martinez[QUOTE=Sens;1341713]Not ashamed to cheat the people here. There is a good reason, why you do not give an English translation of the Russian text.
The thumbnail does show the range at a given height and a given outload and has nothing to do with a ferry-range or the fuel consumption during climb out.[QUOTE]
Sens, why do not you admit that you cant read nor understand russian !!! :D:D:D
martinez[QUOTE=Sens;1341713]Not ashamed to cheat the people here. There is a good reason, why you do not give an English translation of the Russian text.
The thumbnail does show the range at a given height and a given outload and has nothing to do with a ferry-range or the fuel consumption during climb out.[QUOTE]
Sens, why do not you admit that you cant read nor understand russian !!! :D:D:D
martinezTough words are no substitute for a lack of basic knowledge.
True, your words are waste of time, all important has been already written and marked red.
For the benefits other the other. I did use litre as given by OKB MiG.
The data are related to an optimum flight profile (speed/height) to achive max range.
For the benefits of others and especially Sens. Your data are just ball-park figures. Data describing optimum flight profile(speed/altitude) were taken from Mig-29A operational manual. All has been counted in, the fuel consumed during taxiing, take-off, landing manuever, .., as well as droping emptied ET. You all can read it there marked RED.
My last words here, take a look at this diagram showing optimal flight profile (clean) and compare…
martinezTough words are no substitute for a lack of basic knowledge.
True, your words are waste of time, all important has been already written and marked red.
For the benefits other the other. I did use litre as given by OKB MiG.
The data are related to an optimum flight profile (speed/height) to achive max range.
For the benefits of others and especially Sens. Your data are just ball-park figures. Data describing optimum flight profile(speed/altitude) were taken from Mig-29A operational manual. All has been counted in, the fuel consumed during taxiing, take-off, landing manuever, .., as well as droping emptied ET. You all can read it there marked RED.
My last words here, take a look at this diagram showing optimal flight profile (clean) and compare…
martinezNo, it is more structurally efficient to carry internal fuel. GENERAL rule-of-thumb ….
Of course, I can hardly believe that someone is saying exact the opposite. Not to mention ETs waste space and external weight normally used by missiles/bombs. They restrict aircrafts from pulling g-loads what is also related to less lift and add even more drag than missile loads in subsonic and are often not cleared for supersonic flight(due to strenght limits) where drag decreases considerably.
The Flanker, at least from my perspective, is clearly a good example that is makes more sense to make the basic airframe smaller and carry drop tanks, than to put it all internal and increase the airframe’s size. ..
From the most valuable feature of the Flanker you made a drawback in your perspective, that`s a retrogressive thinking.:) Airframe size wasn`t increased due to internal fuel required, but the blended wing/body design allowed large amout of fuel to be carried internally. See the difference? They increase aiframe size putting conformal fuel tanks on F-15, F16, bcs of insufficient aiframe volume. That`s a halfway solution.
And putting a pyloned missile in the middle will give you a nice drag spike in transonic. The solution of the F-14 is very clever. With the AIM-54 it doesn’t really work, but that is a huge missile. With AIM-7 the added drag should be minimal. ..
Generally, the flow between Flanker/Fulcrum engine nacelles is highly disturbed and turbolent, therefore putting a missile “in the middle” shouldn`t trouble you in term of increased drag. The problem is safe missile separation and launch from the carrier during maneuvers (possitive/negative g-loads, various speeds, angle of banks). This is something I`ve always wondered about those semirecessed attachment solutions. Are not there any launch limitation at all? For example the Phoenix and Sparrow on the F-14.
The soviet document evaluating F-14A Tomcat includes a diagram showing drag increments of four Aim-7 Sparrow missiles attached semirecessed to fuselage hardpoints. To me it is a bit disappointing. You can judge and compare it to similar diagrams of missile attached to pylons for Mig-21,23,29.
Some people do never learn, do they?
MiG-29A
4365 l = 1500 km clean gives 2,91 l per km
4365 l + 1500 l = 5865 l = 2100 km gives 2,79 l per km
1500 l does add 600 km, that gives 2,5 l per kmThe data are from OKB MiG (pp 421-443)….
True, some people never learn. So, with 1500l tank attached the fuel consumption is even less. 😀 What kind of calculation method is this anyway? This happens when people quote ball-park figures from lamer books. I marked red what you need to learn. For fuel density, use value 0.755kg/dm3.
martinezNo, it is more structurally efficient to carry internal fuel. GENERAL rule-of-thumb ….
Of course, I can hardly believe that someone is saying exact the opposite. Not to mention ETs waste space and external weight normally used by missiles/bombs. They restrict aircrafts from pulling g-loads what is also related to less lift and add even more drag than missile loads in subsonic and are often not cleared for supersonic flight(due to strenght limits) where drag decreases considerably.
The Flanker, at least from my perspective, is clearly a good example that is makes more sense to make the basic airframe smaller and carry drop tanks, than to put it all internal and increase the airframe’s size. ..
From the most valuable feature of the Flanker you made a drawback in your perspective, that`s a retrogressive thinking.:) Airframe size wasn`t increased due to internal fuel required, but the blended wing/body design allowed large amout of fuel to be carried internally. See the difference? They increase aiframe size putting conformal fuel tanks on F-15, F16, bcs of insufficient aiframe volume. That`s a halfway solution.
And putting a pyloned missile in the middle will give you a nice drag spike in transonic. The solution of the F-14 is very clever. With the AIM-54 it doesn’t really work, but that is a huge missile. With AIM-7 the added drag should be minimal. ..
Generally, the flow between Flanker/Fulcrum engine nacelles is highly disturbed and turbolent, therefore putting a missile “in the middle” shouldn`t trouble you in term of increased drag. The problem is safe missile separation and launch from the carrier during maneuvers (possitive/negative g-loads, various speeds, angle of banks). This is something I`ve always wondered about those semirecessed attachment solutions. Are not there any launch limitation at all? For example the Phoenix and Sparrow on the F-14.
The soviet document evaluating F-14A Tomcat includes a diagram showing drag increments of four Aim-7 Sparrow missiles attached semirecessed to fuselage hardpoints. To me it is a bit disappointing. You can judge and compare it to similar diagrams of missile attached to pylons for Mig-21,23,29.
Some people do never learn, do they?
MiG-29A
4365 l = 1500 km clean gives 2,91 l per km
4365 l + 1500 l = 5865 l = 2100 km gives 2,79 l per km
1500 l does add 600 km, that gives 2,5 l per kmThe data are from OKB MiG (pp 421-443)….
True, some people never learn. So, with 1500l tank attached the fuel consumption is even less. 😀 What kind of calculation method is this anyway? This happens when people quote ball-park figures from lamer books. I marked red what you need to learn. For fuel density, use value 0.755kg/dm3.
martinezSome corrections and enhancements…..:) , it is taken from aircraft operational manuals including allowed ETs combinations.
MiG-21MF
1xPTB490L (130-gallon) centerline
2xPTB490L (130-gallon) u/w tanks
3xPTB490L (130-gallon) centerline + u/w tanks
1xPTB-800L (210-gallon) centerline tank
1xPTB-800L (210-gallon)+2xPTB490L (130-gallon) u/w tanks
MiG-23MF/ML/BN
1xPTB-800L (210-gallon) centerline tank
2xPTB-800L (210-gallon) u/w tanks
3xPTB-800L (210-gallon) centerline + u/w tanks
…..
Su-7BM
2xPTB-600L (158-gallon) centerline tanks
4xPTB-600L (158-gallon) centerline + u/w tanks
Su-22
2xPTB-800L (210-gallon) centerline tanks
2xPTB-1150L (305-gallon) centerline tanks
4xPTB-800L (210-gallon) centerline + u/w tanks
Su-25
2xPTB-800L (210-gallon) u/w tanks
4xPTB-800L (210-gallon) u/w tanks
P.S. I;m curious, who is using the 1300L tank with the Mig-21MF?
martinezThanks, it’s nice to get that confirmed. The MiG-21 operator’s manual must count as a bulletproof source. 😀 However, have never seen this combination used. Somebody told me the 800 liter tank wasn’t popular because it made the MiG-21 handle badly.
Which version of the MiG-21 is that manual for, the MF or the bis?
from translated original:
– Samoljot Mig-21MF, kniga II, Rukovodstvo po ekspluatacii i technicheskomu obsluzhivaniju – aviacionnoje vooruzhenie
martinez265 gallons (US) = 1000 liter
There is a 1000 liter centerline tank for the MiG-21?
no such centerline fuel tank ever existed in common operational service with the mig-21.
This is what I have observerd and seems to be in general operational use:
MiG-21 tanks
490 liter tanks on wings and/or centerline
800 liter tank on centerlineCombos
2×490 liter
3×490 liter
I have never seen this combination carried: 2×490 liter + 1×800 liter
This combination is possible indeed. check mig-21 manuals below..
martinezThanks for your reply, mate. Thats some interesting info. And I hope you get that paint working some day cuz black Fullbacks woud look totally mean :diablo:
Btw Im a bit surprised Rus hasnt managed to produce RCS reducing paint yet. The Yanks must have had it for a decade by now?
It doesnt matter what kind of pigment color you use on an aircraft, e.g. blue, green, red, yellow, black, white. The dull grey is used only to reduce optical visibility, whereas the RAM layer is underneath the top coat.
Btw. Russians have quite long history of researching RAM paints, afaik it started in early eighties. Probably they found them not as benefical when applied on aircrafts not designed as stealth from the beginning and I do not think Russian would ever accept an aircraft RAM paint into operational service which you I can’t walk on with a standard military shoes. :diablo: There is also an article about OKB MIG ram paint research, written in Russian. Try to find it using rambler.ru
martinezI shouldn’t have used the term “limited” because F-15A/B/C/D/E (or any other version) does not have a flight control computer that “limits” how many Gs can be pulled (F-15 has a stability augmentation system but it doesn’t perform the limiting function of a FBW flight control computer). F-15A/B/C/D were designed for +7.33 Gs and -2.5 Gs for a training/ACM/ferry mission mix totaling 4000 flight hours service life (the E was beefed up to +9.0 and -3.0 Gs). If the pilot exceeds those limits, and there is nothing to prevent him from doing so, the maintenance manuals require the airplane to be grounded for an extensive “over G” inspection. The Wing Commander and Commander of Maintenance do not like for this to happen often because it reflects on their performance and is directly reportable to HQ Air Force as a poor Mission Capability rate under their command.
Do they proceed with that extensive “over G” inspection even if leveling didn`t show any “over G” damage?
Hmm, I always thought the later F-15E has a digital FBW….
martinezLook closely, they are still there, relocated a bit more to the west,
in revetments around the two HAS
The MiG-21 captured in the older Google Earth imagery were since relocated at Campia Turzii AB.
A single IAR-93MB #214 was, and still is near the hangar at Timisoara
Googeler, do you know a web site there in Romania related to military plane spotting?
martinezDo you moonlight as a spin-doctor? :diablo: (Just messin’ with ya.) You come across as though you believe keyboard warriors of any stripe know more on the subject than the people actually building and flying the aircraft. You don’t see a problem with that?
Gotcha, speaking of spin-doctors, how many of them are working, flying in USAF? You don’t see a problem with that?
There is one on this video…:D 😀
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/usaf-pilot-red-flag-2/1408418112/?icid=VIDURVNWS11
martinezI feel that is my duty to say if i found some other data..or discovered some other
sources.About name from first page of passport this will probably remain mistery to me why
it calls this plane SM..
SVETO, once again take a picture of the cockpit, please. 😉 Could you post the hires photo to me via PM?
martinez” I must to say something “hard”.
Sorry, if it was too strong for you….
..
I;m not angry with you, do not worry…;)
check your PM
Sign In
