September 5, 1960 the F-4H set a 500 km closed circuit record at Edwards of 1958km/h or Mach 1,845.
There were several points of intrest about this flight. Drop tanks were carried under both wings and the fuselage centreline.
The wing tanks were jettisoned prior to the acceleration phase, which was made with the centreline tank still on. The afterburners were lit 241 km from the start line at a height of 10976 m and a speed of Mach 0,92. After 193 km the Phantom had reached an altitude of 14634 m and accelerated to Mach 1,6.
At this point the centreline tank was jettisoned. By the time the start line was reached the altitude had reduced to 12866 m and the speed had increased to Mach 1,76. The Phantom crossed the finish line 15 min 19.2 seconds later at a height of 14024 m and a speed of Mach 2,10 having made a sustained afterburner run lasting 25,5 minutes.

Just an idea how comparable record flights are to ordinary mission flights.

1-27’s dont/cant use fuel tanks
2-Yes that was the record hold by the f-4, dont remember if was broken though
3-This is a more practical record (with payload), that is why i dont talk about the record of the 27 clean

haavarla, is on the FAI page, dont remember the exact link though

That’s good news for the Su-27 and it will achieve slightly better sustained turn rates by that. But wing loading is higher,

Yes, yes , again nominal values, of course better wing loading is the best thing …indeed, the mirage 3 should have better sustained turn than the f-16….no?, again nominal values, yes both arround M2, but which one can sustain better that speed? -including sustained power of an engine-, again nominal values, yes it have better nominal climb rate, but will climb better than the other design at 5000 mts?, again nominal values, yes both are 9g’s figthers, seems one can sustain that better in a much better envelopment, again…nominal values..

Anyway , my last comment about that, i wanted a more detailed explanation from martinez about these tables, the tendency between speed/heigh, if external tanks are used (or can be used) at 13000 mts, the relative consume of fuel in the different configurations, nobody has made these comments,that is what im looking for in this thread, you can keep your techno-babbling for yourself

Your lack of basic knowledge aside.
The F-15 and the Su-27 do have the same speed envelope. The F-15 is even faster. To get endurance both designs are limited to subsonic. Going supersonic both will be reduced, because they are in AB.
The Su-27 will have more fuel to stay supersonic, but both were designed at a similar time-scale, where the assumption was, that turning does wind down speed to subsonic in short notice.

You know, nominal values (the M2.5 for example) are not always the practical and real ones, stop being an annoying brat Sens, with your techno babbling please and leave aside for a moment your trademarked “Your lack of basic knowledge aside” phrase..

That is not the whole story i dont care if you know that, but, for example g-envelopment graphics help a bit, also the 27 has demostrated a cruiser speed of M1.5 in a circuit of 1000 kms -with 1000 kg of load, rather low, but it was a circuit anyway-, the f-15 simply was not designed for that, there are a lot more factors like acceleration at heigh, output thrust at heigh/speed, etc, claiming that both planes are the same just by nominal values is not the real deal

The su-27 use true 4th gen aerodynamics (like the F-16 -blended wing, lerx, and new aerodynamic topology), while the f-15 ones are more 3.5 generation

********

Anyway , about the big airline drop tanks, i think there are some structural problems related, when one try to reach an acceptable volume/weight rate for such big things, dont remember well, but i think ET’s were designed for the B-52?

martinez, can you translate the pictures that you have posted? i dont understand russian either, and i think the tables show a relation between heigh and fuel consume, or im wrong?,please at least post an explanation..

Serioulsy , i dont get sferrin, i did a fast review on the forum and the topics arround, and all your comments are in the same style, i mean , like an angry grunt farmer, you know, typical “ROLF!” or “yeah these russians…” a lot od devil smilies ,and rolleyes, but not a single argument to start an interesting discussion.

We all know that is your typical style, dear old queen, but mate, lately you are trolling too much..take a break…:D

As I said, F-15A and Su-27P have basically similar performance envelopes, range, speed and maneuver. One weights 13.5t empty with 56.5sqm wing area, the other 17t with 62sqm wing area.

You are wrong there, the su-27 is more a road runner with dogfighting capacity, the f-15 is a subsonic figther with a limited supersonic capacity, both are different beasts.

similar performance envelopes, range, speed and maneuver

sorry but that is the typical airplane fan comment, nice, in an airhow, the mig-29 , f-16, f-15, mirage3 or f1 look almost the same in a high speed turning, all nice, well lets see the difference at 3000 mts…

Im not so sure that one typhoon with EFT would reach the operative heights of a flanker, i think you are underrating that factor

You guys also are not looking it under perspective, lets put drop tanks on the su-27, and you will get a fighter with full operational capacity well inside the enemy air-space

Between designing the plane with more internal fuel capacity, and putting conformal tanks…which solution is better?…IMO you are pretty wrong if you chose the second..indeed patch solutions will be the best ones on the eyes of an f-16 or rafale lover..

I wonder why airliners dont use external tanks…has that nothing to do with the economical fly envelopment (above 10000 mts)? at high cruiser speed? (M0.8+)?, remember that at height minimal practical cruiser speed is increased

Operating cost ‘per hour’ of the Tu-160 reported in the Russian media in June 2008.

source: http://news.mail.ru/politics/1826912

I can’t find the hourly operating costs of the B-1B, but I’m not sure if it is even as high as $20,000?:confused::confused:

Not sure about the b1b, but i think i have read 6000 USD for the f-16, 10-12000 USD for the f-15 and 15000 USD for the b-52, im think the b-1b values should be higher

planes are costly to keep in the air, 20000 USD is rather a reasonable cost for such plane with shuch capacities

My dear Trollqueen, about the FAI records, if you can check better, all the russian attempts were done in 1990, and all were done in the 5000km circuit , because these were the most important records to break.

The 10000km records set (and started) by the b1-b were done in 1994, if you check it better there is no one record that the 160 hold later than 1990, that was the only attempt done by the blackjack, if they have done nothing after 1994, that does not mean they can’t