The lightning didn’t spend much time at high altitude. Turbofans suffer less in the climb phase and the loss of a small percentage at high altitude compared to the turbojet matters very little in the end.
If you post new pictures to keep the original intent of the thread going, I’d be much appreciative.
It reminds me of the older Cobras that carried a light caliber turret.
This thread is for news not opinions. Use the other thread to debate facts.
To be more precise, there are 2 old guys that you really should not touch, the other guy is Mig23xxx. These two “know all, no fault” guys belong to another planet.
Please do not cheerlead. We are familiar with both individuals and at times they have caused problems because of the language barrier. We don’t need to drag up archived nightmares. With only 3 total posts don’t leave us with the impression you simply joined the forum to cheerlead. 🙁
You do realize the orders for Su-35 are dictated by engine production limitations more than budget concerns. They will not hot rod Al-31in any form, even it’s new 117 offshoots. Su-35 has a big problem with complexity and that is going to be its vulnerable heel. The Typhoon and Rafale will always out number it and they have a plethora of spare parts. Russian aviation doesn’t enjoy much in the way of spare parts.
As for the raw energy delta, the Eurofighters begin with lighter relative airframes. They carry the big external fuel tanks so that they can dump them in an emergency. They also use a2a missiles more potent than the problem riddled R77. Battle proven missiles. What is the last proven Russian aam, R27?
Be careful how you compare things, the Su-35 is largely a paper tiger at this point while the Eurocanards you downplay are both deployed in numbers and used in the real world.
EJ 200 and M-88 are rated at their public specifications, which can be exceeded in wartime. The Rafale can essentially hot rod the motors at least 10% more than the published specs by using overrides. I don’t think Typhoon allows the pilot to do so. But it has always been the case that both engines were measured conservatively.
The Al-31 is a well understood engine by intelligence experts. You don’t override the baseline Al-31 settings and for all it’s ruggedness in maneuvers it requires much more hands on maintenance. It also breaks when it is abused.
Your pm inbox was full so I’ll just say it here.
Very nice work. Please continue to share. 🙂
Mig-33
It was a good looking bird until NASA screwed it up.
Interesting. Never heard of such “steam” system before. Are there any startup vids or Pics on this?
I have read that the Al-31’s use electric start, which wouldn’t explain the steam. It’s normal for a puff of steam out the tail as the condensate is pushed out on startup. It’s pretty easy to see the smoke from a cartridge start.
The video looks like a puff of steam. The stab APU units look like rat (forced air turbines) generators and should vent further back while in flight, but should be stationary on the ground. It’s too clean to be cartridges, too dirty to be electric or pneumatic, so I’m leaning towards a steam system. Probably no different than what the Flanker uses in cold weather.
I hope they remove the Argentine posts to their relative threads, too.
Any of the types I worked on in my career, ie.
VULCAN B2
NIMROD MR.2
BUCCANEER S.2
Sounds like you had an enchanted experience.
T-50 is in between the sizes of MiG-29 and Su-27. It enjoys much larger engines than an Su-27, internalized weapons, integrated ECCM, is visually tougher to spot, integrates electro optical sensors all around it, and is stealth. Not bad for a smaller package.