Hey Schorsch can I get a link on that diagram? If the diagram is real – at the more relavent altitude of 45kft – we are looking at a 66% speed increase from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.5 – with a drop in SR of 45% – 50%.

Google “F-22 Brief Stevenson”.

Higher altitudes help, but do also help the non-supercruise reference examples.

Does Lockheed Martin require “truly supercruise” fighters to climb without reheat? Quite a shallow climb angle with a good chance of getting dragged below Mach when messing it up.

Do you even have ANY idea what you are talking about?

Yes, I do.

I am not the one relying on “just some Google snapshots”, nor am I mixing purpose designed fighter-bombers with real fighters.

Still I can’t see your argument, just your claim.
Staying consistent, like not selling me the F-15E as a fighter, would help your case.
Some numbers, too.

Ups, wasn’t that Paris 1989 not 1999??

One would think the pilots would care.. Knowing your aircrafts own capabillity is somewhat vital.
Remember that the movie is an older production. Close combat was more of a reality then.

I’m aware of to days BVR doctrines and tactic, but even to this day all airforces train in close combat and often goes into a Merge?

Anyway, post-stall or stall has happend on several ocation on training as well in combat.
My point was that an aircraft with the stabillity of an Su-27 is something of an advantage in an recovery from a Merge. In any case.
A western pilot would restrict himself because of the aircraft restriction when speed drops to low, while an Su-27 can possible continue a little longer. Hence gain a little on the enemy tail?

Answer is: no.

No sane doctrine teaches its pilots to do post stall maneuvering.
It requires a training that goes far beyond any air force could afford.
And the chance to use it in combat is extremely low, and if it comes, the chance the pilot recognizes this situation, uses his aircraft correctly in a split second decision, generally keeping his situational awareness is in question.

Your misconception comes from your view of seeing air combat as 1 versus 1 exercise. But it is anything than that.

The whole BS about post-stall maneuvering capability of the Suchoi 27 actually came out of the west, after the air shows. No one in the East thought about such stuff before.
Besides, designs like F-15 and F-18 also have pretty good handling characteristics.

By the way, you don’t need to recover from a “Merge”.

Its a great airplane for high density short haul routes (500-1000NM), but for the longer routes it is very altitude challenged due to the relatively high wing loading. Some comparitive numbers:

B764: 144 lb/sq ft.
B763: 134
A333: 132
B777: 118
B777ER: 142
A300-600: 136
B757: 123

I didn’t include quads. I obtained these numbers by dividing the Maximum Gross Weight by the wing area. For a short range mission, the 764 would not reach max weight with a full passenger load, putting the wing loading back into a more reasonable range.

It’s handy to remember that modern turbofan engine fuel consumption goes up considerably as altitude goes down, so being unable to reach the higher flight levels requires more fuel, which is even more weight and the proposition becomes self defeating.

The 764 empty weight is almost 90,000lb less than the 777 though, making it very attractive comparatively for shorter routes since landing fees are based upon weight.

Finally, wasn’t the E-10 advanced J-STARS going to be based upon the 764 airframe? IIRC, that project has been delayed so long that it is basically cancelled because Gulf War II sucked up all the money.

Indeed, the B767-400 was maxed out in terms of available wing. It may make a good short range aircraft, but it seems that less and less airlines are purchasing purpose short range wide bodies. Maybe because the yields have vanished since the low-cost airlines are in business.
The B787-3, a new attempt on this market, didn’t find many customers and I have my doubt we’ll see it before 2014ish, if ever.

The B767-400 and B757-300 are both aircraft which are well suited for the niche they serve, but never attracted orders from airlines.

I have a few question if i may.
[…]
1. Are those Su demontrators fully tanked when performing displays?

Of course not. Neither aircraft is.
A fully tanked Flanker is limited to lower max G, like most fighters with full tanks. Exception are the small ones, like the F-16.

The term “safty when flying” was also brought up. Since the Su-27 is remarkebly stable compaire to other western countersparts.

the Suchoi 27 affords a pretty high natural stability, as does the F-18 or the MiG-29. That eases handling and requires less sophisticated flight control software. Has drawbacks in form of added drag though.

2. How much does weapons and droptank(s) negate the stability on the Su-27?

external loads, especially those with large side area, are always a bad idea when maneuvering. The F-16 for example is pretty much an airliner when flying with large stores. They must be dropped.

3. A Su-27 In a MERGE vs a F-16/F-15/F18(with or without ET), when both aircraft have bleed speed to the point where they are forced to disengage or simply recover from a stall.
Wont the pure stabillity of the Su-27 gain an huge advantage over the unstable counterparts in a a very low speed or stall recovery?

Maybe so, maybe not, all mentioned aircraft are not bad in handling, the F-16 showing some shortcomings for extreme AOA handlings. Fact is, no sane fighter pilot would fight that long. It is like questioning the hand fight ability of a tank crew. Answer: who cares?

I mean the Su-27 will be faster to gain controll and the Su-27 allways come out of an stall(Safty in flight), if the altetude isn’t to low that is?

Not necessarily, in such stunts luck will rule.

Viktor Peg and Anatoly Kvochur are some hell of a pilots! By the way, in this movie they was on that display in Paris 1999..:)

Sure they are, but not truly representative of the average line pilot. Making post stall maneuvering with a line Suchoi 27P with line pilot is no good idea at all. Same applies for Western aircraft.

I suppose one needs to go back to who coined the term “supercruise” – but I do believe the original LM definition had merit. It was supposed to work in tandem with their VLO concept of first look, first shot, first kill – be it marketing hype or not. The concept of accelerating to high supersonic – without the use of the AB even for the inital moments of breaking through the transonic region – allowed the jet to be a lot less detectable by IR devices. So I completely understood LMs definition – they were defining the niche that only their jet could practically exploit. We later found out the Typhoon could do this aswell – as could Rafale and Gripen to a lesser degree. Yet as they weren’t dedicated “stealth fighters” and along with the relatively low end supercruise stats being published – the companies producing them didn’t make as much of a fuss as LM. When LM realised this they pushed the supercruise “goal posts” futher along the Mach – claiming you had to be able to do this at Mach 1.5+ to be considered a supercruiser. I was content with the original definition stressing advanced kinematics while remaining relatively stealthy.

I would reason it pretty simple.
An F-18 with a2a load cruises at M0.85 at 35000ft with a specific range of 0.130ish (nm/lbs). Going 10% (M0.94ish) faster would cause a drop in SR of 50%.
Going 20% faster (M1.02) causes a drop of ~70% (of that of M.85).
Going 50% faster (M1.3) causes a drop of ~75%.
Going 75% faster (M1.5) causes a drop of ~85%.

I would define supercruise as the ability to fly substantially (more than 50%) faster than the usual M.8-.9 (shortly below the transonic drag rise) with a loss of specific range of less than or maximum of ~50% (we can discuss the number).
Of course, we need to have an aircraft that cruises somehow normal at M.85, so the SR-71 is already out, as is the MiG-25, as both are preposterous gas guzzlers.

That’s it.

As we see, when the F-22 sets the mark, supercruise doesn’t look that exclusively any more.
[ATTACH]168302[/ATTACH]

At 35kft the F-22 has a 60-70% drop in SR for a ~66% increase in speed. If we assume 50% more speed (M1.35ish) we can (rough visual interpolation) an SR of .35, or somewhere close to a 50-60% drop.

Everybody’s getting what I say?

For advanced readers only:
The specific range is linear connected to specific fuel consumption and glide ratio. Assuming an otherwise unchanged glide ratio, the switch from afterburner thrust (SFC 1.5-2.0 depending on throttle) to dry thrust (at that altitude and Mach number, full thrust, about 1.1-1.3) basically explains most of the savings. Adding few percent aerodynamic efficiency, partly due to optimized stores, we’ll arrive in a rough sketch at 40% increase in SR. Still “cruising” supersonically translates into substantial loss in SR, and if we cruise M1.7 with dry thrust or with reheat does not make the big difference any more, although the 1.7 supercruise speed is the single most hailed performance number of all.
Some people might have a look at my B-58 Christmas Post (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1339784&postcount=77), where I show that a B-58 suffers a 60% drop in SR for a doubling of cruise speed. By definition of the F-22 from chart above, the B-58 is already supercruising! And that in 1960!

Informed sources suggest that this as much about the philosophical differences in the way we approach military operations – that they “don’t understand/agree with our ways of counter insurgency” and that they’d have criticised us in Malaya (successful/winners) vice them in Vietnam (unsuccessful/losers).

Not that I question the success in Malaya or wanna make Vietnam a posthumous success, but that is nearly 50 years old stuff. Reasoning with Malaya was if in 1991 (Gulf War II) somebody reasoned Germans were the best to seize Basra due to their experiences in Stalingrad.

I don’t have any opinion concerning British contribution, nor is it really my business, but I do dislike reasoning with expired experience. Maybe there is some remaining “organizational memory” within the army, but face the facts: all people who fought there are now retired, most people who had command there (especially senior staff) are most likely already 6ft below.

Some people may argue that the bomb-happy one-wedding-party-a-week-mishap, Chinese-embassy-allstars Americans are sometimes a questionable support, too. They commit man and fire power. But as the slogan of Lockheed Martin guided bomb division says:
“Hitting also the wrong targets with unmatched precision.”