AndraxxusNo,no,no. as far as range and speed concerned, F-15 and Su-27 derivatives are still a leap ahead of anything else, including Rafale and Typhoon.
As I have posted above, F-15E can make M1.7 with 4 AAMs, 12 Mk-82s, and targeting pods, while carrying 10800 kg of fuel, which can be used for hours of endurance or 1900+ km cruising range.
Any other aircraft carrying this payload, will neither approach F-15’s top speed nor range, let alone achieve both at the same time.
AndraxxusThere are a few issues with what you have written here. The first is that while an F-16 can at least theoretically reach M1.XX in one configuration or another as a practical matter the limiting factor is typically fuel. Clean, an F-16 can accelerate extremely quickly and reach high speeds with meaningful fuel remaining, but loaded with tanks and bombs it is a completely different story. For an F-16 carrying 2 x mk-84s to get up to the types of speeds you are talking about it would have to burn essentially its entire fuel load, so this falls into the category of “true but misleading.”
Drag index 50 is not a draggy configuration at all, basically its same drag index for 6 AIM-120 missiles. An F-16 with such payload can accelerate from M1.1 to M1.52 in 111 seconds. Fuel spent for this acceleration is 828 lb or 375 kg. As far as F-35 is concerned, any fuel and bomb weight will reduce T/W and acceleration just as much as F-16.
It is also worth noting that in a real combat mission an F-16 would almost certainly carry a targeting pod and an EW pod, both of which add substantially to its drag.
True for lantirn, add 32 for navigation pod and 22 for targeting pod. However I disgree about ECM, only wild weasel role would require it.
You also can’t directly compare the mission radius of the F-16 to the F-35 in the manner you did in this post. This is not an apples to apples comparison as the profiles are completely different. Additionally, the 590NM radius for the F-35 includes margin for flight test purposes and for engine degradation. (It assumes a worst case engine, and retains a margin in addition to that so it is truly a worst case scenario.)
Debatable; they are both Hi-lo-lo-hi A/G missions. Changes of profiles are possibly due to aircrafts’ own capabilities.
It is also quite uncommon to actually drop drop-tanks. (This would typically only be done if a threat presented itself, but this is not something that you would usually plan into a mission.)
You are right about first part, however accelerating to a supersonic speed during an A/G mission is just as uncommon. On second part I have to disagree. WHEN to drop EF tanks are commonly planned into mission, esspecially on hi-lo-lo-hi missions where greatest threat would be IR guided missiles, with first warning pilot seeing the missile itself. What I have quoted is from example mission planning from F-16 manual. I didn’t made it up by myself.
Finally, the F-16 Block 50/52 most certainly is known for it great range and speed. The F-16 is the finest aircraft of its type in the world. Loaded for range the F-16 offers exceptional capabilities and when lightly loaded it is still one of the fastest accelerating fighters in the world. It can’t do both at the same time, but then to varying extents that is true of all 4th generation fighters. (less true of the F-15/Su-27/F-14s of the world)
Agree with you completely, however I put an emphasis on “Finest aircraft of its type“. When all 4th gen fighters are concerned, F-15 and Su-27 are the ones with reputation of speed and range; be it clean, lightly or heavily loaded; former will eventually be replaced with F-35.
Essentially what the F-35 is designed to do is match/modestly exceed the F-16s speed and maneuverability, which was seen as sufficient by the USAF. (while offering significant improvements more or less everywhere else) Exactly which plane will win on which metric will depend on load outs, etc.
And I say it failed in this regard. Judging by the info at hand, it barely matches/exceeds F-16’s kinematic performance in some areas, and not even approaching in others. I am not saying F-35 is inferior to F-16 as overall package, and I am aware of the leap of capability it has made. I am saying its kinematics will be inferior to F-16 for 80% of the time, and inferior to F-15 it replaces 99% of the time.
AndraxxusYou really have show examples rather than theoretical calculations to prove such a claim as you’ve made.
If you are referring to F-16 comment, those are not just theoratical calculations. As its written, the data basis is flight tests (which is also written on the drag indexes and weight section, I can post those too if you like but they are 7 pages long). Its possibly only case where an F-16 is loaded with various payloads, and pilot is actually ordered -and allowed- to go as fast as he can on a level flight; strictly on purpose of finding out the affects of different payload configurations on level flight envelope. Then its possibly the only case where true airspeed is tracked by ground radars or other sources, so its even more accurate then what pilot is seeing in his speedometer.
If you are referring to F-15E comment about M1.7 with 12 Mk-82s;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217656[/ATTACH]
Going back to the F-35 topic here you need to understand that an F-16 or F-15 ingressing to target are going to be highly visable to every radar in the vacinity so sure, you might be able to go that fast with an A-G load but not getting shot down in the process is a whole different matter
Thats another topic of discussion, I merely commented on aircraft performance. If you ask my opinion, there is no doubt an F-35 will have superior survivability to any 4th or 4+ gen fighter, however does that justify its costs? Well, thats another topic of discussion too.
and remember no hard manuevers either for the F-16 or F-15 with loadouts like those too or it’ll more or less snap.
As far as hard maneuvering = Instantenious turn rate, it all comes to the ratio between how much lift it can generate vs how much aircraft weigh in total. For evading a missile with exact same 2x mk-84 loads, F-16 will have very high performance degredation due to its wing loading, F-35 will be somewhere at the middle, and F-15 will have the least performance degredation.
If we are talking about sustained turn rates; well, I have no info about F-35, but we know its excess power is approaching to zero as it closes to M1.61. On the other hand, we know from blk50 manual F-16, with 50 drag index at 40k feet has greater than 200 FPS excess power from M1.35 to M1.6, and has 100 FPS at around M1.74 (turn rate = 0 deg/s values). This makes me estimate its unlikely for F-35 to have superior sustained turn rate or climb performance under these circumstances.
AndraxxusThe fastest that an F-15 in A/A load out, has flown in real world conditions, was ~M1.4.
According to F-15E manual, fastest F-15 can fly with -5 CFTs, Lantirn pods, 4x AIM-9s (or AIM-120s as their drag index is same) and 12 Mk-82 bombs on multiple ejector racks is M1.7.
As far as real world conditions go, most missions will be flown at around M0,85. Only accelerating when it is needed, and no fighter is likely to reach its top speed.
AndraxxusDrag index of Weapon pylon (16S1700) including MAU-12/A = 15.
Drag index of Mk-84 LDGP = 9.
Basic aircraft drag index for supersonic flight, F-16 “C” variant, (includes wingtip AIM-9Ls and LAU-129/A launchers) = 6
Total drag index = 6 + 2×15 + 2×9 = 54
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217655[/ATTACH]
To match F-35 range; F-16 can carry;
2×370 gal tanks, each having 35 drag index to give total number of 124
or
2x600gal tanks (although not all F-16 users use them), each having a drag index of 30 if stations 3 and 7 is used (which they are by Mk-84s) and they require NJETT pylons (with drag index of 8 each)
that would give total drag index of 130.
Even under these circumstances (ie carrying 2×370 gals + 2x mk-84s + 2xAIM-9s), F-16 can easily approach (approx. M1.55) the rated top speed of F-35. Funny thing is, this is the given payload for the example in the HI-LO-LO-HI mission planning:
With this exact payload, F-16 can reach 688nm combat radius, and will drop EFTs at 496nm and will have 71 drag index (54 + non-jettisonable fuel tank pylons + 1 for subsonic basic aircraft drag index). From this point on F-16 will have superior top speed to F-35. F-35A’s combat radius is rated at 590nm, 14% inferior to F-16’s performance in this area also.
And remember, what we are comparing is F-16, not exactly renown for its great range or high speed.
AndraxxusIncorrect as far as A2A loadout goes, but correct if combat load=2×2000 lbs bombs
This claim is also incorrect when A2G payload is concerned. An F-16 can exceed M1.85 with 2x AIM-9 and 2x Mk-84, and F-16 is not the fastest 4th gen fighter at all.
AndraxxusThat makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Not only x and y axis is interesting, z axis can continue to infinite you know. And you DO know that T-50 has greater range AND more fuel than Flanker? And last time i checked, it carries a whole lot more weapons inside than Flanker too. 😉
Z axis is just as important as X and Y.
Imagine if those shapes had exactly same frontal area.
AndraxxusNow, that is what i am talking about, some proper argumentation. 🙂 (although i don’t agree with the conclusion)
A few points/questions as to things you base your conclusion on:
LOL 😀
1: What gives you the assumption that F-15 has greater t/w than F-22? Could you show numbers behind that conclusion?
The flight envelope I refer to is from F-15E, in clean configuration, no CFT, and 50% fuel load, totaling at 40000 pounds = 18144 kg. F-22 carrying 50% fuel weighs 23800 kg. PW-229 has 129 kN static thrust and F119 engines have 156 kN.
Math gives us 1,45 T/W for F-15 and 1,33 for F-22. You may say F119 engine’s actual thrust is classified, but for F-22 to match F-15’s 1,45 t/w, F119 needs to have 170kN of thrust which is unlikely.
2: Although yes, stealth is a design compromise, i am not convinced at all that necessarily means just because F-22 is stealth it is more draggy. I think there is no question about T-50 being less draggy than Su-27, and Su-27 is a damn clean design to start with.
I also don’t think physical size of weapon bay or RCS shaping will not drag too much because CFD advanced much in last 30 years (Excluding F-35, it looks to fat to my eye). However, there are also indirect consequences of those: Application of large amounts of RAM, having an internal bay, 2d TVC has made F-22 weight 19,7 tons; while similarly sized F-15E weigh 14,3 tons. As they both use NACA 64Axxxx airfoil, they should have similar Cl and Cd graphs (Well, not for high AOAs as F-22 also has LE flaps, but we are talking about minimal AOA at high speeds). While F-22 is 37% heavier than F-15, is F-22 designers also used 38% greater wing area to have similar wing loading to F-15, so logically they should need very similar AOA to fly in level.
As AOA, Cd graph, and air density will be constant; to maintain the same airspeed, F-22 will have 37% more drag than F-15. Though that is a very rough assumption, as F-22 is negative stable, and can use TVC for trim drag, the difference should be a little smaller. The question comes to; is relaxed stability and TVC assisted trimming reduces drag by 37%? I dont think so.
As far as, T-50 and Su-27 concerned, it all comes down to weight. Despite how it looks, I am sure T-50 won’t be less draggy than Su-27 IF it weighs 19 tons. IF somehow Russians can make T-50 weigh 17 tons, than sure. It can have very thin, less draggy, supersonic wing profiles and aerodynamically be capable of M2.8+. More likely scenario is, Russians would love to use thicker supercritical profiles to achieve superior maneuverability throughout the envelope and still have lower M2.3 top speed.
3: Any proof of composites not being up to the task of handling Mach 2.4+? Just because it is composites doesn’t mean it is not heat resistant, that is the point with composites, you can twist and mix them to suite your needs just like metal alloys.
As far as theoratical discussion and the definition of “composite” is concerned, even a iron reinforced conrete wall is a composite. a carbon-carbon composite matrix is the material of heat shields of space shuttles. However more accurate definition of composites in an aircraft is fiber reinforced thermoplastics and thermosets, which by definition lose their shape after a certain temperature. What is also important is for material to maintain its strength at ~250 degrees celcius. Aluminium for example will not melt or anything, but its not used on heat critical applications.
And at the end; Do you think then Metz had “luck” of going 1600 mph+ or was he lying? (or something else)
My estimate is he never did reached those speeds. He run an estimate by judging how his aircraft accelerated at lower speeds.
AndraxxusNo offense, but any claim M2.5 claim about F-22 is laughable BS. Compare it with F-15; Even with F100-PW-229 engines, F-15’s top speed is M2,35 on standard day conditions. F-15 can BARELY touch 2.5 mark IF a) its completely clean b) its engine trim is AT LEAST 100% c) environment temperature is at least 10 degrees below STD day. d) if its only flying at or around 45000k altitude. Even that is theoratical, level flight with 0.03G acceleration (0,5 knots/second) and 500 fpm climb potential remaining is approx. M2,45.
Compare that with F-22:
-F-15 has higher T/W than F-22.
-With multishock variable inlets F-15 surely has more thrust (in terms of kNs) than F-22 at mach 2+ conditions.
-Without any need of RCS optimization or carrying an internal bay inside, clean F-15 is quite possibly less draggy than F-22.
-F-22’s has no heat resistant materials on its leading edges (only composites)
EDIT:
Also, Mach number changes with environment temperature. At STD day 45k feet, air temperature is -51,3 degrees celcius.
speed of sound at STD day = 1075 km/h -> F-15 can make M2.35. Translates to 2526 km/h under these conditions.
speed of sound at STD -10 = 1050 km/h -> F-15 can make ~M2,48. Translates to 2600 km/h under these conditions.
IF F-22 is can accelerate to 2500 km/h, it makes M2,32 at 45k feet, standard day. Which is still doubtful to me (see above)
Andraxxus@Grizzly01
[ATTACH=CONFIG]217122[/ATTACH]
As the aircraft goes faster to achieve those G limits, it does not have much effect on the sustained turn rates. 880 km/h 9G = 20,58 deg/s is still the max STR MiG-29 can pull at 1000 meter altitude.
-1000 km/h 10G = 20,1 deg/s
-1075 km/h 10,25G = 19,21 deg/s.
However ability to pull higher Gs is useful at any part of flight envelope, where opponent is 9G limited, and MiG is not: For example at same 1075 km/h airspeed F-16 or F-22 is hard limited to 9Gs and can only have 16,85 deg/s turn rate. At a high speed merge at low altitude, MiG can turn both tighter, and can complete a 180 turn more quickly to achive missile lock first, or complete a Split-S exactly 125 meters higher than those types, forcing them to crash to ground etc etc.
Rather more important advantage IMHO is that it helps aircraft to maintain a higher energy state. For example: A MiG-29 pilot fighting an F-22 would know his opponent is likely to have superior excess power. So instead of slowing down to where his aircraft perfroms best, he can stay at high speed, and exceed his G limits. An F-22 would need to slow down (ie lose energy) to have same turning ability at 9G. This puts MiG in a better higher energy state than F-22, which he can use to climb, yoyo, or retreat etc.
AndraxxusMach number is ratio between true air speed divided by speed of sound. Speed of sound is function od temperature, not density nor pressure. The equation is M = (gamma x specific gas constant x temperature) ^(1/2); where are; gamma = cp/cv – heat capacity ratio ) or 1,4 for air; specific gas constant for air = 8314 / 29 = 286,6; and temperaure in K;
Temperautre of the air is pressure dependent (gas kinetic theory) and will drop with height but it is not linear and it rises at some levels (heights).
Newton laplace equation says Speed of sound = (Bulk modulus/density)^(1/2)
The specific gas constant in formula you stated is R* which is molar gas constant/molar mass; for ideal gases, it is
Cideal = (gamma(adiabatic index) * R (gas constant)* Temperature / Molar mass)^1/2 ; by using PV=dR*T it can also be written as
Cideal = (gamma*Pressure/density)^(1/2)
in a sense we are both correct, as for the same specific volume (ie same altitude), air density and Temperature are functions of each other.
AndraxxusIMHO, what was described in those events is more related to pulse repetition frequency than doppler notch. A target approaching towards radar can be seen farther at HI PRF. At a dense EW environment, radar locked on at an approaching target can lost its track if closure rate is suddenly changed. Effect is more pronounced if target also suddenly dives and radar has to operate in lower semisphere. Same would happen if radar tracks a target at MED PRF and closure rate is suddenly increased, but its less probable.
If AESA radars can differentiate PRF on different modules, they can maintain target track in a similar fasion to ILV during volume scan but with very quick PRF changes, and be immune to that effect.
AndraxxusProblem with you guys (without sound technical base) is that you can find literary everything on internet…and without knowledge what are the limits of airframe, engine…and how they work, you can found yourself lost in fiction about capabilities of that machines. That applies for enthusiasts, pilots, engineers, journalists, intelligence officers, gov officials…
As I said, another problem are authors of fiction material on internet. As we saw that can be even aircraft manufacturers. Western corporations are usually purposely deceiving public, while Eastern make mistakes usually presenting their products in ‘darker light’.
So you claim your techical base is superior to me (a mechanical engineer, and aeronatical engineering master student). Perhaps, but you also claim its superior to aircraft manufacturers?? No comment…
EPIC Fail#1:
For example you are reading this graphs like a child..it is true that ROC axis does not begin with 0, but it is also true that there is a mistake in ROC scale. You can find from this graph that MiG-29 can fly level at M 2.5 at 13 km altitude !!
You should mail MiG company to report their error LOL.
EPIC Fail#2:
As I said, you people w/o tech.knowledge, do not differentiate between allowed speed & Mach number and one in level flight !
That makes EPIC Fail#4. With bulk modulus of air = constant, Mach number is a function of air density and airspeed. For a given altitude there is exactly ZERO difference between using one or other. If you are referring to difference between max. achieved speed and max. allowed speed. That is is still an epic fail after all these discussions;
max speed < allowed speed -> This is the part where you are stuck, and keep claiming “as allowed speed= 1400 km/h, max speed has to be lower”. Foolish to say the least.
max speed = allowed speed -> This is what you think I am saying, where its clearly not.
max speed > allowed speed -> This is the condition that all 4th gen (minus Mirage 2k perhaps) and some 3rd gen fighters are. They have enough thrust to exceed their allowed top speeds (at least at lighter loads) and pilot has to throttle back in order not to break the airframe.
And you agree that MiG-29 can sustain 5g at Mach 1.3 altitude 1 km or fly level at about Mach 1.7 ?!?!
There are certain laws of physics that are above such bull****, often depicted in graphs or text !!
I agree MiG-29 can sustain 5g EASILY at Mach 1.2 (for once, try to read graph correctly) or 1400km/h. As for level flight, you cannot interpolate sustained G graph like that, there are too much variables involved, my visual estimate is that line will also sharply down 1 to around 1500 km/h, following a similar profile to what we see in military thrust.
EPIC Fail#3:
Described above
Also, F-16 blk50 graph is for clean a/c at the weight 1000 kg above W empty !!
Clean aircraft with 50% fuel load. Just the same as MiG-29 graph’s 12800 kg (10900kg empty plus 1900kg fuel (=~3774kg/2)), or Su-27 graphs’ 21000 kg (16300 kg plus 4700kg (9400/2)).
With missiles and half fuel a/c (GE129 engined) has max SL level speed of Mach 1.16 !!
it is true for drag index 50, not necessarily that includes or excludes missiles. With two wingtip AIM-120s drag index is still 0, for example. With drag index 200, same GE-129 engined F-16 wont even go above M0,96. What your point? Is this the way you measure top speed?
You know from now on I wont answer to anything about these s***. You are claming you have sooo great technical knowledge yet I’ve concluded you have NO knowledge at all. I have also concluded you are most likely not working on an area that involves aircraft designing (garbage collector at an airport doesn’t count). Hell, you cannot even read a simple linear graph properly. You dont want to accept the facts I have constantly thrown at your face.
An (relatively) obsolete, underpowered flying brick like F-4E flying at S/L with 4 AIM-7s and a centerline tank can exceed M1.15. F-16 with 6 AIM-120s and non-jettisonable fuel tank pylons can exceed M1.15, F-15C with 4x AIM-7s can exceed M1.2. But its impossible for a clean Su-27 or MiG-29 exceed M1.15; says some internet expert who dismiss all the data from the flight manual on the basis that, “they cannot be right”, “values are too high so they must be wrong” , “flight manual is full of errors” , “aircraft manufacturers are without sound techical base”. Who are you to say those? Have you even designed a paper plane and wrote manual about how far it will fly depending on how you throw? Face it, flight manual data is true, comparison with their western counterparts suggest its true, pilot observations provided by other users suggest its true, and you are wrong. This discussion is over, grow up a little.
AndraxxusI’m already stated to worry about my job, because of you !
Please do not use those joule/kg for SEP? Life is not easy even w/o this..
From 29’s SEP graph I can see that at M 1.15 SL a/c can climb 30 m/s (not 60 as you said), and at about 1.17 SEP = 0 ! But of course, these graphs are not particularly accurate.
EPIC Fail#1: How come this is your job yet you dont even know how to read graphs?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216982[/ATTACH]
Dont insult my nor Russian Engineers’ intelligence when it is you who is not intelligent enough to read the graphs. I have added numbers in red to make it clear for you, blue is if you interpolate the graph to make it reach 0 m/s.
Also, Su-27 is slower than 29, just as Su has better subsonic L/D !
And Su limited load factors are under material strength & service life laws just as for any other plane.
EPIC Fail#2: How is it slower? MiG-29 top speed: M2.25 or 2400 km/h, Su-27 top speed: 2.35 or 2500 km/h. I understand you have little knowledge on this matter, but At least google it before writing. Its even present on wiki.
And one manual can not be in collision with other.
These “TSAGI” graphs are just not professional !
They are not. Its your inability to read them puts them in collision.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216980[/ATTACH]Let us see another graph which can also tell us about max level speed. Sustained turn graph. When a/c can not sustain more than g=1 it also can not accelerate or climb any more. We can also see error in graph, where 29 w/o missiles can fly 1700 km/h level SL !
I don’t know how you read the graphs but all I can see is MiG-29 can sustain 5Gs at 1400 km/h translates to 7deg/s turn rate at 1000 meters or ~3300 feet.
EPIC Fail#3: You can see the error? Let me get this straight. Entire MiG-29 flight manual is wrong because it shows MiG is faster than you claim. TsAGI data is wrong and SK manual inaccurate because it shows Su-27 is faster than you claim. All those engineers, and precise data made for their own pilots are in error but you are right, right? Didn’t it occured to you the error may happen to be in your BS?
Also if you compare that “erroneous because its sooo highh” maneuverability is actually inferior to blk50 F-16.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]216983[/ATTACH]
Oh I suppose this is the part where you say F-16 flight manual is also wrong and erroneous because it shouldnt be exceeding M1.15 but shows it can exceed M1.2, and thats with positive 300 fps SEP, right? Following this graph, -220 engined F-16 should have enough thrust to exceed 1600km/h M1.3 quite easily.
This is getting utterly stupid. For gods sake, if you don’t have anything useful to say, just don’t say it.
AndraxxusYou are SO wrong with SEP, which makes me think you are clearly not an engineer or work in area related to the physics about this topic.
Specific excess power = thrust power – drag power
Thrust power = Thrust in Newtons * airframe speed in m/s,
Drag power = Cdx * Wing area * airframe speed in m/s.
If, say, MiG-29 at weight has instantenious climb rate of 325 m/s, it has to have 3191 joule/kg specific excess power.
…If a/c has climb or SEP =0 that means it also could not accelerate any more and it’s speed is max one.
Next..these russian graphs are not particularly precise, MiG-29 surely can not go faster than 1.2 M SL or 1.15 more precisely.
Going from your own words, We both agree, at SEP=0 aircraft cannot climb without losing airspeed. Or in other words, when climb rate in reaches 0, aircraft will have its max speed at that altitude, right? On the very climb rate graph you posted, MiG-29 can maintain airpeed while having ~60m/s climb rate at M1.15. How can it be thrust limited at that speed? Can you explain that? No.
This is the part where debate ends, and I start repeating myself by saying you are nitpicking values from flight manuals or unquoted sources, without even reading/knowing/understanding what they are for. Then you are misusing terms to suit your explaination. Because debating involves supporting claims with valid items.
For example, I commented you are wrong about trying to find level speed by looking at the climb rate graph, but i didn’t go into details, and just posted the level flight envelope. You said its wrong, and you said its more accurate to climb rate graph. If so, this is how to do it rather properly;
I will start by interpolating the supersonic regime on the graph with four points on M1.0 (260m/s), M1,05 (160m/s), M1,1 (100m/s) and M1,15 (60m/s). Lagrange interpolation on these set of points gives an equation of Vy=-(80000v^3-276000v^2+319600v-124380)/3
Since we are trying to find level speed from climb rate graph, we want Vy to equal zero. Solving the equation for v; gives M1.22. What a coincidence, its the same value from the level flight and wing lift graphs!!
However I will admit, it was useful in that we found out MiG-29 is actually both airframe and thrust limited at M1.22 (1508 km/h) at sea level.
In short, i will summerize what is debated here, you said TsAGI graphs are invalid because G limit is wrong and no aircraft can exceed M1.15 (1400 km/h) at sea level.
a) IMHO, by showing two graphs from the F-15 A/C flight manual, I have shown that G limit for different purposes can be different. Neither graphs are obsolete nor in conflict, they are both inserted at Change 2 on 1 January 1985, and were valid as of Change 5, 1 march 1986. As F-15C production ended in 1986 and F-15E has a different flight manual, I would say the manual is still unchanged as of now.
b) IMHO, I have proved my point that MiG-29 has sufficent thrust to reach 1500+ km/h by using 3 graphs including the climb rate graph you youself had posted. I will also stick to my statement that “as MiG-29 can reach 1500 km/h at S/L, Su-27 with higher top speed, higher T/W, relaxed stability, and similar aerodynamic layout to MiG-29 cannot be thrust limited at 1400 km/h and have enough thrust to exceed it.”
On top of that, I have also confirmed different points on TsAGI graphs as;
a) two different 360 deg (more or less sustained) turns at different airshows are accurately represented by the graphs.
b) highest instantenious turn rate at S/L calculated by using the Clmax and maxAOA vs Mach number graph taken from second booklet of Su-27 flight manual is the exactly same (~30,2 deg/s) as the TsAGI data shows.
As far as discussion goes, best I can do is to prove certain point on graph is valid. I am mature enough to admit I have nothing to prove that entire TsAGI graph is valid. You haven’t provided a single point on entire flight envelope to suggest the graphs are wrong. If you have nothing to bring further, you should give up debate anyway.
Su-27 flight manual consists of at least 6 booklets. From what I understand, you have the first booklet, and I have 1st 2nd and 6th. None of these helps us in our discussion, the data is incomplete. I am sure G limit or thrust etc is better explained in the booklets we are missing.
Sign In
