The ILyushin IL-78 is also the largest aircraft ever designed for aerial fire-fighting, and is considered the aerial fire-fighting supertanker of choice throughout much of the world because of its ability to carry an 18,000 gallon payload of liquid or fire-retardant,

What about the the Evergreen Boeing 747 tankers?

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/gallery.html

I’m not sure about the last comment. Turbofans have probably more inertia, but at the same time the fan does actual physical work, so is slowed down.
When looking at large bypass turbofans at airports, you recognize that engines slow down considerable within a time frame of one minute.
Anyways, the N1/N2 speed over time after fuel cut off would look like a 1/x function: huge speed loss in the beginning, and a longer time with some residual shaft rotation.

1/x: http://www.matheplanet.com/matheplanet/nuke/html/uploads/6/7723_1_3.jpg

Probablyright, but it was just that I recalled reading yeeears ago that the powerplants on the Boeing 747-400 take up to 2 minutes to spool down – which would be useful in asymetric flight?:confused:

What’s the spooling down time of a RR Pegasus – and how does it effect the crew escape time of the Harrier while in the hover stage of flight?

I’m presuming of course, that the spooling down time of a tubofan increases in parallel with the increase in the By-pass ratio…?

this is from a conversation elsewhere with Commodore BJ in another thread.

we’re more interested in which is more financially economical in operations in the RuAF.. the MiG31 or the Su-30.

I argue that the MiG-31 is a larger, heavier machine with more complicated components (like its engines), is more fuel hungry, etc.

he argues its a simpler machine since it has a narrower tasks and should be cheaper to operate.

thoughts

I bet the Su-30 is no comparison in terms of maintenance. IIRC many MiG-31s have been removed from service to provide parts for the most airworthy examples.

The Su-30 is still in production and still been exported to customers. Just as vital, the AL-31 powerplant is not only in use by the Su-30, but is also used on the Chinese J-10, the Chinese having recently ordered another 100 examples. It’s always easier to maintain in service an aircraft type and its powerplant which is still in production, as opposed to an aircraft that has not been in production in over 20 years, and that includes its D-30 plant.

although Russia is said to have at least three-quarters of them operational at the moment, though it was only a fifth in 1996.

I read recently that they had 130 still in service, so perhaps they could cannabilise the other 300 or so examples remaining, providing that they have ben well preserved from the Russian weather… unlike the RuAF MiG-29s.:confused:

By Growler you mean EW Hornet? Then that’s a dedicated platform for electronic warfare, and that’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Doesn’t the Growler also have a substantial A-A and A-G combat ability included?:confused:
I mean, it still has the APG-79 AESA on board and other combat systems?

Didn’t the Tu-144s use Aeroflot co-pilots?

They were.

“The production Su-27 (sometimes Su-27S, NATO designation ‘Flanker-B’) began to enter VVS operational service around 1984, although manufacturing difficulties kept it from appearing in strength until 1986.”

F-15s were been delivered to the USAF from the end of 1974, but there were no USAF front line units converted to the F-15 until the beginning of 1976. I should think it’s the same with the Su-27, examples of which were certainly delivered in 1984 but perhaps the first combat ready VVS units weren’t activated until 1986.

Don’t be naive. Eastern European countries were not accepted to NATO or EU so that they can do what they want and spoil the party. Membership in the elite club costs you something, that is understandable, the sooner you accept it the better. Buying western hardware is expected and partially enforced by political pressure. Slovakia chose to upgrade its MiGs as the cheapest interim solution, they were in the middle of financial reform and had other financial priorities. They will buy western stuff sooner or later, so much is clear. (C-27Js were already chosen, although postponed due to financial crisis)

Nevertheless, a great portion of the hardware for the MiG-29AS/UBS upgrade was sourced from Bendix-King, Litton or BAe, AFAIK Russians only supplied MFDs and HUD and coordinated the works. Not exactly a Russian upgrade, if you ask me 😉

My point is that there is no legal, contractual reason within NATO membership which says that you can’t buy Russian aircraft for your air force, or at least that’s what I’m aware of, but you’re right, buying Russian could be frowned upon. Besides what aircraft could the Russians have offered the smaller cash strapped NATO members anyway, the Su-30MK (Su-30MKN – ‘N’ for NATO:diablo:)?