You have been constantly saying that smaller frontal CSA = less fuel/less place inside for anything.
And i say that is utter BS, as i proven with Flanker example. Flanker has greater frontal CSA, yet it carrier less fuel and none weapons inside. PAK FA carriers weapons inside, has more fuel AND smaller front CSA. But i give up, you will just row to infinite and ignore the point.
Listen up. Listen good. I was comparing it to the F-22, I was then pointing out what the PAK-FA designers “gave-up” by going the direction they did. Nothing comes for free, and the PAK-FAs relatively lower frontal CSA is no different. Unless you think taking the PAK-FA and deepening the fuselage would result in a lower internal volume?
Blankly comparing to the Flanker is misleading – you need to understand the context of the designs to do that – if you don’t have the depth of knowledge to do that, then defer to those that do. The Su-27 was designed with a more pronounced forebody reducing into a thinner fuselage for a reason, it was the optimum aerodynamic concept given the data at the time – they didn’t have moving LERXs and didn’t have TVC to aid elevator authority, so aimed to produce as much lift from the forebody contour to the fuselage as possible. If Sukhoi wanted to put more fuel in the Flanker, they would have been compromising their aerodynamic platform.
This is the same reason as the early MiG-29 had no pronounced “spine” – later, MiG realised that the range was too compromised and that the aerodynamic platform should be compromised slightly to improve fuel capacity. Hence, the spine was added.
Sign In
