AndraxxusYou have to think about it…B-52 carries 100 000 kg of ordnance.
“Bombs: Approximately 70,000 lb (31,500 kg) mixed ordnance; bombs, mines, missiles, in various configurations” says wikipedia?
AndraxxusWhere would the fun be in that? Might leave him to stew for a while as he isn’t adding anything valuable to the debate beyond boring Russian RAH RAH RAH stuff.
Because its pointless to discuss such things with him. His views are clearly beyond reasoning. Lets say Navy A and B;
Inventory;
-A has 5 warships, commissioned between 1969 and 1983, B has 16 warships, commissioned between 1987 and 2003
-A has 7 corvettes; commissioned between 1982 and 1989; B has 8 corvettes commissioned between 1980 (French Navy) and 2013
-A has 10 missile boats commissioned between 1976 and 1991; B has 27 missile boats commissioned between 1966 and 2010
-A has 1 submarine commissioned in 1990; B has 14 submarines commissioned between 1976 and 2007
Activity;
-Oldest warship of Navy A (713 Kerch) hasn’t left port since ossetia war (6 years). Oldest corvette of Navy B (F500 Bozcaada) was seen active in August 2012; Sailing outside regional waters to Somalia, escorting Turkish ship MV Dadalı).
Modernisation;
-Of 5 warships of Navy A, only 1 recieved new Kh-35 antiship missiles and electronics upgrade to support those.
-Of 16 warships of Navy B; 8 ships undergone major electronics upgrade and recieved integrated/modular combat system, new radars sets, and VLS launchers for 32 ESSM missiles; 2 ships replaced box launchers with VLS systems got electronic update for ESSM capability, 2 ships only got electronics update for ESSM capability.
-Excluding the oldest four submarines (which will be decommissioned as all 6 of Type 214 subs are introduced into service), Navy B’s next two oldest submarines recieved upgrades to Periscopes, Inertial navigation systems, ESM systems. Torpedo tubes will be replaced to be able to use most recent Mod6 variants of ADCAP torpedoes in 2011.
-Newest ship on entire Navy A is 13 years old. Newest ship in Navy B is 1 year old.
-Only submarine of Navy A is 14 years old. Newest submarine of Navy B is 6 years old.
-Navy A has only 3 ships and 2 submarines is on order. Navy B has 14 ships and 6 submarines on order.
For Navy A and B; there is nothing really to discuss. B has much numerous and newer units, more of its ships have undergone much more thorough uprgade programs. Judging from the activity in the past 5 years; Navy B had FAR more ships active in world waters*, conducted naval exercises at much greater scales*; translating to better training and readiness. Judging from new orders, age and activity of current ships; one can also conclude Navy B is much better economic condition.
I don’t think anyone with slightest brain activity would disagree about this analysis. However when we replace Navy A with “Russian Black Sea Fleet”, and Navy B with “Turkish Navy”, some people starting to blow gaskets, give bluescreens and immediately start Russia Strong!!! everything else is sh!t propoganda. Which starts to claim despite fewer and older ships, Navy A is turns out to be more modern and powerful, it has better economic situation despite every single evidence states otherwise etc etc etc.
(*2012 Efes Exercises coincided with increased tensions with Israel, Syria and Greece, petrol searching incidents at south of Cyprus, on going port visits from 2 of our frigates, routine patrols and NATO counter piracy missions; At one point we had around 65 ships deployed to seas at the same time.)
By the way, I am not Anti-Russian. I would debate Kuznetsov is the most effective carrier design ever, or Su-27 is possibly most maneuverable aircraft even today, or I will defend Russian Navy is the second most powerful navy in the world, but comparing Black Sea Fleet with Turkish Navy? Its really stupid and again, there is really nothing to discuss.
EDIT: Oh wait; I haven’t seen this one. Another comment showing the intellectual capacity knowledege base of the poster;
You know when German car gets older it become very expensive to maintain. There is very little chance those subs are properly maintained and practically zero evidence of updating today. This thing is beyond Turkey operational budget. There is no chance they can compete with 636.3 as Russia best minds are in Subs not in automotive sector.
-Speaking of cars, you know, a 6 year old German car would still be in an extended guarantee :stupid: You will possibly be shocked that first unit of borei class was in trials for 5 years.
-Speaking of proper maintance and excellency of Russian submarines; Only submarine of Russian Black Sea Fleet, Alrosa was inoperational from 1992 to 1996; It was overhauled in 1999, and in 2009 it broke down in middle of sea during mission. It had to be towed back to Severodvinsk for repairs. Nicely done. :eagerness: Other than TCG Yıldıray (which is the 3rd oldest Turkish sub btw) colliding with a merchant near cyprus 2 months ago; there is no reported accidents/breakdowns etc with entire Turkish submarine fleet for… god knows how many years? I don’t recall an incident since TCG Dumlupınar sank in 1953.
-There is no 636.3 in operational service with Russian Navy. For BSF, only the good old 877 boat Alrosa is in comission.
Andraxxus@Fedaykin, lets just agree with him, so that he can just STFU and we can move on with the on topic discussion.
AndraxxusTo get back on topic;
There is a reason why Turkish Navy is deploying to Black Sea; Back in the day, when Ottoman empire lost Crimea to Russian Empire, the Kaynarca treaty (which granted independence of Crimea Khanate from Ottoman Empire) and the following treaty signed in April 9 1783 when Crimean Khanate joined Russia states that Crimea belongs to Russian Empire and cannot declare its independence on its own, otherwise Crimea will be given back to Ottoman Empire. This treaty is still in effect according to international laws. In short, Crimea has no right to declare its independence without Turkey allowing it. If current Crimean goverment declares Independence, Turkey has the right to envoke Kaynarca treaty, and demand that Crimea be returned to Turkey.
You may say Crimea is just changing hands, but thats not the case; It HAS to declare its independence from Ukraine first, to join Russia. As declaring its independence will not be legal according to international laws, it simply can’t join Russia. Surely its a longshot to get involved, but Turkey also has responsibilty (again due to Kaynarca Treaty) to Tatar Turks present in Crimea. We are likely to use this treaty as bargaining chip in return for the rights of Tatar Turks; IF they are threatened. Increased military presence and overreaction to Russian aircraft (ordinary intercepts of Russian aircraft is now carried by squadrons of 8 F-16’s (http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/25938882.asp) instead of sending single aircraft), are simply to show we are taking matters seriously. Not we are interested to get involved in a military conflict.
AndraxxusTo add two little things to Fedaykin;
#1;
They cannot finalize the that cheap SAM deal with China for past year. this very simple example.
Some factual enlightenment: We wanted to buy S-400 at first, and Russians were reluctant to export it, and offered S-300PMU2 instead. After S-400 negotiation failed, we took offers from all competitive systems, with ultimate condition of full tech transfer in both missiles and radars/seekers. Only chinese allowed it, so they are chosen, not because they are cheap. Before this decision, US and other countries assumed we wouln’t do so because of NATO interoperability, but they proved wrong. Now they are reconsidering tech transfer. Obviously PAC-3 or PMU-2 etc are better systems and Turkey will benefit more from their tech transfers, so the deal with Chinese is on hold. In either case, missile system will be built/developed at Roketsan and Aselsan will build the interface required for NATO interoperability. Its not an economic problem like you think in your dream world, we are simply trying to get our hands on the best technology available to us; to serve as a basis of our domestic program.
#2; About SOM cruise missile; Its not only tested, but achieved IOC in 2012 and currently used on all new built F-16s, some of older F-16 blk30s and F-4E 2020s.
Also our “not advanced” missile is one of the two candidates of LO cruise missiles to be integrated into F-35; “On the 10th of May 2013, Lockheed Martin officially announced at the F-35 Industry Recognition Event during the IDEF tradeshow that the SOM missile will be certified and deployed on the F-35.” and “The SOM Missile is the first non-U.S. made weapon to use the Universal Armaments Interface (UAI). Accordingly, the SOM missile can be integrated onto any platform which uses UAI.”
Now, these off-topic issues are solved;
Just accept the fact that Turkey has modern up to date Submarines and leave us all in peace!
AndraxxusWe (Turkey) are too poor to operate 16 frigates, 8 corvettes, and 14 submarines, 5 LST in active service, yet we are currently constructing 1 25000 ton LHD, 1 LST, 1 frigate, 2 corvettes and 2 submarines, without decomissioning anything; for the next decade, we have, in total, 1 LHD, 2 LST, 10 frigates 4 corvettes and 6 submarines on order to be constructed at gölcük naval shipyards. But of course, our admirals and other military experts are must be very stupid, because JSR guy dictates we are simply too poor to operate our fleet… @Fedaykin and Bager1968. Simply don’t bother.
@JSR, if you are into pissing contest, With 112 ships in commission and 229077 tons total displacement, Turkish Navy has more vessels and displacement than the Russian Black Sea Fleet, plus the navies of all other Black Sea nations combined. Not only at Black Sea, Turkish Navy is also unrivaled at Aegean sea, and at Mediterranean if we exclude French and Italian navies.
Your comment about being “old” is also laughable since you are comparing with black sea fleet alone. Only modern ship in Russian Black Sea fleet is the Moskva, commissioned in 1983, oldest ship to be commissioned in Turkish Navy is TCG Yavuz, commissioned in 1987. While I love Russian ships, and I admire Russian Navy (sometimes even more than our own Navy) both of your points are nonsense.
Also, discussion about Turkey is pointless, as we have no will, necessity or benefit to get involved in Ukraine/Russia crisis. We will stand aside, and continue our trade relations with whoever is left in Crimea in the end. No need to anger/alienate either sides.
AndraxxusF-15 flight manual doesn’t have them. As F-4E manual also doesnt have them, perhaps McDonnel Douglas does not provide those? What F-15 manual has is “sustained level turns” diagrams for various payloads and weight. You can calculate the Ps for 1G from climb and acceleration diagrams?
AndraxxusYou can upload any free file sharing homepage or just send me by email and I will share via my mediafire account.
Ok, I will try this night or tomorrow. File is not on this computer.
It does not have tremendous but likely it has. If you check the first demo from 2008 in Farnborough you can see that in full AB turn the control surfaces act as brake. The F-22 applied airbraking to not overspeed and hold the speed for maxium performance turn. Impressive.
It was certainly not a max performance turn, because turns themselves were not impressive; IIRC, it was limited to 7Gs at that airshow. IIRC(#2), control surfaces were merely trying to control AOA for the negative stable F-22, can you post the video with exact timing?
I do not understant this comment because I never said the Su-27 and PAK-FA are sharign the same aerodynamic concept. It is obvious that they are not the same. The weapon bay makes totally different the whole airframe. I said that Su-27 legacy fighters (Su-30/33/35) has still the same concept as the great ascestor. Or I wanted to say and I was simply not 100% accurate when I used the “they still using” term. Of course it concerned only the Su-30/35 familiy. PAK-FA is a new story.
Ok I’ve misundestood then:D
Many times were mentioned other AC’s peformance in this thread. Does anybody has Ps envelope charts of any F-15 variant? The F-16CJ’s is fully available the link below, but I was never able to find more about F-15 than the followings.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226063[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]226064[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]226065[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]226066[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]226067[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]226068[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]226069[/ATTACH]
Those were the pages about F-15’s performance that I’ve previously uploaded to forum (from the F-15C and F-15E flight manuals)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226075[/ATTACH]
This is a page for F-15 from soviet aircraft description booklet, possibly obtained by espionage, showing drag and lift behaviour, and additive drag from 4xAIM-7s and 4xAIM-9s
Unfortunately manuals and that booklet are not on this computer :apologetic:
AndraxxusLol, yes it was 5 o’clock in the morning, a stupid error while in hurry :very_drunk: OOPS :apologetic: to re do it all;
5G= 996285 Newtons = 0,1 *1/2 *CL*(293*2)^2*78 Right?
That gives us Cl of 0,74 for an F-22 (flying empty not even 1kg of fuel payload or ammo, not even pilot) to pull 5Gs at M2.0 60000k feet. What kind of airfoil gives such Cl at M2.0? There maybe one; but not on 64Axxx; maybe a 8 series supercritical one can achieve this but IDK.. 0,74 = I don’t know about its scientific possibility, but none I’ve heard of. (This is talking about aerodynamic capability of pulling a turn, ignoring the thrust factor of sustaining it)On a more realistic (but overly optimistic) assumptions; F-22 on 50% fuel, 23800 kg weighing will fly in level at Cl = 0,174 (M2.0 at 60k feet) ; Its possible from lift POV, we have to calculate drag and thrust to determine if it can maintain level flight, and that is not a single line calculation. There will be too much drag, and thrust loss both due fixed inlet’s inefficiency at M2.0, and due to turbofan’s inefficiency at thin air at 60k feet. Yet F119 IS powerful, so its not so easy to comment on this one without running numbers.
To state the level optimism; MiG-29 reach ClMax=1.0 at M1.2; it has ClMax of only 0,5 at M2.0 Considering this, on a slightly more realistic analysis, While F-22 is capable of aerodynamically leveling at M2.0 60k conditions with 50% fuel; it wont be capable of pulling 5Gs, even if it had billion newtons of thrust.
Sorry to all about the misinformation I’ve provided :apologetic:
Really, I don’t think I’ve made any longshot claims about it’s performance, I’ve just posted what has been released by the F-22 SAR and observations by the test pilot. Here is the other comment Metz made about the Raptor’s climb profile (APA interview- I know… but the words are Metz’s)
No you didn’t, sorry if I got offensive; I dont think he lies too. What I am saying is, “F-22 can be good at climbing supersonic from S/L, but it’s “time/distance to climb” values would be even better if it also starts subsonic”. It doesn’t need to contradict with what he is saying. It can be interpreted in many ways; Maybe;
-he is saying supersonic high altitude climb of F-22 is so good that following Rutowski profile for low alt-subsonic part does not make meaningful difference; and I am saying “meaningful” is relative, there will be a difference)
-This means, F-22 has really poor subsonic SEP at S/L, that it doesnt make any difference if goes supersonic (I am sure thats not the case, LM guys do not live in caves)
-He says F-22 has better SEP at S/L supersonic (that is certainly not the case, required thrust for such behaviour at S/L is really astronomical)
-By “deck” he does not mean S/L but some altitude around 15-20k feet (but at that altitude F-15 can also follow supersonic climb profile equally well)
Though this thread is about F-35; I don’t think F-22’s performance comparison is completely off the topic by the way, feel free to comment on it. WHY? Lets say; F-22 turns out to have perfectly comperable performance to F-15C (which is the side of discussion I defending), than its O.K for F-35 to have comperable performance to F-16. If F-22 really moved a leap ahead in terms of kinematics (like F-15 vs F-4E) then anyone would question IF F-35’s kinematics are sufficient or not. This, in turn, will arise a new discussion -in another thread- to question IF T-50 will be sufficently better than Su-27; and its consequences;
In terms of kinematics, it this analysis says F-35 = F-16, or at least, there is a certain possibility to it; Again in terms of kinematics;
If F-22 = F-15; and T-50 > Su-27; I will question the necessity of such improvement on T-50.
If F-22 > F-15 and T-50 > Su-27; then I will declare F-35’s performance as insufficient compared to its relatives.
So that is not completely off-topic at all.
AndraxxusHere is L.M figures
Looking at FM data; a clean F-15E at 39000 lbs cannot even generate 1G lift to maintain level flight at M2.0 60k feet. That aircraft has 312 kg/m2 wing loading and 1,485 static T/W. And someone is telling F-22 can generate 5Gs with a) inferior T/W b) higher wing loading c) higher drag? All because of the insignificant features embedded in it? Let me be more scientific;
density of air at 60k feet = 0,1 kg/m3 IIRC; Speed of sound = 293 m/s
F-22 flying bare clean, empty = 19700 kg
5G= 996285 Newtons = 0,1 *1/2 *CL*293^2*78 Right?
That gives us Cl of 2,97 for an F-22 (flying empty not even 1kg of fuel payload or ammo, not even pilot) to pull 5Gs at M2.0 60000k feet. What kind of airfoil gives such Cl at M2.0? None. Not even a third of it. 2,97 = Thats a scientific impossibility.
On a more realistic (but overly optimistic) assumptions; F-22 on 50% fuel, 23800 kg weighing and a vastly exeggerated cl of 1.0 will give us, 1.43Gs, barely an ability to fly at 60k feet with (0,98 deg/s turn rate), provided engines could provide sufficient thrust.
To state the level optimism; MiG-29 reach ClMax=1.0 at M1.2; it has ClMax of only 0,5 at M2.0. Considering this, on a slightly more realistic analysis, F-22 is not even capable of aerodynamically leveling at M2.0 60k conditions with 50% fuel, even if it had billion newtons of thrust, let alone make a turn.
There used to be a post a f-16.net from an F-22 pilot DOZER (all his posts have been erased), ran into OPSEC issue. He had a story about accelerating in F-22 at low level. I wish it was still there. I’ve seen M 1.4 quoted at sea level but I would be very skeptical of that number. Metz may just have given the best answer for why F-22 climbs from supersonic on the deck :
F-22 Pilot Perspective.pdf 902KB Jan 04 2012 – DLIELC.edu
“The Raptor is always in a combat configuration, fully loaded and ready for war. The aircraft has no external stores, so drag remains low and Ps stays high. The specific excess power, or Ps, is a measure of the airplane’s ability to accelerate or climb at its current flight condition. Wing aerodynamics and overall drag are at a minimum near the design speed of 1.5 Mach at 40,000 feet. This airframe is actually at its best at supersonic speeds, with the best time to climb right off the deck. Conventional fighters have their best time to climb using a Rutowski climb profile. That is, they start with a subsonic climb to the tropopause (about 36,000 feet) and then perform a pushover to supersonic speed and climb supersonically from there. The Raptor can dispense with this complex profile and blast off supersonic from the deck. This machine just likes to go fast.”
Since this topic was about the excel modelling of F-35 aerodynamics; i would like to answer using that:
Like I’ve said its fully interactive that means I can also change engine thrust quite easily to show climb rates at various levels of thrust;
At 125 kN, logical climb profile is always subsonic, M0,85 to M0,9. By the way, According to my calculation, this also shows F-35 can supercruise just above M1.3 at 30k feet
At 200 kN, which is similar to F-35s 191.2 kN logical climb is still subsonic, but we can see the second apex forming at supersonic region; I think F-35 is actually a bad example because its supersonic performance is really BAD.
At 400 kN thrust, we can see SL climb is best at M0,9 and 30k climb is best at M1,5. So F-35 should start at M0,9 but at some point accelerate to ~M1,5 and continue climbing there. Note that 400kN thrust will enable F-35 to pass M1.5 at sea level.
800kN graph is the what is claimed to work better for F-22; Even at Sea level, we can see supersonic climb is just as good as subsonic one. So this F-35 can start climb at M1.2, accelerate while climbing to reach M1.55 and 30k feet at the same time.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226056[/ATTACH]
Just like the claimed 5G @60k feet graph, this is physical impossibility for F-22 to have that kind of climb profile (if you look at the numbers we are seeing 1200+ m/s climb rates). That is a wishful thinking, almost a child’s dream, however far from the physical reality.
I believe the guy is trying to say F-22 can go fast and be happy with it; That’s ok I can accept this. For other longshot claims; F-22 is just another plane. It has wings, engines etc etc. And bound by the physical laws just like other planes.
AndraxxusInteresting. I would somehow want to get my hands to its SEP graphs then 😀 There is a reason F-15 (or any other aircraft) climbs best in such way; while engine thrust stays mostly the same, incresed velocity steadily increases the available “power” due to Power =Force x speed; which increases climb rate. A large increase in drag at transonic/supersonic will automatically decrease available force, and drop the climb rate graph down. Despite less available “force” which is again steady after transonic drop, climb rate still increases. At sufficently high airspeeds it exceeds the subsonic one. subsonic climb is made at the “apex” before the wavedrag, and quickdive to “skip” the inefficient part, and continue climb at supersonic “apex” of the climb rate graph. This is not fully related to individual aircraft performance.
If F-22 is supposed to work best by going to supersonic at low alt, it needs to have very little wavedrag so that SEP not drops a little, or a huge thrust to provide a meaningful SEP at M1.3+. How fast F-22 can go at low altitude?
AndraxxusIts possible but then “That is fastest climb profile” should also apply to F-22 as “best climb rate is supersonic” also applies to all 4th gen fighters. Let me use this graph of MiG-29 as an example (uploaded for another topic some time ago);
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226050[/ATTACH]
As you see, its climb rate is much better at M1,7 compared to subsonic. So if I was flying at M0,8 and trying to reach high mach high altitude state on MiG-29, I would sharply dive accelerate to M1,5+ and then climb. If F-22 also has best climb rate supersonic, am I wrong to say diving would also be faster for F-22?
AndraxxusOf course. Let me explain myself like this: While Su-27 is regarded has having superior turning, comperable climb and inferior acceleration to F-15, no one says the difference is beyond comparison. Su-27 is better, but still comperable.
There are several areas where the F-22 improves over the F-15- first, the very large horizontal stabs help unload the wing, coupled with TVC, reduces trim drag (especially supersonic). Also, the use of TVC increases roll/ pitch rates by controlling trim while the tail is used for roll maneuvers. F-119 produces more thrust (proportionally) in relation to the F-100 at high altitudes. There is a definite improvement on the left side of the envelope due to combination of FBW, TVC, and relaxed stability. As far as climb, there have been comments that the climb profile for the F-22 differs from the F-15 in that it’s best climb rate is supersonic without the need to dive at 30,000 feet, accelerate to supersonic, then continue the climb. If you are speaking of sustained turns, it may not be substantially better, but there is not a lot of data to use for comparison other than the 3.7 sustained g at 30,000 feet for the F-22 KPP. (F-22 is at “full-full” F-15 clean/ ~6,000lbs fuel/pylons is around 3.2 g at mach .8 30,000 ft)
Going from same example I’ve made above, Su-27 also has negative stability (or lifting tail as Basher54321 says), it has very minimal trim drag at supersonic (for example at 10-11 km altitude from M1.3 to M1.7, less than 0,5 deg angle is required on stabilizers; be it clean or armed with 10 missiles). F-119 may produce high (156 kN) thrust, but F-22 is heavier resulting in very comperable T/W and lack of variable inlets result in inferior T/W at supersonic speeds. It has huge wing area for good maneuverability, but heavy weight drops its wing loading. Large wings create greater drag, dropping T/D ratio despite great thrust…. etc etc etc etc.
I am not trying to trash F-22 thats not my intention at all, but I have two points:
1- all the qualities you wrote, which are supposed to give F-22 a HUGE edge over 4th gen fighters is also present on a very known 4th gen fighter; good old Su-27.
2- all the qualitative advantages (low trim drag, proportionally much higher thrust, large lifting area, negative stability) did not give any advantage to Su-27 over F-15 at the supersonic realm.
So no, If F-22 will have kinematic advantages over legacy fighters, it won’t be a due to simple explainations like “its because it has X feature”.
Also whoever made the climb profile is misinformed; F-15 does not NEED to dive to go supersonic at 30k, if you look at the level flight envelopes of F-15E, it can go supersonic in level flight even when loaded with 4x AIM-9s, 12x Mk-82s, CFTs, centerline EFT, and Lantirn pod. However passing transonic regime as quickly as possible by diving is better for fuel efficiency, I am sure that applies to F-22 too. Going supersonic on level flight on an F-15 is problematic only around 55000 feet. As F-22 has similar service ceiling, its quite possible it will struggle too.
EDIT: Without exactly knowing F-22’s payload and speed at which it sustains 3,7G we cant compare. As F-15E manual was already open, I take a quick look at its sustained turns; it is 3,2Gs at M0,8 going to 3,9Gs at M0,95; drops at transonic than goes up to 4,3G at M1.65. Even when armed with 4 AIM-7s, its 4,2Gs at M1.6;
Andraxxus@molnibalage; I agree on your post, except for two things; 1- to be honest, I don’t think even F-22A has tremendous or decisive maneuvering or climb performance compared to basic F-15. 2- I wouldn’t call PAK-FA sharing same aerodynamic concept as Su-27; even at the first looks, it has proportionally very tiny wings, but a huge lifting body, and has “LE flaps” for that lifting body. I would call Su-27 a tailled delta, MKI a canard-tailled delta, but I don’t know what to call PAK-FA.
AndraxxusOh no-no – you can’t do that!
The fuselage will contribute, but nowhere nearly as much as an equivalent planform area of proper wing…
You are correct, but I think you misunderstood me. As you say, we can calculate the lift area from the overall span and chord first, and subtract the “inefficient” lifting area of the body. Or we can calculate wing lift, then body lift and add. However neither is necessary because it is as the obligatory stated, is already the effective wing area.
Take MiG-29 for example; its aerodynamic booklet states; 38,056m2 wing area; 11,36m wing span, and 3,768m mean effective chord. If we were supposed to calculate the total planform area, it is 42,8 m2.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226033[/ATTACH]
Like you said, we have to use a modifier to find the effective wing area. Booklet also states “Площадь налива = 4,71m2” I dont know exactly how this translates, but subtracting it from the planform area gives us the wing area first given. (As such, multiplier you stated would be 0,889 for the MiG-29) However, if I were to run analysis on MiG-29, I would be using the 38m2 wing area directly (which is also publicly available data) without bothering to span and chord. On F-35 460 ft2 wing area is published, so we don’t need to modify it further, it already is the effective wing area.
Not that relevant – the supplement gives me for 1 & 9
AIM-120 is DI = 0
AIM-9 is DI = 1
AIM-120 drag index is 0; because basic aircraft already includes two AIM-9P missiles. Removing wingtip AIM-9s subtracts 4 from the drag index. (A completely clean F-16 would have drag index of -1 (+7 basic aircraft DI, and 2x-4 removal of AIM-9s)
AIM-9M in the example has drag index of 1, because 16S210 launcher is not used for AIM-9M, LAU-129 launcher has drag index of 1. AIM-9M and AIM-9P has both same drag indexes, and latter is included in basic aircraft configuration.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226041[/ATTACH]
That is truly an Impressive analysis – if only we could get the actual Cd for frontal area. I would surmise any advantage the F-16 would have is due to lower airframe drag under DI50.
Of course; and while single engined, total engine output of F-35 actually exceeds Typhoon or MiG-35. Its drag is its achilles’ heel.
Slight correction – Only if using the 600s – with the 370s the pylons are integral to the tank (and jettison with it) and the pylon weight / DI is included with the tank figure.
Yep, you are right.
Can you share the original Excel table? I’m a mechanical engineer and I wish to check how you calculated exactly.
Uh, unfortunately no; I tried, but i couldn’t upload an .xls file as an attachment. I tried to convert into .doc but as you may guess it only copied the numbers, not the formulas.
Perhaps I could write it all here so you could replicate it your own?
A= Mach numbers, starting from 0,2 then following “=A7+0,05” formula downwards;
B= Clmax for given Mach number
C= Cdmax
D= Cx0 level
E= Cd inlet
F= cd Drag Index (has some formulas inside, but not correctly implemented)
G= increase of Cx0 at 30k
H= Airspeed in m/s formula is “A7*1236/3,6”
I= Available G =1,2/2*B7*AN7*H7^2/9,8184/AO7 (AN column is wing area, AO column is weight)
J= Lateral G =(I7^2-1)^0,5
K= Instantenious turn rate =H7*360/(H7^2/(J7*9,81)*2*PI())
L= Level flight drag =1,2/2*D7*AN7*H7^2+1,2/2*E7*3*H7^2
M= Dynamic thrust =AR7*AP7 (AR column is thrust, AP column is thrust mach modifiers)
N= Excess thrust =M7-L7
O= Sea level climb rate =N7*H7/AO7/9,81
P= SL accel =N7/AO7
Q= SL Sustainable Cd =(M7-(1,2/2*E7*3*H7^2))*2/1,2/H7^2/AN8
R= Sustained Cl =IF(Q7C7;B7;(B7/1,8)+(B7-(B7/1,8))*(Q7-D7)/(C7-D7))) (First IF checks whether sustainable drag is greater than level flight drag, returns 0 if not; Second IF checks whether sustainable drag is greater than max drag (in order to prevent returning a Cl higher than Clmax) returns cl max if true, rest is the formula that tries to onlay the cd graph)
S= Sustained G =1,2/2*R7*AN7*H7^2/9,8184/AO7
T= Sust. lateral G =IF(S7;(S7^2-1)^0,5;0) (IF check is for preventing taking square root of negative numbers)
U= Sustained turn rate =IF(T7;H7*360/(H7^2/(T7*9,81)*2*PI());0) (IF check is for preventing divide by 0 errors)
V= Sea level acceleration =IF(P7>0;(H8-H7)/P7;0) (IF check is for preventing div0 error)
Same would go on for 30k feet with different Speed of sound and air density. Hope this helps.
Sign In
