SchorschEngines performances? dry Max mean the eurofighter lose speed by his mass only, as simple as that, the TWR under 1 mean your mama will never pass Mach 1 without AB! and a supercruise isn’t a plane stoping his AB the Dry at Mach 2 to claim supercruise!
supercruise is sustaining on dry output supersonic speed ,over Mach 1, not going there somes times, its taking off, going to top level 60.000 feets and accelerating till going to Mach 1, when a TW ratio is under 1, the plane don’t have enough acceleration to pass supersonic speed , its just basic physic!
Fuel franction is important too, lots of plane get AB to try sustain a supersonic speed, but its not really supercruise!
the F22 have dry enough power acceleration to supercruise a mission distance without lighting one time the AB, eurofighter and Rafale can’t do this!
all the rest is lies and propaganda.. and dreams!
no need drag factor here, all planes have drag factor to negate acceleration!
Now if the pilot changes the thrust of the engine, the thrust and drag are no longer in balance. If the thrust is increased, the aircraft accelerates and the velocity increases. This is the second part sited in Newton’s first law; a net external force changes the velocity of the object. The drag of the aircraft depends on the square of the velocity. So the drag increases with increased velocity. Eventually, the new drag equals the new thrust level and at that point, the forces again balance out, and the acceleration stops. The airplane continues to fly at a new constant velocity that is higher than the initial velocity. We are again back to the first part of the law with the aircraft traveling at a constant velocity.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/newton1.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/fwrat.htmlCheers
Bovine merde at its best. Good he is on my ignore list (I couldn’t resist to read his post this time, actually I already regret it). When I was moderator, I would ban people for that. :diablo:
SchorschSorry to break into the non-stop obsession with fighters/interceptors but wars aren’t fought only with these!
Does anyone have any feel for the capabilities of this bird and whether it compares with western types? I feel sometimes that this type of machine escapes ‘the radar’!
I said in that thread and I say again: AWACS stands for AWAC System. it is not the radar by itself, but the integration into a working system. A big part of the equation is processing capability and software. Both require maintenance. So, although this question is interesting and actually of much higher relevance than questions concerning turn rates, nobody here is possibly able (or willing) to answer them.
SchorschI dont care what all these cry babies say about opinionated threads, discourse gets to the truth, good work guys!
-Vector
To the limited part of the sometimes falsified truth. Performance data of combat aircraft is classified. Sometimes really classified, sometimes only partly known. when you really dig to the bottom, you see that most informations are based on very sandy ground.
Schorschlet’s prove it, i bring you basics aeronautic rules, and you the dreams from no where!
Prove it, i will bring you all aeronautics physics knowledges you need from the best universities datas bases on it around the world!
a plane that is under 1 on T/W ratio can’t physicly supercruise, supercruise isn’t reaching Mach 1, it’s sustaining supersonics speed along mission on dry THRUSH!
11.3t + half fuel 2.5t= 13.8t so with 12t Trush it makes 12/13.8 = 0.86 ratio
even rafale is better with more range!
9.2t + half fuel 2t= 11.2t with 10t trush it makes 10/11.2 = 0.89 ratioGet a life!
You are rather bad on basic aeronautics. Especially do you lack any understanding of engine performance, and your view on transonic drag is also fishy. But don’t be discouraged, you are here in best company when you argue with static thrust to weight ratios.
SchorschIt had its problems, but it was the king for at least a decade. Range and enginge problems were closely related, because pilots would keep the afterburner on all the time in fear of engine failure when selecting a/b in flight. And im surprised you bring up the speed issue, isnt top speed irrelevant anyway? The F-15 is certainly fast enough.
Of course it isn’t. And I don’t want to make something bad. It is just that some “given facts” don’t look so bright. Like all technical systems the Eagle needed time to really come to full maturity, actually accomplished in the C-model. the F-15 was replaced as king in the WVR-arena by the F-16 and didn’t posses the title for decade. Compared to the following Soviet models it was even not too heavy, although 12 ton empty is quite a lot. Anyways, I think our user wants to share great comments about the Typhoon.
Ah, another crap thread.
SchorschThe MiG-29 has better turn rate. 23deg/sec against only 20 deg/sec achieved by the F-15, by the Way the german MiG-29 were old machines with detuned engines, as far as 1994 no F-15 was better in dogfight than the MiG-29 armed with Archer R-73, HMS and better turn rate, also the germans did not operate the MiG-29C that is a better machine than the old MiG-29s operated by the Luftwaffe, and the MiG-29 was only found deficient in BVR combat against western fighters due to a less advanced radar and less quick acceleration.
however versus the Su-27, the F-15 does not offer any thing better beyond faster speed and higher ceiling and it is inferior in agility and range because the Su-27s achieves a 21.5 deg/sec turn
Thought you meant the Eurofighter. Please forget it.
SchorschTechnically speaking is not better than the MiG-29 or Su-27 in fact in many aspects it is inferior.
Which is a question what version you are talking of and of what aspect. The Germans (able to make at least some comparison with both in service for a while) found it way better than the MiG-29 in all aspects, including range, speed, acceleration, turn, reliability, mainatainability, handling and HMI.
But maybe you know it better?
SchorschSchorch:”The Eagle wasn’t exactly great in its time, it isn’t today.”
Wow, I have never heard that before. I guess a combat proven aircraft WITH A KILL TO LOSS RATIO OF 104 to 0 WASNT GREAT IN ITS TIME????????… I have about EVERY military historian and armchair enthusiast in the sane world that will tell you different… So what modern aircraft was great in its time, and for gods sake give me your personal criteria for a “great in its time” platfrom.:mad:
PS: I agree the Typhoon will be a nice package when its development has come a bit further, and its in no way a piece of junk or a lame duck, but I hear certain individuals and read from certain scources that this thing is groundbreaking and awesome in every way, tough to swallow when viewed amongst its peers.
Don’t be offended. The Eagle was a capable fighting machine, but like most FTeens (or like any other fighter ever produced) I didn’t work from the beginning. Radar and engine problems, range below the original specification and top speeds similar to Phantom (despite the very optimistic max Mach figure). That is all comparable to other designs of that era, but still, it doesn’t suffice for the term “great from the beginning”. And, it was of course extremely expensive, so expensive that they made a new fighter (which then outclassed the F-15 in some respects although being only 5 years younger).
SchorschWhen I read the statements about radar technology, I sometimes wonder: Are all the forumites here crack signal-analysis experts and experienced radar designers? To make a statement about flight performance I came some way, at least I can give a completed degree in aeronautics as credible item. But complex and less obvious things like radar and their performance, how do people judge about it?
First of all the radar must work (which is a tough requirement). I cannot different than treating the continueed “has AESA, has no AESA” as white noise on the channel.
SchorschBadger1968 summed it up best! Cope India all over again, this time with the BRAND NEW Typhoon taking the place of the quarter century old Eagle. Russians are building Typhoon equivelants for much cheaper and even more capable.
Why ask when you think you already know it? The Eagle wasn’t exactly great in its time, it isn’t today. Badger summarized the arguments of the USAF for excessive expenditure on fighter aircraft. The wisdom of the USAf is – looking at its history – questionable.
So what makes the Eurofighter special:
Above “achievements” are not unique, so I don’t deny that other fighters are also good or maybe even better in some disciplines. Still, producing a fighter at the level of the Typhoon is an achievement.
I excluded avionics.
OK, dear Brits and Germans, throw your stones on me, I am ready.
You insulted my aircraft and now I will start throwing funny statements at you which I copy&paste from internet sources and I will call all what you say crap, so finally adapting to average “Fighter A vs. Fighter B” style.
SchorschHmmm…Nobody uses tracers so the intercepted airliner would never know if there was a shot across the bow. That’s what guard frequency is for.
But maybe they can buy some for this purpose? I mean the billion pound expenditure for war on terror might even cover these items. Another issue: a good pilot can damage an airliner with a gun (especially when he is given non-explosive ammunition). The lethality of IR-AAM is pure luck.
SchorschI am confused. Is wingload related to wing area, or wing spins or lift? Tornado and su24 has small wings, but have a lot of lift. It looks like f-16 have longer wing span. But wing area, it is hard to tell
Wing loading is an indicator. We really would like to know the ability of a wing to produce lift at a given angle of attack, but for that we need to know wing area, profile, sweep, aspect ratio, high-lift config and several other things. So for fighters with comparable technology standard, the comparison of the wing loading suffices for first guess.
I think Crobato addressed this issue already. Specifically, I honestly don’t see how J-10 can have a higher wing loading than F-16’s 400+ kg/m^2
That’s why I said F-16A.
SchorschConclusion: Massive amounts of amount of money saved on equipment and manpower, ammunition and training flying hours.
Massive amounts of money?
I read that German Air Force does a life-shot of an AIM-9L 2 times a year per crew. Each shot is 80k for the missile alone.
And the gun is so massively expensive? For me that counts like typical beancounting: when you decide to purchase a fighter and have it operational for a2a use, then the extra expenditure for the gun should add something like 2% to the overall system cost per delivered mission hour.
SchorschSea harrier (less powerful engine) is a small aircraft compare to j-10. It used it raw power to takeoff from jump ski. What is its radius of action?
~150nm for vertical take-off and 2000lb payload for AV-8B on bomb mission.
Schorschthe issue isn’t whether or not J-10 can be modified for it, but whether or not PLA wants to use a single-engined fighter for carrier operation.
Why are twin-engine aircraft are considered so much better?
People who have seen this plane said it can take off in its A2A configuration in about 10 fighter length (<200m), that should give you an idea.
People saw one billion things. Take-off performance is determined by thrust/weight, maximum lift in configuration and wing loading. In neither discipline the J-10 outmperforms an F-16A.
Sign In
