runway; particles were introduced under the
wheel which kicked them up into the operating
air intakes located aft of it, and the particle tra
Jectories were recorded by a cine camera, This
installation served to test various models of
muid/snow/slush guards fited to the nosewheel
for FOD protection. Different vertical tall shapes
and forward fuselage cross-sections were tested.
By late 1981 SiDNIA had published more than
60 reports on research associated with the T-10
programme. The process of defining and refin
ing continued. Research in the T-203 wind tunnel
totalled 755 hours in 1978, 1,068 hours in 1979,
£860 hours in 1980 and so on, adding up to a
‘grand total’ of 10,000 hours by 1985 - an
impressive figure by any standards, T-10 models
were also tested in the T-205M transonic tunnel
and 7-319 supersonic tunnel
Finally, the Sukhoi OKB began issuing work
lng drawings for the redesigned fighter and
preparing for prototype construction. To distin
Quish it trom the original T-10 the aircraft was
designated T-10S, the suffi letter standing for
‘sereeynyy (production, used attibutively)
The T-10S bore only a slight resemblance to
its predecessor. Wing area was increased from
59.4 m’ (638.7 sq f) to 62.04 mr (667.08 sq f) in
order to decrease wing loading during take-off
and aerial combat. The ogival wings gave way toGe
Eo
more traditional ones with a straight leading
edge outboard of the LERXes and a pronounced
kink at the joint with the latter. They terminated in
missile launch rails increasing the number of
hardpoints to ten: these doubled as antilutter
weights and were only a fraction heavier than the
weights used on the T10-1
‘The wings used a new and flatter airfoil. The
fixed cambered leading edge of the Flanker-A
‘gave place to fullspan leading-edge flaps, while
the separate ailerons and flaps were supplanted
by one-piece tlaperons. The new wings created
less drag, despite the bigger area, and gave
higher lft right across cruise, manoeuvring and
take-offlanding modes. They also afforded
better lateral stability and roll control
The canopy cross-section was reduced and
its aft portion made flatter; the canopy opened
upwards instead of sliding aft. The fuselage
cross-section was reduced in the cockpit area
‘and ahead of it but increased aft of the cockpit
where the forward fuel tank was located. The
radius of the blended wing/fuselage tairings was
increased and the feirings were extended aft
The cross-section of the fairing aft of the cockpit
was reduced, These measures were aimed. at
cutting drag.
Tho engines again had dorsally mounted
accessories; the greater part of these were dri-
ven off separate VKA-9 gearboxes located alt of
the rear wing spar and driven by long extension
shafts. Reverting to dorsally mounted engine
accessories was actually the first decision
Simonov made as T-10 project chief. This
reduced maximum overall cross-section area,
‘optimised the lengthwise cistribution of the
‘cross-section area and reduced the wetted sur
face, decreasing both drag and specific airframe
weight. The air intakes incorporated retractable
FOD protection grilles and also rows of ventral
blow-in doors.
To improve directional control at high alpha
the fins were moved outboard to the stabilator
attachment booms and disposed vertically, not
canted outwards. The fins were placed further
forward than on the original T-10, that is, ahead
of the stabilators ~ or rather the stabilators were
moved aft to increase control efficiency. This
again reduced the wetted surface and optimised
cross-section area distribution; it also improved
directional stability and control at high alpha.
The anti-futter weights on the horizontal tail had
been deleted, so for better flutter resistance the
stabilator hinges were moved forward along the
chord. Directional stability and spin recovery
characteristics were improved by fitting ventral
fins to the tail unit attachment booms.
The main gear units now featured skewed
retraction hinges instead of breaker struts so that
the wheels turned through 90° during retraction
without the aid of any mechanical linkage. The
actuating rams were placed alt of the oleos, not
‘ahead of them. The new gear was simpler, lighter
and more compact, allowing maximum cross-
section area to be reduced, Unusually, the main
gear cownlocks were placed externally in
teardrop fairings located low on the engine
nacelles; this increased nacelle weight, but the
end result was still a weight saving. The nose unit
retracted forward, not aft, and was closed by a
single door.
The original main gear doors doubling as
airbrakes (a feature borrowed from the Su-24)
‘caused severe buffeting when deployed and
were replaced by outward-opening doors.
Instead, the T-10S featured a single large
dorsal airbrake located aft of the cockpit 4 /a
F-15 which caused no change in pitch trim when
deployed.
Initial production $u-27 (T-108)
fighters undergoing tinal
assembly at KnAAPO.
<
Sukhoi OKE General Designer
Mikhail P. Simonov discusses 3
test flight with test
F. Sadovnikov.
lot Nikolay56
ee
“
Sukhol OKE and Soviet Air Force
test pilots Involved in the Su-27's
{light test programme. Left to
right, top rows ViadimieS.
Wyushin, Nikolay F. Sadovnikov,
AS. Komarov and A. A. Ivanov:
centre raw: Yevgeny S
Solov'yoy, Viktor G. Pugachov,
Igor’ V. Votintsev and Yevgeny!
Frolov; bottom row: Vyacheslav
Yu. Avor'yanoy, Igor’ Yo.
Solovyov, Igor’ P. Volk and
V. Loyehikov.
‘The aff fuselage was redesigned, the flat
‘beaver tail’ of the early prototypes giving way to
a characteristic circular-section ‘stinger’ extend
Ing far beyond the engine nozzles. This housed
the brake parachute container and the aft fuel
tank, allowing for pitch trim as fuel was burned
off,
The combined effect of these changes
reduced airframe drag by 18-20% in both sub:
sonic and supersonic modes. The overall maxi:
mum cross-section was reduced, despite the
fact that the internal uel load had grow by some:
500 kg (1,102 Ib). Manoeuvrability was much
improved, especially at high alpha, and the
‘wings were better adaptable to different flight
modes
The T-10S had quite a few advantages over
existing fighters, both Soviet and Western. For
instance, it could operate both inaividually and in
“wolf packs’. In addition to the usual fire control
radar, itfeatured an optoelectronic targeting sys:
tem; the two could be used separately or in con
cert, increasing first-round kill capability. The
T-10$ was armed with high-speed all aspect
medium-range air-to-air missiles, enabling the
pilot to fire first (first sight, first shot, first kil)
and highly manoeuvrable short-range AMS; the
‘maximum ordnance load on the ten hardpointsThe Recipe for a Better Fighter
was 8,000 kg (17,640 Ib). A capable communi
cations suite ensured a stable voice ink with
{ground control centres or other aircraft during
Concerted action anywhere within the aircraft's
combat radius and altitude range.
The BWWB layout provided a major increase in
lift at high alpha, enhanced agility and greatly
increased internal volume available for fuel, thus
extending range. The airframe was fairly light:
weight, utilising new high-strength titanium and
aluminium alloys and state-of-the-art manufac:
turing technologies, and was stressed for +9 G.
The adaptive wings with automatic leading edge
flaps provided a high lif/drag ratio and optimum
manoeuvrability. So did the statically unstable
layout and FBW controls.
The design stage was finally completed in
11980, and the OKB's experimental shop started
manufacturing three prototypes of the T-10S,
110-7, 10-8, T10-12, 10-14 and T10-16
Interceptor Prototypes.
The iirst prototype T-10S was actually the sev-
enth Su-27 prototype; hence it was designated
T10-7 (aka T10S-1; f/n 04-01). It was completed
inlate 1980; in March 1981 it was delivered to the
flight test facility in Zhukovskiy. Vladimir S.
Wyushin was appointed project test pilot, with R
G. Yasmarkov as engineer in charge. On 20th
April the T10-7 made its first flight, joining the
state acceptance trials programme soon atter:
wards, Thus the Su-27 as we know it was finally
born.
Outwardly the aircraft was not quite a pro-
Guction-standard Flanker, Being intended for
handling and performance testing, as well as for
verifying the ALSIF engines with the new
remote accessory gearboxes, the T10-7 lacked
armament and mission avionics, including radar;
hence it had a non-standard short conical
radome patterned on the early prototypes.
Unfortunately, the aircraft's career proved to be
briet. On 3rd September 1981 the T10-7 suffered
ctitical failure at the end of its 20th flight when
the fual tanks were nearly empty. Il'yushin
ejected safely not far from LIl's airfield and the
aircraft was totally destroyed by the impact, The
aircraft had logged only 19 hours 48 minutes’
total time since new.
Roprisal was switt: the T-108's project chiof
A.A. Kolchin was removed from oifice and
‘Yarmarkov was fired altogether. The ejection,
which was I'yushin’s first, was also to be his last
the pilot was grounded for ever (on the grounds
that ‘generals have no business to go flying)
In March 1981 KnAAPO completed its first
T-108 ~ the T10-12, aka T10S-2 (c/n unknown,
{in 04-03); this aircraft featured a representative
fire control system. V. P. Ivanov was appointed
‘engineerin charge. The T10-12 took to the air on.
27th November 1981 , piloted by OKB test pilot A
S. Komaroy. Unfortunately, the second aircraft
didn'tlast long either. On 23rd December 1981 it
crashed near the Belyy Omut test range, kiling
Komaroy; the forward fuselage broke up in max-
imum-speed flight (Mach 2.95) at high altitude.
The aircraft had logaed only 5 hours 36 minutes
total time since new.
This accident also had far-reaching conse-
quences for the OKB's management and the
programme. A.|.Knyshov was appointed the
T0's new project chief; until then he had
headed the OKB's branch office in Korso-
mol'sk-on-Amur and had contributed a lot to
the mastering of the Su-27 by KnAAPO. The
Aas
One of the first T-108 prototypes
(possibly the T10-7) is seon hore
Iman carly test ight. The
Unpainted fighter shows off the
distinctive tail stinger’, the new
wings tipped with missile rails,
the widely spaced vertical tails
with ventral fins and the torward-
rotracting nose gear unit. Note
uared-off fin caps typi
ly examples and the al:
‘metal nose fairing (no radar was
fittea),
«
‘Another very early T-10S parked
{in company with othor $u-27
prototypes. For want of a tactical
code the machine cannot be
identitied..58
a
‘The T10-15 (15 Blue’) with a
ground power unit parked
alongside. No pylons are fitted.
'Note the dark camouflage and
tho anteflutter booms on the
talls.
‘The T10-18 in light with pylons
fitted, The short radome is clearly
visible
Y
>
‘The 710-18 drops a load of
FAB-250M62 low-drag bombs
from M8D-3U6-68 multipio
lector racks fitted under the
wings and engine nacelles.
>>
‘The same aircraft fires an
'8-25.0F heavy unguided rocket.
A target dron
being hit by an AAM launched by
the T10-15.
‘Sukhol OKB's General Designer, Yevgeniy A.
Ivanov, was removed from office in late 1982 and
translerred to GosNll AS. Unable to bear this, he
passed away soon afterwards; deprived of the
possibility to engage in their favourite pursuit,
‘some people just die. In 1983 Mikhail P. Simonov
was appointed the new General Designer.
A further four Batch 4 aircraft were com-
pleted as ground test articles. The T10-8 (aka
108-0, fn 04-02) builtin 1982 and the T10-14
(fin 04-05) were static test airframes; the T10-16
(fin 04-04) was delivered to SIbNIA as the fatigue
test airframe.
ee
110-15, T10-17, T10-18, T10-19, T10-20,
710-21, 710-22, T10-23 and T10-27
Development Aircraft
In 1982 several more Su-27s builtin T-108 con-
figuration joined the state acceptance trials pro-
gramme. The first of these was the T10-15 (aptly
coded '15 Blue’, f/n 05-01), which was rolled out
in December 1981. Even before it first flew the
machine was subjected to modifications; the
modification work continued until June 1982,
which is why the T10-15's manutacture date is
2nd June 1982.
The first T-10S built to full production stan:
dard, the 110-17 ('17 Blue’, fin 06-02), look to the
air at Komsomol'sk-on-Amur/Dzemoi on 26th
May 1982 with Sukhoi OKB test pilot
A. |sakov at the controls: Nikolay F. Nikitin was
engineer in charge. In July lsakov began taxi
tests of the modified T10-15; this aircraft made its
fist fight at Zhukovskiy on 23rd July 1982. That
year the production plant manufactured five
more examples - the T10-18 (18 Blue’, fin 08-04),
the T10-19 ('19 Blue’, fn 05-04), the T10-20 (20
Blue’, c/n 36911005705, f/n 05-05), the T10-21
(21 Blue’, Yn 05-08) and the 710-22 ('22 Blue
Yin 06-05). For some obscure reason the
‘sequence numbers of the development aircraft
allocated by the OKB did not follow the produc.
aee eae eee
tion sequence. (Note: The cin is deciphered as
follows, 969 is a code for the factory (KRAAPO) ~
probably obtained by “playing around’ with the
plant's number, 126. 110 is anin-house product
code meaning ‘version 1 of the T-10'. The
remaining five digits are individual: 05705 means
Batch 5, assembled by team 7 (2), Sth aircraft in
the batch)
The T10-21 first flew on 8th August 1982 at
the hands of factory test pilot G. M, Matveyenko.
The T10-20 was first flown on 8th September by
G.N.Shapoval, another KnAAPO test pilot; he
also flew the T10-18 on 4th November and the
10-22 on 20th December. These aircraft and the
preceding T-108s looked almost like production-
standard Su-27s, featuring the fatter ogival
radomes, except that the dielectric fin caps were
lopped off horizontally: their shape was to
change before long,
17 Blue’ bore the brunt of the state accap-
tance trials programme, including live firing tr
als. This aircraft sported a non-standard paint
job: the pale blue forward fuselage contrasted
sharply with the deep biue of the wings, upper
fuselage, vertical tails and air intakes (a sort of
blue version of the US Air Force's Egypt One
camouflage?). Most aircraft wore a two-tone
greyish-blue camouflage, the two colours being
very similar.
‘The T10-18 was the frst Su-27 to be used in
the strike role, dropping free-fall boribs. This air
craftand the T10-22 were used to verity the defin-
itive version of the OEPS-27 optoelectronic
‘
‘Three views of the T10-17
development aircraft (17 Blue?)
show off its non-standard colour
‘Scheme and a full load of inert
59saad
Head-on view of the T10-17 as it deploys the
airbrake to keep formation with the camera ship.
aad
‘The T10-17 fires its builtin cannon.
a<
‘The T10-18 development aireratt (18 Bluo}) had a
light blue colour scheme, Note that the fin caps
‘re white but the radome Is green.
4
‘The T10-18 with a full load of bombs.
“
Tost plot Viktor Chirkin (here In the ran
Colone!) flew the T10-17 and 710-18; he eventu
rose to Major General.o
a
‘The T10-20 (20 Blue’) as
originally flown.
«
‘Sukhol OKB test pilots with Maj.
Gen. Vladimir S. yushin in the
middle
Nikolay F. Sadovnikov in the cockpit of one of the
pre-production $u.27s.
argeting system with the Ts
ne 710-20 and the T10
ing out the ef
groups of fighters.
Stage A of the joint state acceptance trials
npleted on 21st August
1983; in the course of three years and nine
months the ten aircraft involved (the 710-3, T10
4, T105, T10-7, T10-9, T10-10, 110-11, 710-12,
710-18 and T10-17) made a total of 1,420 test
flights. Stage B of the trials involving production
standard aircraft only began inthe second half of
1983; it included verification of the mission
avionies suite as a whole and live weapons trials.
In 1983 KnAAPO manufactured five more
iction examples used in the state accep-
tance trials programme — the T10-23 (23 Blue
fin 06-02), the T10-24 ('24 Blue’, tin 07-01), the
T10-25 (25 Blue’, f/n 06-02), the T10-
Blue’, {in 07-02) and the T10-27 (27 Blue’, t/n
06.01). These aircraft were also used
00 processor: also,
were used for check
yncerted action by
‘The T10-22 (22 Blue’) in the
satellite shelter at Zhukovskly
’
was successtully c
(26>
‘Tho 110-22 with the radome
hinged open for access to the
radar set. The radome was
actually green but appears red
‘due to colour layer deterioration
‘on aged Soviet colour film. Note
the hand-S-ar putea să vă placă și