shhhh! dont ruin the fantasies of USAF whom keep practice immelmann with or without scarf as if it was indispensable

Immelmann was actually difficult back then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrRyvAp9jXQ

:highly_amused:

A Vulcan once did an Immelmann at an airshow, the pilot received quite a reprimand for it.

I can see yours logic here. But its not that easy. If you shift the CG at of the jet, by removing the fire and control radar, your jet might get more responsive on yaw. But as you go up into transonic and supersonic speed, your jet becomes dangerous ustabile and nervious when you pull back in yaw. In short you take away the controllability, which is never a good thing. Its a good reason why you keep the CG where your jet is balanced.

F-15 pilot Steve Kirik whom flew both Su-27UB bought from Ukraine said the jet acted nerviously and jumpy due to the fact they had removed 2000Ib of weight in the nose. Even the FBW can’t compansate for such big shift in CG.

http://blog.airshowstuff.com/?p=123

Case in point, for doing advanced Display a few 100ft over the ground under 50000 people, you need your jet to be perfect balanced in CG, or else bad things could happen.

Aircraft never (very rarely anyway) go supersonic at airshows though, so it’s a none issue.

There’s a great video on clib rate record setting between the F-15 and Su-27 where it talks about the alterations that had been made to the aircraft.

The Streak Eagle and P-42 did the same.

Which has to do with Energy manuvering or flight display…?

Applies equally to both.

It has these bulges to be able to carry the JSOW, 2000lbs JDAM and the AIM-120B. It might be a good trade-off for a strike plane to carry these weapons at the expense of more transsonic/supersonic drag and a bit more RCS from certain angles, but for a fighter, it might not be a good trade off. If they’re looking at an F-35 derivative for the 6th gen plane, they might think of removing these weapons and redesign the doors for less drag and RCS.

If they could gain like mach 0.2 of supercruise with relatively minor changes that might give the F-35 sufficient speed against emerging threats at low cost.

What would you determine to be ‘sufficient speed’ given that IR signature increases with speed? Bulges need not increase RCS at critical angles, if their shape from that angle is sufficiently stealthy.

[
You have a bad habit of selectively cherry picking points irrespective of what was actually being discussed.

Are “we” familiar with this? Because you were arguing above about this very same capability, tracking and targeting using these integrated defensive avionics.

You stated this:
– which is wrong as mid course guidance updates the missile on changes in target bearing and speed, which the AN/ALR-94 can provide via datalink.
Then you stated:

In none of the posts above did I say this was the case. We were discussing mid course guidance, I did say that these systems MAY be capable of entirely passive targeting engagements but information was vague and sparse.

Then you stated that they wouldn’t be able to detect a target at any great range:

Well first off these systems are able to provide more accurate bearing than range. What is questionable is your claim that they are incapable of long range engagements. Obviously the tracking range for the AN/ALR-94 far exceeds that of an IRST.

Using an IRST as your only sensor sounds like a bad idea. Unless said aircraft is equipped with a narrow beam LOS datalink, the first time it attempts to communicate or send information via network it reveals it’s location.

I’m sure Sweetman fabricated the simulation shown to him and embellished the briefing information on the AN/ALR-94 that he then submitted to a very reputable journal read specifically by people who have expertise in EW systems.

I’m just stating exactly what they stated, there is lots of talk about using the two cooperatively but a common theme seems to be that some radar interaction is necessary to get range and velocity.

Err… you’ve just contradicted your previous post. It stated that radar was required to get range and velocity.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?140099-If-you-had-to-choose-between-Rafale-or-F-35&p=2341394#post2341394

A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it “a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don’t track targets that are too far away to be a threat.”

The system also automatically increases revisit rates according to the threat posed by the targets. Another technique is “closed-loop tracking,” in which the radar constantly adjusts the power and number of pulses to retain a lock on its target while using the smallest possible amount of energy.

High-priority emitters — such as fighter aircraft at close range — can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM

Yes, but even for mid-course guidance it seems to need radar, except according to the assertions of the Sweetman, which have been somewhat unreliable in the past. “To some extent, it’s range,” sounds a lot like what IRST can also do. For mid-course guidance, you also need velocity though, otherwise you don’t know what direction it’s heading in or how fast, you only have a current position.

Well I agree, it’s vague and sparse, certainly not confirmed and the continued adoption of swash-plates and cheek arrays seems to suggest that it’s not a reliable method.

You’ve misunderstood me. I meant IRST gives better bearing and the capacity of RWR to make longer range engagements than IRST is questionable. Not detection but engagement.

Generally it would, but if it knows the enemy is using RWR as a primary detection method with no IRST or radar being used prior to detection with RWR, it basically means they’re fighting a blind man who is listening for them, so keeping quiet is the logical tactic. All depends on knowing your enemy’s tactics.

Aviation journalism is 33% fact, 33% inference, 33% opinion and 1% BS. Let’s break down his quote to isolate the opinion from the fact:

“It can determine a target’s bearing, and to some extent, it’s range. It can even provide mid-course guidance for AMRAAMS”

So determining, ‘to some extent’, its range is now enough to determine to a lesser extent its velocity and provide reliable mid-course updates??? Me thinks not. Me thinks that’s opinion and artistic license. A good IRST system can to some extent determine the range of an F-22 at 30nm. Is that reliable enough for a launch and mid-course update?

Several setback in that line of thought Oblig.

First of all, why would you think “their” aircraft is solely for this purpose?
2nd, what do you think happen to your aircraft(Flanker in this instance) if you remove the radar?
A radar can weight as much as 500kg. By removing this, you create a shift in the CG of any jet, which in turn decrease the performance of the jet. So why would the Knights fly in any Flanker that has its performance(controlability) reduced in the first place?

Shift in CoG further behind the CoP line.

Your thickheadedness in defying all the logic is really getting annoying. Your premise: all else being equal lower the wing loading higher the maneuverability.

If I can post ANY SINGLE POINT on ANY OPERATIONAL AIRCRAFT with FACTUAL DATA to show increased wing area would lead to lower maneverability, then your premise is disproven, PERIOD!!!

You can post a hundreds or thousands of more data points, that suits your theory but that won’t prove it. You can post any number from any textbook to show theoratical airfoils that doesn’t behave as such, I don’t give a rats *** about them. You’ve had a theory, and one example contradicting the theory is all what it is takes to trash it as a whole.

I’ve never said it will hold true for ALL conditions, its a trade-off.

Another nonsense that I’ve come to expect from you. Then will you care to explain how MiG-25 with its uninteresting layout, ****ty wingloading and TWR achieve greater speeds than, well, every other fighter? Or why your “reduced drag” Typhoon isn’t even faster than “underpowered and draggy” Su-27?

Ah hence my comment, aircraft with higher wing loadings actually have better STR; because higher wing loadings improve low altitude sustianed turns.

Well, that is WHOLLY a different discussion, that is irrelevant to WVR ability of the respective airframes. When clean sure, there wouldn’t be contest between them just as there is no contest in my eyes between a Typhoon and a Flanker subsonic. But since supersonic turns are more related to BVR capabilities, I don’t think Typhoon would outturn a F-15 or Flanker in supersonic flight, when all those airframes carry 8 AAMs and fuel for ~1500 km combat radius.

Your comment regarding increased instability and reduced trim drag is a textbook quote, your conclusion for comparing it with a real life aircraft is unfounded without knowing its specifics;

Su-27’s stability diagram;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248437[/ATTACH]

As you can see, Su-27 is quite neutral stable most of the envelope, and only requires less than +/- 1 degree flow angle on elevators, which wouldn’t increase drag much more than the neutral position in either case. So elevators lift is reserved for controllability, and lift is provided by main wings, with higher reynolds number for more efficiency. And this graph will tell you some amazing features of Su-27’s aerodynamics:

At below 20000 feet, Su-27 is always negative stable, its instability increases like mad at transonic regime to assist in sustained turns.

Around 30k feet, Su-27 is highly stable at transonic regime (a drawback from its design trade-offs), but reverts to slight negative stability IF armed with 10 AAMs (see BVR maneuverability), if its not, it slightly positive stable, requires 0,5 degree down angle on elevators.

Again ignorance. I don’t see where the “oddity” is, do you really think Typhoon uses its canards as elevators, or they are canards are just canards 99% of the time, and Typhoons elevators are actually operates in EXACT same fasion as M2k. Careful, as my next 3 questions would be 1-then is the Typhoons CG behind lift or not? 2- is Typhoon relaxed stable or not? 2- Do Canards produce a lift, or a down force?

Also I don’t buy your excuse regarding M2000. Mirage III is a 3rd gen fighter with generation-wise counterparts MiG-23 and F-4E. Mirage 2000 is a 4th gen aircraft, that is focused on maneuverability more than any 3rd gen aircraft. IDK about -IIIS coming before or after introduction of M2k, but had that been a considreable improvement, it would be flying with Canards. Same could be said for F-4 and F-15, both flew with canards as testbeds, F-4E is refitted with LE flaps but not canards, and F-15 is fitted with fly-by wire but, again, not canards. Draken came after viggen didn’t have canards. Canard is not a magical tool, its not that hard to implement too. It has its own pros and cons. I don’t know why this is so hard to digest.

What makes you think you can’t? You can if you had sufficent knowledge base. MiG-21 uses TsAGI S-12 with 4,2% camber, or let me be more precise as airframe not just airfoil;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248435[/ATTACH]

So MiG-21 has Clmax of 1,25.

Increase given by a movable LE flap is between 15-20%.
Increase given by LERX is between 10-20%
Increase given by negative stability to calculate effective Clmax of entire airframe (not only the airfoil) is 3-5%

By this simplistic assumptions we can guestimate Su-27’s (and F-16’s as they share all these features) Clmax would be somewhere in the ballpark between 1,62 and 1,89, 1,76 is average. F-16’s 3G clmax is 1,72 stands in the middile because it also uses similar, only slightly thinner 4% camber airfoil, but Su-27 1,85 stand at the higher end, because it uses thicker ~6,5% airfoil.

So you see? Physics don’t apply to Su-27 and F-16 any differently than much older MiG-21. Same physics wont apply to Typhoon any differently than Su-27 or MiG-21.

So much wrongs here, I couldn’t decide where I should even start. Again for the thickheaded, L/D is nothing to do with low Cl nonsense. Getting back to my MiG-29 example, MiG-29 achieve its best L/D of 10,2 at Cl = 0,4.

In any turn that requires Cl > 0,4, IF increase in wing area reduce Cl to something closer to 0,4 its an improvement. That is a general improvement of deltas, which provide better ITR, all else being equal.
If you increased wing area reduce necessary Cl = 0,5 to Cl = 0,3 its not an improvement, as L/D at these points are the same, and you would be increasing zero lift drag which is fundemental for climbs acceleration cruise and top speed.
If you are already making a turn in Cl <0,4 any increase in wing area will reduce L/D as Cl requirement would be lower. This is a general problem where deltas have poor low altitude STR, all else being equal.

Points in lift direction is another form of horse****. You provide T*sin(AOA) of your thrust to add lift component, but losing T-T*cos(AOA) of your net thrust. Any lost thrust can be considered as increased drag force. Ratio those and you will effectively get a L/D ratio. Wings on combat aircraft easily reach L/D of ~10 or even 10+ at optimal conditions. At above 11,4 deg AOA, what you mention (thrust adding to lift but costing net thrust in drag vector direction) is VERY undesired for sustained turns. At 15 deg AOA for example, your engines will provide “L/D” ratio of 7,59 far worse than what is achieved by the aerodynamics of the aircraft.

Don’t let me start trashing Typhoons airshows…

From 4:25 mark, Su-27 complete a 360 turn in ~12 seconds, at 28 deg/s average turn rate. Waiting for your video response about your ultramaneuverable, non-fumbling about, non-falling Typhoon that does better. Can you even find a video of it completing an 360 in 15 seconds? 18 seconds? No? If all you can find is 360 turns in 20 seconds, than there is a big problem. There are videos of F-15/F-16 or MiG-29 demonstrating such turns in around 15 seconds. Rafale didn’t do that, but judging from its 90 degree turns, it certainly seems capable. We have a few operational F-35 videos, even they seem quite capable of such performance even though they are still initial airframes limited to 6 or 7Gs, I have a problem with Typhoon and F-22’s airshows however. Of all their demo flights, I have watched more agile MiG-21 or F-4 demos then those aircraft.

Artificial G limitation or fuel load is not an excuse for that. A Su-27 at 50% fuel can sustain 5,1Gs at 500 km/h, translating to 20,25deg/s; still be able to complete a 360 turn under 18 seconds without slowing down. At 400 km/h, it can sustain 3,7Gs, still can complete an 360 turn in under 20 seconds without slowing down noticibly (to mk1 eyeball).

I am some guy on a forum that reads flight manuals. Me telling Su-27S out handles everything 4th gen at subsonic turns, sole exclusion is older F-16 blk 30 at lower altitudes is not a claim, its merely reading graphs and putting them on excel for comparisons.

I am also a “some guy” with mechanical engineering education, had expertise in aviation industry, and currently writing its master thesis about an aerodynamics related topic. Had you’ve provided anything convincing, I would be all ears. But no, all your comments are in the lines of a school child claiming “5 cannot be subtracted from 2” because this is the limits of his knowledge, and he is too arrogant to see it, too narrow minded to accept it.

Well, if we are taking statements as facts Typhoon pilots themselves admitted Su-30MKI demonstrated better maneuverability than their own aircraft, and this whole discussion is over.

It’s not me who’s refusing to accept the disproving of the very same example that I used.

That’s simply not the case. Envelopes are extremely wide, but the times aircraft struggle is when Cl values get high because of the Cl^2 relationship. Now the lower wing loading is proven to succeed here and reduce drag. Couple that with canards, higher instability and higher TWR and you have a likely winner.

Mach 0.9 at Sl is central envelope. Both aircraft can sustain the maximum g the pilot can stand, so it is not a lift or drag limited turn. Lower the airspeed or reduce the air density and it is.

If you want to look at the same data point you chose in the extreme then you must increase the g-load to something more hypothetical like 18g but you’ll get the same result as the more practical cases of halving air density or reducing airspeed to M0.64.

Your data point is flawed because you have chosen a point where the pilot is the limit not the plane, yet chose to blame it on the plane. Do you understand?

Simples. It’s level flight, 0g, therefore Cd0 is dominant and smaller wings prevail, which is what I said from the off. Very large engines also, to reduce heating at high speeds, similar to using a larger turbo at high boost pressure in cars. Also variable intakes and steel structure for better dealing with high skin temps. According to German and Austrian AF sources, the Typhoon is as fast as an Su-27 and has a higher service ceiling despite fixed intakes.

Well that’s nice but the Typhoon’s instability margin is higher than the Su-27’s at any point on that graph – 8%.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/p010499.pdf

Canards do produce downforce, but in doing so, as already mentioned, they speed up the flow under the canards, which in turn augments lift over the wing.

F-4 and F-15 both had tailplanes though. The original Lockheed ATF design was a canard delta but it was found not to best meet RCS requirements.

Well based on your earlier ‘estimate’/BS guess of 1.42 Clmax for the Typhoon, factor in 34% lower wing oading and you have Clmax 1.9 equivalent for equal wing loading, even with the Su-35 running a 25% fuel fraction vs 32% for the Typhoon. So well done for proving yourself wrong with your incessant number from fresh air plucking.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?140171-What-s-the-difference-between-energy%96maneuverability-theory-amp-Supermaneuverability&p=2341226#post2341226

But giving your error for the MiG-21 to Su-27 guessformation was 5%, Clmax might be 1.5, so factoring for 34% gives 2.01 equivalent for the smaller Su-35 wing if it is to be equivalent in lift.

Of course what you also haven’t considered is that with high Cl usually comes higher Cd0 and much higher kCl^2, so you again are stuck with the drag problem and the Typhoon once again has the higher TWR still. So the Typhoon has the Flanker cooked, whichever gate you open.

L/D has everything to do with Cl. It’s right there in the equation – Cd = Cd0 + kCl^2. And a thicker aerofoil is definitely likely to have a higher Cd0 and k value too.

Because the larger wing only need lower Cl, it also needs lower AoA, so more of the thrust remains tangential to the turn for a given turn.

More like 14-15s and seemed to be slowing down, suggesting it was probably an ITR. Let’s face it, 12s would be 30deg/s, which is definitely an ITR. Not all airshows push fighters to the limit either for safety reasons. This is why they don’t crash into crowds like Russian aircraft.

There are also lot’s of ways of cheating. a) Using very low fuel, b) doing the same as they did for climb rate records – lightening the aircraft to give an empty TWR of over 2:1.

When the Typhoon does those 18-20s turns it usually goes straight into a vertical climb afterwards.

Seems about the same.

Not at sea level.

Nearer sea level with a drop tank.

1:20 – 180deg in 5s followed by climb.

4:08 – 360deg in 15s with drop tank and climb in middle.

We all have an education thanks.

Which pilots were they? Show me direct quotes. They’re likely referring to the TVC, but that’s only an advantage in gun training or when the HMD is disabled to some extent.

As I said, if you are looking for official documents, or P.R. releases, your not going to find them, or much of anything else except a vague description of what the AN/ALR-94 and AN/ASQ-239 do. Frankly, I don’t care if you don’t find that satisfactory. As clearly these systems can track the target independently of radar, there is zero reason that it cannot provide target location updates to the AMRAAM.

Whatever people feel about Sweetman, he was not writing op-ed. He was describing the simulated engagement the L-M engineers allowed him to see. Not to mention that the Journal of Electronic Defense isn’t exactly “Popular Mechanics”. As c

7/1/2000; Publication: Journal of Electronic Defense-.

Well perhaps they can but they would be the only aircraft with such a capability if it were true.

Cuing radar again seems like a very sensible use of RWR. Using radar to determine range, again very sensible. ‘Nearly all, the information necessary’. So again we have the case of a passive intercept briefly use a more precise active method to get range, which is the kind of intercept we’re familiar with.

Using RWR alone for detection also seems like a bad tactic against IRST for the F-22.

Yeah, spud don’t you know you have to be small and sleek to be stealthy?

Indeed, a MiG-21 is small and sleek, so is an F-5. It’s about shaping but there are some obvious shapes that won’t work, like a sphere on the front of your aircraft.