LordAssapThe Iraqis lost several F1s, too.
Out of contest, he was mentioning conflict involving no US militaries…
As for the Iraquis, they could have flown F-15 the results would have been the same i think, their Mig 29 didn’t fare much better…
LordAssapActually the F-35 meets 3 of those, and possibly 4 once the full flight testing is finished.
Really? Demonstrate PLEASE.
L-M says it doesn’t supercruise.
The engine doesn’t have ANY IR reducing measures.
Its Operational ceilling is 10.000 ft lower than that of a 4th generation aircraft.
It is STRUCTURALY limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9 G vs 11 G possible for ours (and even more structuraly i.e 9 g + 90%).
To compensate for this they’ll have to do a lot of software twicking because the harware isn’t designed for it.
I’m waiting impatiently.:p
LordAssapActually the F-35 meets 3 of those, and possibly 4 once the full flight testing is finished.
Really? Demonstrate PLEASE.
L-M says it doesn’t supercruise.
The engine doesn’t have ANY IR reducing measures.
Its Operational ceilling is 10.000 ft lower than that of a 4th generation aircraft.
It is STRUCTURALY limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9 G vs 11 G possible for ours (and even more structuraly i.e 9 g + 90%).
To compensate for this they’ll have to do a lot of software twicking because the harware isn’t designed for it.
I’m waiting impatiently.:p
LordAssapYes. A better option than MUCH draggier drop tanks that take up weapons stations but not as good as having enough internal fuel to begin with.
pfcem. I do not wish to be unnecessarly confrontational but it seems to me that you forget that these (Su 35 serie) design features were dictated by different tactical and strategic needs and requierements.
There is no point for a country like France to develop an aircraft with a range superior to 1.000 nm (external tanks included), when the penalty translates by a much larger (and DRAGIER) airframe.
Internal fuel volume in the case of the Sus was firt responding to the need to cover the much longer distances that the intercept of bandits would requier the fighters to cover in as CLEAN a configuration as possible and as high a speed as possible.
More to the point, once designed there is no way you’re going to get rid of the extra structural weight and airframe drag not to mention a reported maneuvrability “No superior to that of a Cambera with full internal fuel” (According to unimpressed Indian A-F Mig 29 pilots).
You may know that in this field all is a question of compromise, neither the USAF nor many other western countries actualy requiered all fuel necessary for an entire mission to be carried internal until, that is the event of stealth.
For the French territory and that of most of Rafale’s potential clients, the Dassault design is much more suited to the task in hand, it keeps the airframe lighter, smaller as well as stealthier by a fair margin, and ho i nearly forgot, a maneuvrability equal-to-superior WITHOUT the need for weighty, vulnerable, IR unstealthy, maintenance-heavy TVC.
While i’m at it, it goes the same way for the requierement (or lack of it) for M 2.0 too…
BTW there are TWO unused weapon stations on the Rafale even in a normal STRIKE configuration, question of design AND flight-hour cost (Missile seekers and bodies to a lesser extend, doesn’t have an unlimited lifespan)…
LordAssapYes. A better option than MUCH draggier drop tanks that take up weapons stations but not as good as having enough internal fuel to begin with.
pfcem. I do not wish to be unnecessarly confrontational but it seems to me that you forget that these (Su 35 serie) design features were dictated by different tactical and strategic needs and requierements.
There is no point for a country like France to develop an aircraft with a range superior to 1.000 nm (external tanks included), when the penalty translates by a much larger (and DRAGIER) airframe.
Internal fuel volume in the case of the Sus was firt responding to the need to cover the much longer distances that the intercept of bandits would requier the fighters to cover in as CLEAN a configuration as possible and as high a speed as possible.
More to the point, once designed there is no way you’re going to get rid of the extra structural weight and airframe drag not to mention a reported maneuvrability “No superior to that of a Cambera with full internal fuel” (According to unimpressed Indian A-F Mig 29 pilots).
You may know that in this field all is a question of compromise, neither the USAF nor many other western countries actualy requiered all fuel necessary for an entire mission to be carried internal until, that is the event of stealth.
For the French territory and that of most of Rafale’s potential clients, the Dassault design is much more suited to the task in hand, it keeps the airframe lighter, smaller as well as stealthier by a fair margin, and ho i nearly forgot, a maneuvrability equal-to-superior WITHOUT the need for weighty, vulnerable, IR unstealthy, maintenance-heavy TVC.
While i’m at it, it goes the same way for the requierement (or lack of it) for M 2.0 too…
BTW there are TWO unused weapon stations on the Rafale even in a normal STRIKE configuration, question of design AND flight-hour cost (Missile seekers and bodies to a lesser extend, doesn’t have an unlimited lifespan)…
LordAssapThe F-35 will also be linked with many other sources. Which, is why its situational awareness is going to be unprecedented amoung fighters….:diablo:
Perhaps it’s time to look at what others are doing in this field? :rolleyes:
LordAssapThe F-35 will also be linked with many other sources. Which, is why its situational awareness is going to be unprecedented amoung fighters….:diablo:
Perhaps it’s time to look at what others are doing in this field? :rolleyes:
LordAssapThanks flex297.
I know these were flown by West German mercenaries, and also that the Mig 23 was no slouch in the hands of a good pilot.
When the Israelis got their hands on one they were surprised how it out-climbed and out-accelerated their F4s…
LordAssapThanks flex297.
I know these were flown by West German mercenaries, and also that the Mig 23 was no slouch in the hands of a good pilot.
When the Israelis got their hands on one they were surprised how it out-climbed and out-accelerated their F4s…
LordAssapI’m hoping that everybody on this forum have a open mind in these matters, but maybe u’re right..:(
They perhaps doesn’t read enough…
DATE:04/09/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Sukhoi unveils ‘supercruising’ Su-35-1 multi-role fighter
By Vladimir KarnozovCleaner layout and improved propulsion system thought to offer supercruise performance
Sukhoi expects to conduct the first flight of its all-new Su-35-1 single-seat multirole fighter within the near future, having unveiled the KnAAPO-built design at August’s Moscow air show.
Launched in 2003, the Su-35-1 lacks the integral triplane configuration employed by India’s Su-30MKIs, and its cleaner layout and improved propulsion system are believed to offer supercruise performance.
The new fighter has a lighter airframe than the legacy Su-27, due to its extensive use of aluminium, titanium and composite structures.
It also has a fully digital flight-control system incorporating engine and thrust vectoring control.
The Su-35-1 can carry over 2t more fuel than the Su-27 and has a ferry range of 4.500km (2,430nm) with external fuel tanks. Airframe life is quoted as 6,000 flight hours or 30 years, and Sukhoi general director Mikhail Pogosyan says the aircraft will be available for export delivery from 2010.
The Russian air force is expected to order several of the aircraft, which will also be promoted to nations such as China.
The aircraft was displayed with new weapons including NPO Machinostoyenia Yakhont and BrahMos PJ-11 supersonic missiles. The type is also believed to be equipped with a new air-to-air missile with a range of up to 200km.
The Su-35-1 is powered by two NPO Saturn Item 117S engines, developed from the Su-27’s AL-31F under a joint project with Ufa MPO.
The new design uses a fully digital control system, swivel nozzle, enlarged fan and engine inlet for higher airflow, a redesigned turbine with improved cooling and has a design life of 4,000 flight hours.
The aircraft is also equipped with a Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis radar with an electronically scanned passive array antenna. A further development of the Su-30MKI’s N-011M Bars sensor, with a more powerful transmitter and higher-speed processing, the design has a claimed detection range of more than 300km against airborne threats.
This is not EXACTLY a fresh news is it?
enlarged fan and engine inlet for higher airflow, a redesigned turbine with improved cooling and has a design life of 4,000 flight hours.
Someone can correct me (Schorsch? haavarla?) but i believe that this is precisely where the previous engine was limited in DRY power…
LordAssapI’m hoping that everybody on this forum have a open mind in these matters, but maybe u’re right..:(
They perhaps doesn’t read enough…
DATE:04/09/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Sukhoi unveils ‘supercruising’ Su-35-1 multi-role fighter
By Vladimir KarnozovCleaner layout and improved propulsion system thought to offer supercruise performance
Sukhoi expects to conduct the first flight of its all-new Su-35-1 single-seat multirole fighter within the near future, having unveiled the KnAAPO-built design at August’s Moscow air show.
Launched in 2003, the Su-35-1 lacks the integral triplane configuration employed by India’s Su-30MKIs, and its cleaner layout and improved propulsion system are believed to offer supercruise performance.
The new fighter has a lighter airframe than the legacy Su-27, due to its extensive use of aluminium, titanium and composite structures.
It also has a fully digital flight-control system incorporating engine and thrust vectoring control.
The Su-35-1 can carry over 2t more fuel than the Su-27 and has a ferry range of 4.500km (2,430nm) with external fuel tanks. Airframe life is quoted as 6,000 flight hours or 30 years, and Sukhoi general director Mikhail Pogosyan says the aircraft will be available for export delivery from 2010.
The Russian air force is expected to order several of the aircraft, which will also be promoted to nations such as China.
The aircraft was displayed with new weapons including NPO Machinostoyenia Yakhont and BrahMos PJ-11 supersonic missiles. The type is also believed to be equipped with a new air-to-air missile with a range of up to 200km.
The Su-35-1 is powered by two NPO Saturn Item 117S engines, developed from the Su-27’s AL-31F under a joint project with Ufa MPO.
The new design uses a fully digital control system, swivel nozzle, enlarged fan and engine inlet for higher airflow, a redesigned turbine with improved cooling and has a design life of 4,000 flight hours.
The aircraft is also equipped with a Tikhomirov NIIP Irbis radar with an electronically scanned passive array antenna. A further development of the Su-30MKI’s N-011M Bars sensor, with a more powerful transmitter and higher-speed processing, the design has a claimed detection range of more than 300km against airborne threats.
This is not EXACTLY a fresh news is it?
enlarged fan and engine inlet for higher airflow, a redesigned turbine with improved cooling and has a design life of 4,000 flight hours.
Someone can correct me (Schorsch? haavarla?) but i believe that this is precisely where the previous engine was limited in DRY power…
LordAssapOne loss. The F1 made it back to base and was crippled upon landing. Sadly, its pilot suffered similar fate.
Intertesting detail.
Q: From an A2A or A2G threat?
LordAssapOne loss. The F1 made it back to base and was crippled upon landing. Sadly, its pilot suffered similar fate.
Intertesting detail.
Q: From an A2A or A2G threat?
LordAssapProper answer:
Thrust < Drag.
WRONG:
“Proper answer” is nowhere as near as simple as that.
Drag = DESIGN = wingspeep = Critical Mach.
TWR is only part of the equation as the opposite force to drag but you can have as high a TWR as you want even if you manage to supercruise it won’t be effiscient BOTH aerodynamicaly and at fuel effieciency level (F-16 at M 1.1).
BEST example is the F-102:
The YF-102A made its first flight on 24 October 1953, but was lost in an accident nine days later. The second aircraft flew on 11 January 1954, confirming a dismal performance, far below the requirements. The problem was solved by the use of the area-ruled fuselage, and the modified aircraft, Model 8-90, first flew on 19 December 1954, achieving a speed of Mach 1.22 and an altitude of 53,000 ft (16,200 m). http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f102_delta_dagger.htm
Aerodynamics are a MOST for supercruise and the AVON Mirage III doing M 1.3 in 1963 didn’t have Typhoon’s TWR but instead, boosted a 60*3 sweept leading edge combined with a 3.5% thickness ratio and a 1.98 aspect ratio…
This allowed it to fly faster than BOTH Rafale and Typhoon with a much lower TWC (Atacr 9C) and reach M 1.3 in military power although of course in clean configuration due to a much more “compressed” transonic region and lower supersonic drag polar.
Now compare the wingplan of F-22 with that of a Rafale and remember that the Raptor’s wings generates VORTEX lift just like any delta wings (NOT the case of F-35 BTW).
Its Supercritical (NACA) wing profile is actually DRAGGIER than a laminary in supersonic but there is your TWR working to its favour once passed the transonic region and its DRAG peak.
Since once passed the transonic region the drag polar actualy goes DOWN it doesn’t make much difference at these speeds to use a supsercritical profile.
If F-22 wings weren’t sweept at near the same value than that of Rafale (48*) it wouldn’t be supercruising this fast and this is also the (main) reason WHY F-35 doesn’t with BTW a higher TWR than a Rafale M88-2 E4…
Schorsch
Because it often turns out to be some sort of fraud. Simply that.
We know what the fraud have been in many forums about Typhoon and Rafale datas…
International Standard Atmosphere, sorry that I don’t write a 5000-word essay each time I post something. I don’t get paid for it.
This is what is used the world’s over, the US standards aren’t even used in international Civil aviation and in any case it is STILL SEA level.
Damn, you’re smart, and you’re not hiding it. I always thought it was radio altitude over moon surface.
I had to learn before i was allowed my @ss in an aircraft to fly, if you had you’d be that “smart” too.
All USAF flight manuals say 15° at sea level.
SEA level, NOT 0ft.
For the Rafale: so be it.
You don’t have SR at M.85 and M1.3, do you?
SR You mean Specific Range? I dont see why not since it is expressed in Nautical Miles per pound of fuel…
In any case a typical CRUISE speed in heavy configuration for the Rafale would be M 0.83 at 89% throttle settings.
This gives you 1.000 Nm+.
LordAssapProper answer:
Thrust < Drag.
WRONG:
“Proper answer” is nowhere as near as simple as that.
Drag = DESIGN = wingspeep = Critical Mach.
TWR is only part of the equation as the opposite force to drag but you can have as high a TWR as you want even if you manage to supercruise it won’t be effiscient BOTH aerodynamicaly and at fuel effieciency level (F-16 at M 1.1).
BEST example is the F-102:
The YF-102A made its first flight on 24 October 1953, but was lost in an accident nine days later. The second aircraft flew on 11 January 1954, confirming a dismal performance, far below the requirements. The problem was solved by the use of the area-ruled fuselage, and the modified aircraft, Model 8-90, first flew on 19 December 1954, achieving a speed of Mach 1.22 and an altitude of 53,000 ft (16,200 m). http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f102_delta_dagger.htm
Aerodynamics are a MOST for supercruise and the AVON Mirage III doing M 1.3 in 1963 didn’t have Typhoon’s TWR but instead, boosted a 60*3 sweept leading edge combined with a 3.5% thickness ratio and a 1.98 aspect ratio…
This allowed it to fly faster than BOTH Rafale and Typhoon with a much lower TWC (Atacr 9C) and reach M 1.3 in military power although of course in clean configuration due to a much more “compressed” transonic region and lower supersonic drag polar.
Now compare the wingplan of F-22 with that of a Rafale and remember that the Raptor’s wings generates VORTEX lift just like any delta wings (NOT the case of F-35 BTW).
Its Supercritical (NACA) wing profile is actually DRAGGIER than a laminary in supersonic but there is your TWR working to its favour once passed the transonic region and its DRAG peak.
Since once passed the transonic region the drag polar actualy goes DOWN it doesn’t make much difference at these speeds to use a supsercritical profile.
If F-22 wings weren’t sweept at near the same value than that of Rafale (48*) it wouldn’t be supercruising this fast and this is also the (main) reason WHY F-35 doesn’t with BTW a higher TWR than a Rafale M88-2 E4…
Schorsch
Because it often turns out to be some sort of fraud. Simply that.
We know what the fraud have been in many forums about Typhoon and Rafale datas…
International Standard Atmosphere, sorry that I don’t write a 5000-word essay each time I post something. I don’t get paid for it.
This is what is used the world’s over, the US standards aren’t even used in international Civil aviation and in any case it is STILL SEA level.
Damn, you’re smart, and you’re not hiding it. I always thought it was radio altitude over moon surface.
I had to learn before i was allowed my @ss in an aircraft to fly, if you had you’d be that “smart” too.
All USAF flight manuals say 15° at sea level.
SEA level, NOT 0ft.
For the Rafale: so be it.
You don’t have SR at M.85 and M1.3, do you?
SR You mean Specific Range? I dont see why not since it is expressed in Nautical Miles per pound of fuel…
In any case a typical CRUISE speed in heavy configuration for the Rafale would be M 0.83 at 89% throttle settings.
This gives you 1.000 Nm+.
Sign In
