Observe the overall design of Flank, you will see some finesse like how thin the airframe(top to bottom) is aft of the humpback cockpit section ends and then goes back the its tail. Its basicly a thin Wing, while F-35 and F-22 airframe is still the F-15 like, boxy shape, with the engines right in the middle of it.
The Flanker is by every stretch a flatter and wider design, hense it has more lift out of the same weight/size class as its adversaries does.
F-14 had a very thin body too
and that design still not used in F-35 or F-22, my guess is that their ability to generate lift isn’t that much difference whether the body is thin or not ( which kinda make sense because body lift is mostly generated at positive AoA) .
Alternatively, we know that thick wing often generates more lift than thin one, so that probably why they choose to go with boxy fuselage instead of flat one.
To sum up, i dont think we have solid evidence to conclude that flat fuselage will generate more lift than boxy fuselage of the same area.
It is slightly larger and heavier vs F-15, but it is just as good if not better in allmost every area.. why is that?
I dont think Su-27 is better than F-15 in most area, IRCC, Su-27 and F-15 is very closely matched ( didn’t Andraxxus made some comparison between them 2 aircraft?)
And larger and heavier doesn’t automatically mean perform worse, the F-15 F-16 are quite a bit bigger than F-5, and they do perform alot better.
Pls be accurate, the difference with 9.12 and say a Mig-29 SMT is enormous in terms of fuel capacity.
Anyway, the Mig-29 is not in the same class as F-35. Not in weight anyway.
Certainly not the 9.12
i dont know about mig-29 but Mig-35 and F-35 weight seem rather close, and their cross section too.
Its shorter allright. F-14 and F-15 is longer. Its not a big difference though.
Do you have a an overlap picture of them? , i still feel like the intake on Su-27 appear to be shorter mostly because the aircraft is longer (22 vs 19 meters for F-15)
Yes agree. But you can’t just look at the LERX and then leave the rest out. LERX is incorparated between fuselage and wing. There is many details. Having a long nose does help making LERX more efficient.
I think having a larger wing with large leading edge flaps, larger control surfaces on the wing in general, makes the LERX more efficient.
This is hardcore aerodynamics yes, but what happend in TsAGI wind tunnels during the development of Mig-29 and Su-27 must have been very inspirering to observe.
I know we cant just look at the lerx and ignore the rest, but that the problem, there are too many factors involved here like Lerx size, shape, nose shape, size, wing shape.. etc, too complex for us to say which one is better without hard data.
Sukhoi did get the FBW at the time very successfull. Cant take this away from them. It certainly helped when you move the CG aft, even just the slightest.
I never said Fbw on Su-27 did not work, i only said i cant comments because i dont know the exact location for Su-27 CG
The term (blended wing body with engine pods) have to be intended there as an inseparable one: what characterize modern russian planes is having no fuselage, intended as a shell like structure in which internal components (engines, electronics, landing gear, even fuel) are stored and which wings are attached to or, in case of modern blended wing body, fused into.
In russian planes , the engine nacelles are instead hanged under the wing itself, separated by a quite wide tunnel while the cockpit compartment (with radar and front wheel) is fused to it in the frontal part, sitting all above the said tunnel and not overlapping in any way the pods.
So in this case are the other components that are attached/blended to the wing (yes, wing because it is a monolithic structure) and not the contrary.
In the case of F-14 instead, there are engine nacelles and central tunnel but there are not blending wing structure.
At the contrary, the variable swept wings are attached to the nacelles themselves as they would have been with a conventional fuselage.
Tu-160 has real engine pods instead but they are hanged under a blending fuselage and the variable swept wings are attached to it.
So the F-14 is a fast and agile plane despite its own great weight ’cause the aerodynamical advantages of having not the drag of a conventional fuselage but is not manoeuvrable as its variable swept wings doesn’t allow it while, at the contrary the F-35A is scheduled to reach both high G numbers and AoA thanks to its blended wing body configuration but
What the heck are u talking about?
Su-27
F-14
F-35 is the slowest of the whole lot (in clean configuration) because of the drag of its (large and short) fuselage.
.
aircraft speed often limit by intake design
The sustain g limit of F-16 block 50 with 100% fuel, 2 aim-120, 2 empty wing pylon ( DI21) , at mach 0.8, and 15. 000 feet is 4.6G, that is actually similar to 4.6G value of F-35A and inferior to 5G value of F-35C. I don’t see how that illustrate F-35 as a bad fighter.
F-16 block 50 isnt the most agile F-16 version though, the most maneuverable one is F-16 block 30 with F110 engine
. That one can sustain around 5.1G in similar condition
Not everyone actually. You should appreciate that someone has an alternate view, otherwise it would be a stealth-magic echo chamber in here.
Man, thank god for the Serbs and their S-125. IF not for them the stealth-club would be 10 times bolder.
I dont mind members expressing their disagreement , especially if it came from respectable member like Andraxxuss , Stealth Flanker or Mercurious , but at this point Scar is just an unthinking nationalistic troll, you cant deny that he start to be very biased and unreasonable in last couple of pages , not much better than JSR.
That story is told in told in Chapter 2 of Ben Rich’s book ‘Skunk Works’. But it was not the F-117 prototype, but a model of Lockheed’s ‘Hopeless Diamond’ design.
In the same chapter we are told that when the USAF pole-tested ‘Hopeless Diamond’ at their radar range, they hit the problem that the pole (with an RCS of 0.01 sq m) had a much larger radar return than the model on test. According to the company’s radar expert Denys Overholser, the pole was “many times brighter” than the model.
That is very interesting , i always thought the pole was made from composite. So how did they solved that problem ?
anyway i found this link http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm seem rather interesting that Northrop prototype for Have Blue program have lower RCS at very low frequency compared to Lockheed design , may be that the base for B-2 later
Sign In
