If you don’t increase the wing areal when you get a larger and heavier airframe, well eighter you go for the Pure interceptor design(aka Mig-31) goal, or you are basicly making a very bad Choice(like craming three different design and role into one airframe)..
That the PakFa has much larger wing areal vs F-35 is totaly legit, I would flip it around and say if we could stretch the F-35 and put larger wings on it, then all for the better.
My fattie jab, is perhaps not a good sentiment.. Too bad peps.
If it looks good, it flies good.
Its simple logic. The F-35 makes up for its short lenght, and relative smaller wings by making the wings less sweeped, aka more SH wing style in order to generate the desired lift.
Anyway, you tried to argue that PakFa larger wings make it more draggy.. Which in this case, it don’t.
I would say Sukhoi has balanced it very nice.
It retain the Flanker fuel volume, turn rate but having less drag and better RCS. Bingo!
The dominant factor in subsonic cruise is Cd0*A, the kCl^2 term is trivial. So what you argue is plain wrong. Since you mention the MiG-31, it would undoubtedly be slower if it had larger wings. Why? More drag.
‘If it looks good it flies good’ – Can Jessica Alba fly?
Yes and the generate lift at subsonic speeds more efficiently for that very reason.
They absolutely do, Cd = Cd0 + kCl^2. Last term is trivial in cruise, therefore Cd ~ Cd0. Drag = 0.5*Density*Cd*Area*v^2.
Balance depends what you’re aiming for. It has 2,700lb less fuel than an Su-35. Fuel fraction is 35% vs 38.5%. Drag area is 30% higher. Now if they’ve made a lot of aerodynamic and fuel efficiency improvements, maybe it can get near the same range but the idea that it’s going to beat 4,000km is nonsense. Meanwhile >3,000km for an aircraft with a 39% fuel fraction, 0.57 BPR and 28:1 PR is a very conservative claim.
Sign In
