LolekI have a question – considering all new material that have come up recently on the topic of Lavi, has anyone come across any recent technical drawings of this marvelous plane? It was a huge disappointment for me that mr. Golan did not attach any detailed 3-views in his book. I know that some of the original drawings were made available to Bekim, who was a poster on this forum some time ago. He was making a custom model of Lavi https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=13162 (he stopped making updates some time ago, anybody knows what happened to his project?). Unfortunately, he posted only a fragmentary pictures, like the one below:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260969[/ATTACH]
Despite the fact that I have been looking for accurate Lavi drawings for a few years now, the best thing I’ve found is an old drawing from some Russian source (unfortunately it is only a side view), about which accuracy I’m a bit suspicious :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]260970[/ATTACH]
If anybody has something better, I would be grateful. It is quite surprising to me that 30 years after cancellation of the project, even as basic thing as technical drawing is still impossible to find.
LolekThe “problem” of looking at performance charts too closely, is that advantages are not just about performance such as speed, turning, acceleration etc. The most important advantage was getting engines in the F-14 that were not prone to violent engine stall, departure and the airplane crashing. The new engine was vital in improving the F-14s safety record.
Of course, I agree with you that any type of TF-30 replacement was a huge upgrade both in terms of handling and safety. However, from the very beginning the A variant was viewed as an intermediate one, as the F401-PW-P400 upgrade was viewed as the definitive solution, mainly due to the much more appropriate thrust. Here is a graph of the planned improvement of the E-M parameters from the book by J.P. Stevenson (allegedly this book caused a bit of panic in Grumman, as nobody knew how the author got access to the published materials):
As it can be seen, the differences between the F-14A and original F-14B powered by F401-PW-P400 are actually much bigger than the ones observed on the E-M diagram of A and D versions. This was one of the reasons why I was initially surprised with so small differences between A and D.
Also comparing the F-14 to the F-16 (or the MiG-21, MiG 29) is a apples to oranges comparison. Interesting perhaps, but a limited exercise. Only the Tomcat was designed as a fleet air defense fighter
I would say yes and no. While the essence of the Tomcat was AWG-9/AIM-54 combination, designed strictly as a tool for fleet defense, the “other fighter roles” were viewed as equally important and were clearly stated in the VFX requirements (one of the reasons why F-111B was abandoned). Here are some quotes from the memorandum authored by Admiral Thomas Moorer, to the Secretary of the Navy (found in the Jon Lake book): “We must have a new fighter superior in air combat to present and postulated Soviet fighters, for close-in visual encounters and for stand-off all-weather conditions. In addition, the new fighter must be able to defeat the enemy air threats to naval forces: bombers and missiles”. And here is another one: “The F-14 is designed for air superiority, and is the weapon system that can destroy long-range, multiple-raid targets and missiles. It can destroy enemy escort fighters in close-in combat”. Of course, the resulting airframe, designed for such variety of missions, was a compromise and it did not excel in all those missions. Nevertheless, the F-14 was not just an interceptor, but also an air superiority platform by design. I agree that comparing F-16 to F-14 is still apples to oranges (F-15/Su-27 would be much more relevant), but on the other hand, the numbers for F-16 are the easiest to find and the F-16 itself is sort of reference point for other fighters in terms of maneuverability.
LolekI found this fragment in the book by David Gledhill, concerning the fuel tanks: “The internal fuel capacity was 5,600 kg, but two 1,500-litre tanks could be carried on the inboard pylons or replaced by two 2,250-litre tanks to supplement the fuel load, increasing the load to 7,250 kg. For ferry fit, two 1,500-litre external tanks could be fitted to the forward under-fuselage stations, although carrying and firing missiles in that fit became problematic.”
LolekA small necro-thread, but finally I was able to get my hands on the NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 performance manual and it seems that I’ve found a few answers to the original questions. It seems that most of the charts available for F-14D was given for maneuver devices not operating, while the E-M diagrams for F-14A were given for maneuver devices set on AUTO. When comparing a relevant E-M diagrams, a slight superiority of the F110-GE-400 equipped variant is clearly visible:
The numerical values are as follows:
height (m) 1524 3048 4572 7620 10668
F-14 A sustained 15,4 13,4 11,6 8,2 53 873 lbs, 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9, DI=42, Fuel=50%, G limit 6.5 G
instantaneous 21.3 19,3 17,6 14,5
F-14 D sustained 16,1 14,1 12,2 8,3 5,2 55 620lbs, 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9, DI=42, Fuel=50%, G limit 6.5G
instantaneous 21,8 19,8 18,1 15,1 11,1
For reference, here are the numbers for F-16 block 50+:
height (m) 0 1524 3048 4572 6096 7620 10668
F-16 block 50 sustained 21,5 19,1 16,6 14 11,7 9,6 6,2 22 000 lbs, DI=0, Fuel=50%
instantaneous 24,8 22,8 20,6 18,8 17,3 15,8 12,1
sustained 18,2 – 13,6 – 9,6 – – 26 000 lbs, DI=50, Fuel=50%
instantaneous 22,5 – 18,7 – 15,8 – –
The differences are not spectacular (around 0.5-0.6 deg/s for turn rates), but looking at the SEP isolines it is clear that the Super Tomcat is 100-200 feet/s ahead. The improvement from TF30 to F110 is therefore clear, although not as significant as it may seem at the first glance.
LolekAfter some additional search I found some Russian comparisons of Su-27 vs other fighters. Unfortunately, I have no idea for what fuel load were they calculated, the payloads were 2xR-73 and 2xR-27 for Su-27 and 4xSkyFlash and 2xAIM-9 for Tornado. The comparison chart for Su-27 vs ADV looks as follows:
At 200 meters, the sustained turn rate is slightly above 12 deg/s, while instantaneous is about 19.5 deg/s. So basically it looks quite credible, when compared with the data for IDS from the opening post, although no real improvement between IDS and ADV can be seen, what is a bit surprising (The data for IDS was given at 5000 feet, but for the drag index 0). I am also not sure how precise is the F.2 name, if it’s really the chart for this specific variant (which was not equipped with uprated Mk. 104 engine), or just a common name for all ADVs.
To provide some way of data verification, I also post the comparison of Su-27 vs F-15 (with 4xAIM-9) from the same source. Maybe someone who is more familiar with E-M diagrams of F-15 will be able to verify its correctness:
I
As for the configuration with 4 2250l tanks – I’m almost sure that it was never used in service. Also, the benefit of such configuration would be marginal, as even for the case of 2 Hinderburg tanks, the increase of drag was extremely high, drastically decreasing the operational ceiling. In fact, fuel from one of these tanks was just enough to offset the drag increase. I guess that if you put 4 such tanks, something like 2.5 of them would be wasted on offsetting the drag alone.
LolekTo compare the Gripen E to F-16 block 50:
Gripen E: Length 15.2m, Width 8.6m, Wing Area: 31 m2, empty weight 8,000kg, max internal fuel 3,400kg, MTOW 16,500kg*
F-16 bl50: Length 15.06m, Width 9.96m, Wing Area 27.9m2, empty weight 8,570kg, max internal fuel 3,200kg, MTOW 19,200kgGripen is has grown to be roughly in the same class as the F-16 block 50. The main concern I would have for the Gripen E is if the engine is powerful enough.
(of course F-16 block 60/70 has also grown compared to block 50….)
*(recent sources claim 17,000kg)
It really bothers me – where did that additional 1.1m of length go? When looking at the pictures of Gripen E, I really don’t see a change in proportions of the main fuselage in comparison to JAS-39C…and 1.1m is a lot, especially for such a small fighter.
LolekI don’t think there is a clear answer to the question whether retiring Tomcat was a good decision (yes, I’m biased). Everything comes down to the criteria you use to judge this decision. Capability-wise I would say that the decision was wrong, but from point of view of any other criteria I would say that Super Hornet was a good choice. Problem here is that it should be taken into account that F-14 Tomcat from the very beginning of the program was the most underfunded US fighter of its generation. It goes from the decision to stick with the interim TF30-412/414 engines, through cut funds on the F-14B and D upgrades, lack of AMRAAM integration to the fleet, air-to-ground weapon integration done at the lowest possible costs (although it still was one of the most cost-effective upgrades I’ve ever heard of), lack of HARM and Harpoon integration and many more. It is really hard to judge a fighter and its maintenance cost, when at the end a big part of the fleet consisted of 25-30 years old airframes, which did not receive any substantial upgrades during the course of their service. The F-14 Tomcat had a well-earned reputation of being a hangar queen, however it is often exaggerated and the reasons for that were not only on the airframe side. In fact the biggest problem during 80′ and 90′ were the Navy’s supply-chains, which had to support seven different types of airframes. In the later period, during the late 90′, the Tomcat’s FMC rates constantly grew up to the 95-98% levels (by Tom Cooper, ACIG forum info) and were in many cases higher than that of F/A-18 Hornet (although the numbers of manhours per hour of flight were still rather unspectacular). Also, during e.g. the Operation Iraqi Freedom the Tomcat’s squadrons delivered more sorties and weapons per aircraft than Hornet units stationed at the same carriers (comparison was made for VF-32 (F-14B), VFMA-115, VFA-37, and VFA-105 (F/A-18C)), showing that in the right conditions the Tomcats could operate in a very effective manner. As for the operating costs, the most troublesome elements of F-14A were AWG-9 radar and TF-30 engines, which were the first to be replaced. I would love to see here a comparison between operating costs of F-14A and F-14D during early 00′, it would give a lot of information concerning the influence of airframe age on the actual maintenance costs. As for the Tomcat 21 project, the plan was to produce 233 new airframes (39 mln per airframe) and upgrade 257 old ones, (21 mln per airframe) and the aircraft was supposed to have replaced nearly all analogues systems present in F-14A and D, so I would say that it is hard to precisely project, how the operating cost of such fleet would exactly look like. Nevertheless, the choice of Super Hornet (which to some degree resulted from appointment of Sean O’Keefe as a US Navy secretary) cannot be judged as a bad one. It is everything the Navy needs it to be – a very capable placeholder in a post-Cold War environment, which almost for sure came at a much lower price than planned Tomcat upgrades and additionally has a substantial export potential.
LolekS-37 aka Su-47 was a pariah after the wing flapping issue as speeds increased. Oscillating surfaces transmit energy throughout the rest of the plane and there was no cure. But it doesn’t mean a subsonic design wouldn’t have worked.
Do you have any sources? It is consistent with what I’ve found on secretprojects forum, but on the other hand I’ve never seen such claims from the official/book/articles sources.
LolekIt was to be larger than the MiG-29, to serve as a succes*sor to the long-range MiG-31 and MiG-31M interceptors, but also with the supermanoeu*vrability needed for close combat and the ability to fly air-to-ground missions as well. I
.
Its supposed to be a more agile version of the Mig 31. An interceptor. I dunno why they compared it to the su 27.
Its a larger plane vs Su-27, perhaps bar the two verticals.
So how can it possible have superior characteristics?
It may have a a little more fuel, but those engines are much larger, thus they drink more fuel.
That thing could never turn as good as the Flanker.
The MFI program was a direct competitor to ATF, in the same way as Su-27 was competitor to F-15. It was supposed to replace both Flanker and Fulcrum (although at the beginning the cancelled LFI was intended as its replacement). According to P. Butowski there were also plans for separate interceptor version. Therefore I don’t think that comparison to MiG-31 is a valid one. The three main cornerstones of MFI were super-maneuverability (controllable up to 60 AoA), supercruise and stealth (swierchmaniewrionnost, swierchzwukowaja kriejsierskaja skorost, stiels) as well as multirole capability. I would also not so easily discard the agility of 1.42, with its close-coupled layout, number of control surfaces (16) and high-lift features as well as its TWR, which for the NTOW (air-to-air role) is usually estimated in the range of ~1.25. It would also be a bit strange if the Soviets intended to replace the Flanker with plane of inferior characteristics, especially knowing their fixation on the maneuverability.
RCS is less than the Su-27, the minimum 3.1 m2, the maximum 13.1 m2.
The rest of the fighter characteristics superior to that of the Su-27 almost doubled.
Power 5 kW radar. Radar search Sector – 300 degrees (3 antennas). MiG detect the F-22 at a distance of ~ 100 km. MIG can wear down the F-22 is not engaging in battle, thanks to the long duration of the flight.
RCS – the only advantage of the F-22
I don’t mean to be offensive, but these values are impossible to verify, we don’t know the RCS of most of operational fighters, let alone of an experimental, highly classified plane which flew just 2 times. Also, where did you get data concerning the performance of N014 radar?
LolekWhich Air Force the MiG 1.42 / 1.44 MFI won the competition against the S 37 ? Since in the Soviet Union there were two Air Forces like: VVS (Air Force) that used the MiG 29 and Su 27 and the IA-PVO (Air Defense) that used the MiG 31 and Su 27, and these had been remained separated until 1998 in Russia. Not to mention the AV-MF (Naval Air Force) from Soviet and Russian Navy.
Another unusual fact in the Soviet Union had been the construction of prototypes of different project office for competition. The competition has been always decided about the evaluation of design phase and data has been obtained in research centers about the projects from different offices, in order to save resources and time with the construction of different prototypes from different offices.
The prototype S 37 made its maiden flight in 1997, but the former Soviet Union had apparently started the construction of the prototype before the collapse, then the S 37 could have not been the definitive version , since it were not equipped with new TVC engines or even radar, instead the S 37 has been equipped with D30F6 engines without TVC from MiG 31.
The Sukhoi had been trialed the Su 27 equipped with a flat nozzles engine with TVC 2D in 1989 , this test were made in order to collect data for the program of a 5th Generation fighter in which the S 37 would have been also part.
It seems that the S 37 were built with the purpose of evaluating of new technologies and to develop the FBW system of this 5th Generation fighter that would be more aerodynamically unstable than the T 10 / Su 27, as well as it should reach speeds and altitudes from MiG 31 .
Just as possible question could be that S 37 has been equipped with the forward swept wings because this 5th Generation fighter would have this aerodynamic configuration, otherwise it were adopted in order to obtain a more aerodynamically unstable aircraft to perform tests without exposing the aerodynamic configuration of this 5th Generation fighter?
While the MiG 1.44 MFI has been equipped with new TVC Al 41 engines , as well as a new PESA N014 radar, otherwise the program of the S 37 in 1997 would have been more outdated since it were not equipped with new TVC engine or even with radar.
Because of these fact there are several interpretations that MiG 1.44 MFI would have been chosen by the Soviet Union, but if the Soviet Union had been building the S 37 for trials, as well as the MiG 1.44 , so neither S 37 or MiG 1.44 could have been evaluated by the Soviet Union before the collapse of the same.
With regard that S 37 would be equipped with folding wings in fact there were several mentions about this, but there are no evidence to sustain it, as well as the mentions that S 37 had been equipped with D 30F11 engines with TVC, then as far as I know the S 37 has been equipped with the D 30F6 engines without TVC from MiG 31
Perhaps both the MiG 1.44 MFI and the S 37 could have been planned as ship-borne aircraft on the Soviet Navy aircraft carrier in the future, but both programs were finalized with the construction of a single prototype each type without any requirements from ship-borne aircraft.
In fact there are a lot of confusion about the S 37 program, since it has been changed to S 47 or Su 47 after the appearance of the Su 37 in the late 90s, but the Su 37 itself had been also redesignated as Su 35M in the early years 2000.
There is a certain lack of information in terms of the early history of both planes. The P. Butowski claim that on 19th June 1986 the MiG was appointed as responsible for both MFI and PFI programs. Meanwhile, the S-37 was ordered in 1983 as an experimental testbed, but its status was changed in 1988 to the next generation fighter program, as the results were very promising. On the other hand, Y. Gordon suggests that the MiG indeed won the competition (it is an interesting question for which type of air force it was conducted, but I guess that for VVS)and the S-37 was proceeded as a private venture by decision of M. Simonov. In both versions the S-37 received some limited funding from the government up to 1991. Both actually flown prototypes did not receive the intended radars (the first 1.44 prototype was just an aerodynamic testbed it was not intended to receive the N014 radar) and I am not sure if the Al-41F installed on the 1.44 received TVC, but I would bet that rather not.
Maximum speed of the Su-47 is less than M = 2, since the air intakes are not regulated 😉
I thought that the often cited 1.6M limit resulted from the limitations of the FSW design. It will be interesting to know what was the actually tested maximum speed of Su-47, allegedly it achieved 1.3M in 2000, but I have no idea if during later flights it wasn’t bested. By the way, does anybody know when the last flight of Su-47 took place? The newest in-flight photo I’ve seen was taken somewhere around 2009, did it fly after this date?
LolekNot a chance in a million. The first time I saw the prototype I was so unbelievably disappointed that MiG was so obviously unable to follow current trends in design. This thing looks outdated even next to an F-5. A terrible misunderstanding of where fighter design was going. By comparison, the ATF prototypes look like spaceships next to it. The PAK-fA is a lot better in that respect.
I think it is a bit of exaggeration. While the 1.44 certainly did not have a “stealthy look” of ATF candidates, it probably enjoyed significant advantage in terms of kinematics over the Fulcrum/Flanker generation fighters, what is an achievement itself. I’ve always wondered if the Russian designers had (or at least believed so) an ace up theirs sleeve in terms of stealth, as both MFI competitors (1.44 and Su-47) did not have any special stealth features except from weapon bays. However, looking at the rather conventional approach to stealth in T-50 it may seem that during 80’/90′ they simply underestimated its importance.
LolekI repeat once again, the Su-47 – Marine fighter-interceptor. The Air Forces of the USSR bought MiG-35 (1.42). Mikhail Simonov suggested project fighter for fleet to the aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk pr.1143.7
I have no idea where did it come from. The S-32/37 program was a proposal for the RuAF MFI competition and while the MiG 1.42 was determined to be the winner, nevertheless the S-37 was still to some extent financed by RuAF as an experimental program up to 1991. After 1991 the funding was cut and S-37 proceeded as a private venture, but at this point the design was already frozen. At no point the program was connected to the Russian Navy. It is obvious that Sukhoi was looking for additional funds and was trying to sell it to other potential users but saying that it was intended and designed as Marine fighter is simply wrong.
– And I do not see. But it’s there … :very_drunk:
Well, let’s agree to disagree.
LolekEyewitnesses claim that the only example of the Su-47 has a folding wing.
Well, even in some books e.g. by Y. Gordon there were some claims of such feature, however most of them dates back to the early days just after presentation of the plane. If you take a look at any photo of the Su-47 there are no signs of folding wing mechanism.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250551[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250552[/ATTACH]
LolekWell thanks for that!
The flat nozzle was never added to the plane, but where the folding wings (I presume for use on the carriers) incorporated on the plane? Has the Su-47 actually been flying with folding wings all this time?
IIRC both features were presented in the form of a model in 1996, although none of them was applied in the actual demonstrator.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250531[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]250532[/ATTACH]
I found the folding wing feature a bit questionable in the light of stress problems of the wings. Incorporating of such mechanism would be extremely hard.
LolekWhile the discussion is certainly very interesting I think we got quite far from the original subject. On the Secret Projects forum I found a following quote (from anonymous source on Russian forum):”The most important problem of this ******* is not weight, but jolting. The matter is that this (FSW) scheme has a congenital defect which no one can get rid of. In a break point of a forward edge very strong vortices form which descend from the left and right consoles approximately in chessboard order. Frequency and intensity of these vortices makes flight on this pepelatz (notorious alien spaceship from soviet movie Kin-Dza-Dza) reminds driving a oxcart on a stone blocks. Americans have tried it on the X – 29 and have spat upon this scheme (and informed the whole world about these problems). But Russians have their own pride,<…>. So we have what we have. Wing fuel tanks have continuous leaks – they have to use pans to collect it”. Also, it was mentioned that the plane itself was limited to 5G due to problems with excessive loads on the airframe. Does anybody have any information whenever these claims are true?
Sign In
