I see it since now you quote it properly. I’ve skimmed it, just don’t expect me to thoroughly read all 15 pages for you so you can nitpick 3 words from it. Well, then F-16 has a diverter too and it obviously produce an oblique shock too just like any such geometry. I don’t recall anyone calling it a “fixed ramp inlet with superb performance”. Lets play it your way, I stand corrected Typhoon has a inlet ramp that doesn’t move. So what? Its a fixed inlet that has one normal and one oblique shock which doesn’t really match the inlet area except a single Mach number. That is better than MiG-29 and Su-27 you are comparing, how? That makes ram effect to increase inlet pressure ratio above 1, how?
Well your first problem is, you are nitpicking and sythesizing all your data from 10 different sources.
Austrian Airforce site says top speed = M2,35. German airforce say M2,0 (NO PLUS), UK airforce website say M1,8 (NO PLUS) and UK demo team website say M2,0+. Those are all “customer” sources not manufacturer and the *official* website of Eurofighter consortium (which IS the manufacturer) say it is M2,0 (NO PLUS), Why pick the greatest one which is not the manufacturer but customer website, and not the RAF’s M1,8? Is it less reliable than Austrians? Or their Typhoons that different? For all I know this may as well be an error of webmaster of bundesheer.at as it is the ONLY (half-official) site claims M2,35. Everyone else writing M2,35 just quotes them.
When you want technical info about a BMW, you go read specs from official BMW website or brochure, not from a BMW owner who writes them on a piece of paper or his own personal website. This holds esspecially true when latter write numbers that contradict with official data. As far as Typhoon is concerned, official top speed published by Eurofighter consortium is an exact M2,0. No plus, no minus, no greater than etc statements and I am going to stick with that, you can believe whatever you want, because you certainly like to.
Then you skim all over the net, look for the highest Mach number you can find about Typhoon at S/L and so on. If you search the net with such methodology, you will find MiG-25’s top speed to be M3,2+, you will even find M2,6 top speed of PAK-FA and some equally interesting claims for S/L and supercruise, even though I am sure Sukhoi themselves doesn’t even know those for sure at this point.
Second problem is often maximum Mach number **LIMIT** is quoted for top speed, but that is not the actual attainable speed. Judging solely by quoted top speeds M2,5 capable F-15A is faster than M2.35 Su-27S, just a tad slower than M2,83 MiG-25 right? Wrong, PW-100 engined had top speed of M2,25 on standard atmospheric conditions, whereas Su-27 with AL-31Fs could reach its M2,35 top speed on level flight, and MiG-25 can reach M2,83 with full A-A armament of 4xR-40s. Interestingly, even with PW-220 or PW-229s, F-15 cannot go M2,5 on level flight at STD day. In short, comparing aircraft by their top *allowed* speed is a stupid idea. This even applies to MiG-29 9.12 in question. It can go both ways actually, MiG-25 is a good example as its clean top speed is not drag limited.
Thirdly, without having an official figure, sources do make erroneous conversions, one take 1470 km/h S/L speed and declare it M1,25; no 1470 km/h is M1,2. Worse, a second source then take M1,25 and declare speed to be 1536 km/h. Just 3 years ago wikipedia info of Typhoon was a lot different, now the numbers only go up and up.
Anyway, lets look at MiG-29’s envelope;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248620[/ATTACH]You can see the top speed @ S/L is 1500 km/h = M1,225; its actually faster than 1470km/h of Tyhpoon.
Its given top (allowed) speed is M2,35 not any worse than the highest number you can find for Typhoon, much higher than its *official* figure.
Its attainable top speed is M2,32 or 2464 km/h; this has no equivalent published number but this is much higher than its *official* figure.So even if you nitpick the bestest highest numbers floating around the web, Typhoon is not faster than MiG-29, its slower at S/L and has equal top speed at high altitude. If we compare official figures with manual data (like any sane man) MiG-29 slightly faster at S/L and much faster at altitude. L
Like I’ve said, supercruise has nothing to with wet thrust performance, but you won’t simply listen so..
So MiG-25’s T-D must be superior than Typhoon for entire envelope as its way faster and difference is so huge that it apply at all speeds/altitudes right?… Your logic amuses me.
Climb rate IS EXACT SAME THING as Specific Excess Power. Only difference is their units, climb rate is in m/s; multiply it with a constant G=9,8184m/s2 you get SEP in Watt/kg. As its interchangable and Climb rate is more understandable to pilots, turn rates are written in 0-200-400 feet per second climb rate lines not some W/kg which would have no meaning for the pilot… By writing this as such, it tells the pilot if his F-16 (@22000lbs) is pulling 4Gs at 272 m/s airspeed ( M0,8) it will also have SEP equivalent to a 303m/s sustained climb, which he can also use for acceleration etc or this tells him if he makes a immelmann maneuver @4Gs he would still be accelerating even at the point he goes fully vertical. This is better than writing 2385 Watt/kg.
In analogy, your excuse is like “meters is not same thing as centimeters, because when you multiply it with a constant (100 in this case) everything changes.”
Your arrogance aside, you must a moron to think I am the “failing” side. I’ve posted pages from F-16 and MiG-29 manuals that clearly shows climb rates at respective speeds MiG-29 manual specifically draws a climb rate vs airspeed graph to tell that, and you say “its impossible”. Well then, don’t convince me, convince Lockheed Martin and Mikoyan Gurevich engineers. Mail them for their error. Because you know it all, you know more than they do as well….
Well, DRY and WET thrust graphs the real world engine/aircraft in question disagree with your BS. Why bother a responding to me, a mere forum guy? His source, the flight manuals must be wrong. Go convince Klimov and MiG engineers. We already know Starfish Prime>MiG design bureu because of they wrote impossible climb rates on their flight manual, now you have proven Starfish Prime>Klimov design bureu as well.. Go tell them they are wrong. Tell them in those graphs it wet thrust shouldn’t be that high.
Ah, so you do understand con-di nozzle. Tell me then, when RD-33 goes to full dry thrust, do you see nozzles fully close to a convergent nozzle? Or they stick at a half open position to work as a con-di nozzle? Do EJ-200 behave same or it during take-offs it actually starts opening its nozzles before afterburner is ignited?
Like I’ve said, one engine is designed to supercruise, one doesn’t. Nothing wrong with either, its just esspecialy foolish to compare EJ-200 and RD-33 on a flight regime that RD-33 is simply not designed for.
Your supercruise comparison of EJ-200/Typhoon RD-33/MiG-29 is very much like comparing maneuverability of a DG-400 motorglider to an F-16 at 70 km/h. Obviously F-16’s maneuverability is more comperable to a falling brick at that speed, you say “DG-400 is more maneuverable so its also a faster design”…. In each post of yours I am like “WTF ?? Those aren’t even remotely related!?”
Possible and probable. This still means, despite flying further from their homebase with limited payload or fuel due VTOL carrier operations, Harrier didn’t handicap its pilots, so it was a good enough instrument to shot down numerous Mirages without any losses.
It’s like the third time I’ve quoted it. How difficult was it to select ‘Find’ and then type ‘ramp’ and hit Enter?
The F-16 uses a pitot intake. If you don’t understand the difference between a fixed ramp and pitot I can’t help you. I suppose an inlet cone is also pitot by that reckoning?
One oblique shock and one normal is all you need a low supersonic speeds. If you have more than needed in terms of ramps for a given airspeed, it often reduces intake efficiency. See F-15 intake below M1.0 vs Pitot. There is no good reason for a fighter to have variable geometry given 99.9999% of its lifetime operating speeds. A Concorde has more need of variable geometry than a MiG-29 or Su-27.
The M2.35 is likely correct given that DA2 exceeded M2.0 with RB199s, which are higher BPR and not at all optimised for high altitude of high speed. On the same page you’ll also find analysis as to why M2.35 is much more likely. M2.0 is also a little too rounded don’t you think?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Marschgeschwindigkeit
How is the Austrian AF half official? The RAF also state M1.3 for the Tornado. These are clearly normal operational limits and probably include drop tank carriage.
Actually you don’t because car manufacturers are well known for not always stating accurate hp and torque figures. Some under claim, some over claim. Same deal with top speed and acceleration. And I think I only need to mention the VW emissions scandal in passing to make a point.
The MiG-25 could do Mach 3.2+. It achieved M3.21 and 126,000ft in testing if I remember correctly. It was restricted to M2.83 because the HPT was inclined to warp above that speed.
You sure about the F-15 only managing M2.25?
M1.25 is cited in the referenced book but yes it should be 1,530kph at SAE.
M1.225 is slower than M1.25. M2.32 is lower than M2.35 AND crucially the Typhoon is managing that with a sub-optimal intake, which speaks volumes for what it’s capable of at lower Mach where a fixed ramp works much better within it’s optimised M0.9-M1.6 range.
Nope the M1.25 is direct quote from a book cited on wiki, 1,470kph is some a55clown on wiki doing an ad-hoc conversion.
SC definitely does have a bearing because it demonstrated how well the Typhoon operates in its M0.9-M1.6 optimised regime. I see the MiG-29 is struggling to crack M1.0 on dry thrust, wow, the Typhoon’s engines must be performing much better in that regime.
Nope because MiG-25 is optimised for high altitude and it slower at low altitude, its climb is also affected by weight.
I’m well aware of that but nevertheless the way you phrased it was incorrect. A plane doing M0.9 cannot be climbing at 345m/s. We also see that in being able to achieve a faster SL speed (M1.25) the Typhoon has a better T-D relationship at low altitude.
Well let’s see.
1. You failed to recognise that the Typhoon had a ramp intake and then claimed it was the same as an F-16 pitot intake when proved wrong (in this very post).
2. Earlier you failed to know the difference between total pressure and static pressure.
3. You claimed the pressure in an intake couldn’t exceed atmospheric unless it was variable geometry.
I think it’s clear who’s failing and furthermore who’s lied about having a degree in mechanical engineering. Don’t suppose you’d care to post your original certificate? Because right now I’m struggling to believe you. Feel free to black out the name.
I didn’t say anything was impossible, I said they couldn’t climb as fast as a Typhoon. No way, no how.
Never said the manuals were wrong, but dry thrust still demonstrates how well the engine and airframe is operating at low supersonic speeds. If it has the T-D to go from M1.0 to M1.5 on dry thrust, then when you add >50% it’s pretty clear the T-D just above M1.0 will be huge.
The advantage of wet thrust is two fold, one is direct thrust augmentation at any speed, the second is a faster jet velocity, which massively improves thrust at high speed, hence why the MiG-29 can go much faster on wet thrust. I’m not disputing the graph, just your interpretation of it.
If the flow in the nozzle is choked in convergent configuration, then it must go to con-di.
Well if the RD-33 and intakes and MiG-29 T-D are so great how come it can’t supercruise? Just because of the nozzles? Give me a break. Fitted variable geometry intake but didn’t fit correct nozzles to supercruise?
Who said it had limited fuel? I’d imagine they flew with DTs. Whilst they had VTOL capability, they quite often (mostly in fact) operated as VSTOL.
Sign In
