Does anyone know the internal fuel capacity of Victor without bomber bay occupied?
Seems smaller than Sprite[ATTACH=CONFIG]260441[/ATTACH]
look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_TIS
Thanks
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250343[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250344[/ATTACH]
2000L External tank?
We always lost F-14 when we drawing G-S,
we always lost acceleration when we discussion about performence.
I’d rather to say Mirage G-8.
An interesting French name I saw.
Actually I posted a long story about the history of Mirage F series, however I erased all of them remained only single sentence. If we do it simple, then the Mirage F series is a branch of original Mirarage III. It’s not quite exactly but roughly right.
Sorry, I was just doing simple answer, and without any interesting for presentation of deep story.
You are going all wrong about supercruise. MiG-25 has less wet T/W than the dry T/W of the F-15/16/22 Su-27/35 etc etc. Surely it is draggier than all those types. Then how can it go M2.83 with 4 missiles? As I mentioned sometime ago somewhere in this forum, supercruising is not about the amount of engine thrust but the velocity of the exhaust.
……
The rest of your post has been neglected, because you just presumed that velocity of the exhaust for MiG-25 must be higher than F-15, F-22, Su-35 etc…..
However I didn’t see your reason for MiG-25’s higher drag coefficient.
Emile:
If the 10 ton class engine you meant was TF-306, I could be sure that wouldn’t be adapted on G.8.
Since Mirage F-1 was failed tobe a fighter, l’Armée de l’air was seeking a new (genu/e) fighter, however the prospect for Mirage G went MRCA way as we saw afterwards. That’s why those were abandont.
Finally, the only possible rival against MiG-29/35 will be Rafale.
Rafale’s 4575kg internal fuel is not outstanding though, but with CFT which are supposed to carry 700~800kg each, Rafale’s clean fuel load will be equal to the top of MiG-29.
Otherwise, the maximum external fuel for Rafale will be three 2000L EFTs and two 1350L EFTs. Total external fuel could be ahead of Fulcrum.
When maximum external fuel be loaded, still 6 pylons left for missiles, beats Fulcrum’s 4.;)
I would be interested to know if the new generation of MiG-29 are able carry a kh-59 or KAB-1500 on those heavy hardpoints. If so, would a load out of 2 x KAB-1500 3 x Drop tanks 2x R-77 and 2x R-73 be possible?
If the foto posted by Kopyo was true, then there would be no problem for MiG-29M/35 to load 5 DTs and 4 or 6 mssiles simultaneously.
Where is the calculation made by Emile?
From the PLAAF thread:
The “bump” under the fuselage , that is indeed only the bay doors being half open , the undersurface being smooth when they are closed, right?
Thank you.:)
I am so impatient of the “BMUP”, BUMP is a word mostly not be used to describle something DSI alike.
gives USAF something to laugh about. Chinese designers must be their biggest fans looking at this prototype.
China will never be mighty power untill they have own progressive feature.
China makes everything by itself.. How dare you challenge the intellectual might of the Middle Kingdom?
What a sarcasm!
How dare you! The one always made cynical post would make out your rhetoric very deeply.
The Chinese have very poor engine technology; the first few instances will likely fly with Russian or outdated engines, and by having oversized engine compartments, they will be able to provide latitude if their final engine is oversize / overweight.
No worries, they have uncountable FER in troublesome, and money makes mill go in thier belief.