Scorpion82Maximum flight speed, km/h: at high altitude 2,500 (=M2.35 with 2 x AL31FM engines) http://www.sci.fi/~fta/Su-35.htm
It has later been upgraded to the AL-35F, which provides more thrust while at the same time being lighter. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-35.htm
This is the old Su-35 aka Su-27M and no it was not upgraded with AL-35F as these engines were a paper project which has never been realised.
again, why is acceleration from M0.9->M1.2 more important then M1.2->M1.5 ?
Because the transonic region is the draggier one.
Scorpion82YES DOES actualy. More precislely that it is a totral SLOUCH at anything above 40.000 ft.
My point stands and that is what it was all about from MY side. But sure I don’t know what I’m talking about:rolleyes: (Rhetorical I know your answer…)
Search for the words: Pratrical and Cinematics in the handbook and you’ll have an idea. 😀
I doubt I will find anything on pratrical (I warned you my friend :p)
And as said I meant kinetic, was an error besides me… The contents of my statements remains the same, but that is obviously the least you care about.
Look boy, i posted Mirage 2000 acceleration times from subsonic to M 1.98 or so as for the rest of its flight envelop as it was DESIGNED for this i don’t SEE where it would have a problem out-turning a F-16 or F-35 at 55.000 ft. 😀
Was that the question? No as usual not, but you are twisting around things not related to the topic. Your usual escape… I know why;)
Common language is NOT aerospacial language
One of the few things I agree with you. Nonetheless it is usually comprehendable (at least for 99% of the people, surprisingly not for you).
and is your way to INTERRET reality, everything remotly technical is “f*ckin word nitpicking”…
No idea what that means, looks like you are inventing stuff here:p:diablo:
When the contents is still right, why not simply refering to the correct term, instead of nitpicking on the word and blank out the entire contents, just to claim “You are wrong”.
Sure; it is writen on the box, you’re quiet a GENIUS here… 😎
You seem to have required a long time to figure that out, otherwise you wouldn’t have repeatedley brought it up for an unknown (for you of course know) reason.
The dictionary doesn’t always apply to the way people speak in this buziness and there is a good old historic reason for this, but since the closest you ever came to get your ignorant @ss in the front seat of an aircrafft is Micropsoft Sim you couldn’t possibly know.
I had my a$$ in quite a couple of real aircraft like F-16, Tornado, B-1B etc. As said you know a sh!t about me.:rolleyes:
AND IGNORANT ENOUGH NOT TO FIGURE SOMEONE WAS TAKING THE P!SS BIG TIME.
Why should I care if you are p!ssed or not? Do you care about that? NO you don’t so don’t expect others to treat you different than you treat them.
It was at some point since the empty weights were given as developement progressed and avionic baies have enough room for more than the difference, when the C rolled out, it was weighted below 9.000 kg.
Nice and you pretended to know it is 9.1t when it was in fact not. And surprisingly people like me believed those newer figures more rather than sticking with the wishful thinking which was your case. Funny you still try to find an excuse instead of admitting that you were wrong.
And you’re lucky there we managed to dig the official sources to INFORM you because of course you still wont bother today.
LMAO. Who is “we“? They (Dassault/AdA) informed me as much as you.
WAY more knowledgeable than you on these subjects by nature
;
Aerodynamics yes, never dealt with that beyond some basics (I don’t have to to do my work or fly virtually).
to sumerise you would blow your b@alls trying to invent yourself a “better” way to box-test a par of AIM-9 loaded under a Mirage or get yourself stupidly killed very publicly applying your punny notions of aerodynamics and flight procedures. 😀
Yawn. You must be a superguy to load an AIM-9 and check functionality:rolleyes: Tell me with how much services has you worked and exercised?
Scorpion82And Exactly what do you mean by growth potential ? The Rafales growth Potential essentially includes AESA radars, HMS etc, all of which the F 16/18 already has.
With the difference that Rafale etc. was designed with all that in mind as part of their design philosophy. Take a look at how much the F-16s weight have grown by the addition of all this features from 6.6 t to ~10 t in the latest versions.
Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen are all 4th Gen aircraft, so no matter how much they grow they will not have stealth and other fifth gen features.
They incorporate LO treatments as full LO/VLO was seen to be to expensive and was not part of the requirements. What other features do they lack?
Scorpion8230-40k ft typical operating altitude band for the F-35 REALY?
You’re THE specialist here… Some more knowledgeable people actualy desagree no?
As DID the French AdA, Marine Nationale, Defense Ministry, Top Air Defense Squadron 1/2, Dassault -Aviation etc.
NO! YOU tried to IMPLY three different things previously mate:
1) F-35 has a 50.000 ft ceiling when in FACT it is clear it is OPTIMISED for a much lower one.
2) Operational ceiling of 55.000 ft weren’t “practical” as you put it wrongly…
3) Operational Ceiling wasn’t a good place to be performance-wise for “them”…
1.) Optimised doesn’t mean it can’t operate at higher altitudes. The Tornado is optimised for low level close to ground, but that doesn’t mean it can’t operate above 500 ft. Simple logic, you don’t grasp it!
2.) No it’s not practical for regulare missions i.e. flying patrols, escorts, fighter sweeps.
3.) Try to operate subsonic and manoeuver sufficiently there good luck Mr. Supersmart. I’d rather stick to lower alts in normal operations as the average performance is better there, who cares about achieve absolute max. speed at 55k ft if you are a sitting duck when operating subsonic there.
No it doesn’t it does give a flight LEVEL in ft.
Upper isn’t even in use when it comes to Ceilling; Maxi IS.
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Upper, Absolute, Cinematics.
We’re reaching the UPPER LIMITS OF THE ABSOLUTE REVISONISM….
Oh excuse me to use common language to make people understand what it is all about. Your f*ckin word nitpicking is nothing else than a ridiculous bad excuse for your lack of true arguments. Fine though you’ll start crying copycat I will point you to any wrong word you write from now on.
Max altitude of the Mirage III is 25.000 ft ABOVE its Operational ceiling of 50.000ft and the WAY you climb there doesn’t change this FACT a IOTA nor the FACT that you sitll dont know what you’re bubling about and are INVENTING IT.
Operational altitude IS NOT max. altitude. Simple point.
BTW get yourself a dictionary and translate the word ceiling.
Sure Scorpion, what i KNOW is; you’re the one who believed Typhoon’s canard were acting in the Roll axis aren’t you?
I was told it was considered or even tested, so for what do you think such a consideration has been for pitch up manoeuvers?:diablo: I meanwhile know that the canards are moving sysmetrical only, hence no roll. So what…?
I well remember your hard battle pretending Rafale C’s empty weight is just 9.1t, while I said newer sources suggest at least 9.4t. Janes even said 9.85 t (but of course when it doesn’t suite your mind its crap, but if it suites your mind you take it for gospel, doesn’t matter if it is the very same source…). So you offended me of not being in the know and the usual bla bla and that Dassault know their stuff and that you have accurate first hand data (supposedly Dassault material). Now a bit later we all no empty weight is 9.5 t so I was right you was wrong. But you just silently acknowledged it, because the mighty Sampaix is never wrong:rolleyes::p:D
No need to ask how come you didn’t know your A (structural design chapter) from ABC as thaught in Airclubs around the world, as for Military matter it is pretty much the same and BTW, education is NOT meant to “prove” anything, only to comprehend some.
Wow a flying license and loading weapons on a Mirage III (LOL) makes you an way above all expert in terms of military aviation and other related matters:rolleyes:
You SEE, those who know happens to be able to spot those who dont.:diablo:
What I see is a crap load of nonsense besides you:diablo:
Scorpion82The total number of French order for Rafale fighter has been reduced to 286 (228 Rafale B/C and 58 Rafale M) since the end of 2008.
French airforce has operated 86 MIRAGE 2000D today whose age are between 6 to 14 y/o in 2009, and they shall be able to keep servicing to 2030 at least.
I assume this has to do with the 8 aircraft being cancelled in favour to fund the RBE2 AA etc. Is there is source which confirms that the 8 aircraft won’t be reordered?
Scorpion82Thanks for the input.
The drag characteristics look very good at the first glance, as far as zero-lift drag is concerned. It is pretty similar to that known from public sources.
[ATTACH]168540[/ATTACH]
The problem is, the program multiplies it with .6666, making it the lowest drag F-16 ever conceived. :rolleyes:Thrust is quite OK, too, with some shortcomings in SFC (which is in A/B pretty much constant in the relevant parts of the flight envelope). Can’t say how partial power performance is modeled, but I guess as linear interpolation between IDLE and MIL fuel flow (which isn’t that great, but at least reasonable).
The data has the appearance that someone ran an optimization over the inputs to match certain corners of the known F-16 flight envelope (quite sudden dents in SFC or thrust).
Not that good is lift induced drag, where the Falcon is too optimistic.
In the end: useful flight model, not extraordinary (stuff I’ve shown above is more sophisticated) and in many cases too optimistic. Would be interesting to know how external stores are modeled, as an F-16 hardly flies without it.
The way the handling characteristics are put in is clever. I can’t tell about the correctness though.
No problem. As said you can change the values as you want. As far as weapons are concerned all have specific drag values as have the hardpoints. It is possible to define the stores drag within the dat file itself for each aircraft. Some of the lift values (especially at supersonic speeds) are reduced to emulate the super sonic g-limiter which is not simulated in the code.
Scorpion82and what is “THE POINT” Scorpion82?
The FALSE one you were making in your recent comments?
The point is the 30-40k ft typical operating altitude band for the F-35 is not the same as the 55k ft operational ceiling of the Rafale. Simple point you refuse to recognise.
“Upper” “Maximum” Operational ceiling anyone?
Just a CLUE. Operational have a MEANING, Ceiling too, when put together it means Operational Ceiling no more no less.
Where is it ANYWHERE specified “Upper” or Maximum” in the official links i posted?
The word CEILING itself indicates it’s the upper limit. That’s the maximum altitude at which the aircraft can be operated given the margins before reaching abosulte ceiling. Max. altitude to be achieved in a zoom climb is a different topic and has nothing to do with operational ceiling. You obviously don’t comprehend the word ceiling and draw wrong conclusions by that.
Was or wasn’t M-88 OPTIMISED for High-Altitude/High-speed interception responding to ACX requierements?
And that has what to do with the definition of operational ceiling? Has anyone said it wasn’t? NO! As usual you are bringing up points irrelevant for the discussion!
So basicaly you dont have enough of your sheer imagination and ignorance you also have this twisting and spinning tricks in your sleeve (as well as reverse psychology heading for copycating at a a HUGE rate)…
FAR remote from the realities of aviation.:diablo:
bla bla bla. Much noise for nothing as usual for you…:rolleyes:
Please DONT mystake ME for the image in the mirror boy, as i SAY YOU dont have ANY Aerospacial education; meaning the very basics of theorical flight as thaught to any Air Cadet or begginers in air-clubs the world’s over.
So unsuprisingly you keep missinterpreting and fail to comprehend most of it.
The SAME applies with your Military experience.
So when I READ your arrogant diatribes on other’s “ignorance“, knowing what was thaught to ME in BOTH Air Club and Air Force i can but only SMILE. 😀
You pretty much know a damn sh!t about me, so stop pretending you do:mad: And BTW I don’t care about your so called education. It proves nothing!
Scorpion82In both cases, it is the altitude at which the aircraft have been designed to be operated for orerational reasons and NO there aren’t “Several” datas about ours, there is ONE which if the Operational “Physical” or DESIGNED operational altitude (as given by the 1/2 squadron) and that imposed by AdA/ MN for safety reason which happens BTW to be lower at 55.000 ft.
When one have a margin of more than 20.000 ft with the Maximum available to the pilot, this fatasist notion of “Upper” limits as “explained” by Scorpion doesn’t make any sense, so you guys keep pating each other on the back saying “you are right”, first i KNOW you aren’t second the sources i posted aren’t from forum airfans either…
In SHORT Mirage III E Operational ceiling WAS 50.000 ft and its Maximum 75.000 ft. SEE Its flight manual.
As usual you still don’t get the point and I don’t care to try explaining this to you further as you are incapable to grab it or simply unwilled to do so due your sheer ignorance!
Scorpion82You clearly dont comprehend what PST means, MOST aircraft CAN perform PST maneuvres even my old Piper Cub.
This CERTAINLY doesn’t MEAN F-35 CAN pass a Cobra and i bet you your next X-Mass turkey it doesn’t come ANYWHERE close to the MaX AoA needed to do that. :D:D:D:D
PST is the AoA area beyond the max. AoA lift. The point is they claim the F-35 will be able to fly the same maneuvers, just slower and that is something I doubt. Otherwise this comment wouldn’t make any sense in relation to the F-22. But it’s no surprise that this escapes your ignorance and you choose to attack me instead as usual.
Scorpion82The very FACT that you can post this sort of stuff speaks volume on how much commercials and exagerations you can swallow… 😀
Oh he is back my dear friend Lordass, angry, agressive and offensive like ever:rolleyes: And no reluctance to insinuate crap. As usual…
Scorpion82Well, again you are making big assumption about drag in regards to the F-35????
No assumptions, facts! Look that I don’t compare the drag of the F-35 to aircraft XY here or that I mentioned any data!
Fact IS that the F-35 is about the same size as the Rafale or Typhoon, the space to accomodate the weapon bays and such huge internal fuel load doesn’t come out of nowhere and the weight difference of this single engined aircraft is obvious as well.
Then you negate the effects of external weapons and fuel on the performance on top of that???
Where did I negate the facts? Reading comprehension problems?
Here’s the quote again from Senior Test Pilot of the F-35 and former F-22 Test Pilot Jon Beesley…………
Interestingly all this statements are somewhat confusing, if not contradicting.
In one statement the F-16 has to light up AB to keep up with the F-35 in dry acceleration (same was reported for chase planes of the F-22) and the next statement they say acceleration is the same as for the F-16 and close to the F-22.:rolleyes: That tells me mainly one thing the “light up AB” stories sound more spectaculare than they are. It’s like two aircraft of the same type start accelerating on dry thrust, one started a bit earlier and the other gains some distance by that as it accelerates with the same rate but is at a lower speed. The end is the aircraft has to light up AB for a brief period of time just to compensate for the other aircrafts earlier acceleration start point.
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability.
That’s something I want to see, F-35 performing PST manoeuvers without TVC!:eek:
While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases.
I’m excited about the F-35 performing the helicopter, J-turns, cobras etc. all without TVC:diablo:
Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.
Not surprising as all 3 types achieve 9 g at higher subsonic speeds. While the g-load itself is just one of many factors which determine turning performance, the turn rate for all aircraft should be about the same. The main differentiating factor are g-onset and sustained performance. With generalising claims, which basically point to a narrow slice of the envelope, you can easily create the immersion of better/equal, or whatever you intend to tell, performance.
Scorpion82Yes it is. The FALSE statement was made that external tanks did not effect performance.
Feel free to point to that post. The only thing I can remember was my quote of a RAF pilot who claimed “We can fly throughout the entire flight envelope with almost no degation in performance” (note this statement was made about the aircraft in QRA outfit including 8 AAMs and 2 EFTs).
You need to listen to the comment being made by test pilots…
SUFFICIENT performance as in as good or better than a CLEAN F-16 &/or F/A-18…
No pilot is suggesting the F-35 is going to be a hotrod at all.
Scorpion82Rafales AESA is not fielded but tested right?
LRIP has started and first deliveries are slated for 2010 (4 sets) probably for initial evaluation and work up.
Scorpion82In that case the Eurofighter will be next to go as its AESA won’t be ready for some time. What about the Rafale and Mig 35. both were at very advanced stage of testing with their respective AESA radars.
This all points to the tried tested and perfected American platforms. 🙂
Hmm the MiG-35s AESA wasn’t that far developed or mature in comparison to the CAESAR which is also just a demonstrator like the Zhuk-MAE fitted to the MiG-35 avionics testbed. I wouldn’t rule the Typhoon out here that fast.
re Japan:
The JASDF has a tight schedule and intends to replace its F-4EJ Kai. Though some decisions has been postponed, if the schedule remains roughly the same as before the F-35 is out of question, because it can’t meet the schedules set before (delivery in 2013 AFAIK).
Scorpion82The point is that external tanks DO negatively effect performance.
That is true, but I don’t think it was the true question here at all. It’s more about how much is the performance degraded and if it is still sufficient or competitive from a performance (not RCS) point of view. The main question raised here was how much does the AAMs degrade performance and in certain configurations for advanced designs the drag and even RCS penalty is almost (read not 100%) neglicable.
Yes.
Just keep this in mind…If a F-35A takes off with say 18,000 lbs of fuel & burns 10,000 lbs of fuel reaching weapons release, then it does so with the rough (weight) equivalent of having emptied & dropped two 480 gal & one 330 gal external tanks (such as an F-16 would) BUT still has 8,000 lbs of INTERNAL fuel & at NO time was it hampered with the excess drag of those external tanks…nor were any weapons pylons unusable for weapons.
On the opposite site the airframe has to be more voluminous and feature all the support structure, hence being more draggy and heavier. Once the fuel is used up the aircraft still has the weight and drag penalty all the time, it’s like not being able to drop external fuel tanks when their fuel is used up, of course in a smaller scale. So basically both assessments a right from a certain point of view.
That and the stronger optimation for strike missions means the F-35 is not a high performance aircraft like the F-22 or Eurofighter. Nonetheless I think the F-35 will hold its own in AA due its combination of stealth, the argueabley most advanced avionics suite, most comprehensive sensor suite and SUFFICIENT performance etc. In the end it’s the balance of all factors which determine the effectiveness of the aircraft in certain areas, something most people forget about when philosophise about such things.
Sign In
