star49Yes for sure MiG-29s engines in service have only some 4000 kg of reheat thrust due to wear:rolleyes: That’s complete nonsense. BTW I don’t say the MiG-29’s aerodynamics are bad or its flight performance is low, no the only thing I say is that it lacks behind the Eurofighter. Of course one has to consider that the MiG-29 is an older design and that it is only reasonable that the Typhoon is superior here, let alone the fact that evolved Fulcrums and Flankers were the threat to be defeated by the Typhoon form its design concept view.
I am not saying that it is 4000KG thrust But will definitely much more than comparable Western engine at that point of time. u simply cannot compare a 400 hr RD-33 with 4000 hr RD-33MK. Same is the case with Su-35. 4000 hr 117S they claim can do supercruise with lighter avionics but 1500 hr AL-31F cant do it. Although they also said significant increase in accelaraton with 3000hr AL-31FM1. and the report is right in this form.
and that is no argument that Typhoon was designed for future Flankers/Fulcrums. when u have not idea that state can change from communism to Capitalism with all the changes to research and manufacturing processess. Understand this statement. In order to fullfill a $20m per year contract they have invest $100m and that was couple of years ago. Now imagine the whole improvment going into production processess for SSJ/Su-35/PAK-FA/MS-21/MTA. I am sure the same processese will be available to new MIG-35 whenever they find customer for it.
Fyodorov cited the Irkut Corporation by way of example of efficient re-equipment.
“Several years ago we secured a contract on manufacturing components for the European Airbus Consortium. It was not a big-ticket contract, since its cost amounted to $20 million a year. However, its fulfillment required revamping production facilities,” Fyodorov said.
According to him, when preparing the Airbus components production, Irkut brought several thousand production and technological processes up to European standards. “Just our own investments in re-equipment alone amounted to in excess of $100 million,” he said.
Performance speaks for it self! You are simply unwilled to accept the facts. The MiG-29 still does very well in dogfights as it has ever done.
u havent provided any facts from real world situations. Only paper specification without real world exercises and circumstances of those exercises. for example u cannot exercise a 10 year old operational Gripen with 2 year old operational EF because of engine wear and tear difference.
Yes of course demonstrated performance in industrial tests and operational evaluations is only paper specification:rolleyes: According your logic the MiG-35s or Su-35s performance is completly irrelevant as both aircraft don’t even exist in form of a production aircraft, let alone not being flown in any exercise:rolleyes:
It is sufficient to conclude from various tech demonstrators like MIG-29OVT(which is also very old now), MIG-29K, MIG-35. that once full production version is made. there is reasonable confidence that it will be vast improvement over MIG-29A. similar is the case with Su-35.
MKI does not present modern aircraft? Lol you are kidding. The MKIs avionics are top notch and not heavy soviet devices from 1980s time. At least 6 % composites were used. Of course is a heavy two seater not better than a lighter single seater in terms of drag etc. and this is particularly true for the Flanker where the rear cockpit is placed higher producing more drag.
MKI was modern when it was introduced around 2002. Now even Remonkyo director by itself saying it is generation behind MIG-35. and there is public statements from Russian officials that there Su-27SM is better than any export Flanker. Su-35 (Su-27SM2) is in different league.
Just to give a clue about Su-35 FBW sophistication
http://mnpk.ru/index_ing/des/ksu35/
6. Providing automatic avoidance of collision (with earth surface, other aircraft, armaments, fragmentations of its own armaments and others) by signals from a management-information system of an integrated board equipment system
It is funny that u take German airforce or EADS information as only valid truth about EF but not take Russians officials statments about there own products and constantly try deduce information from obsolete down graded old export products for another generation of export products.
I am not going into Eqyptian airforce chief statement where he is comparing MIG-29 to F-15C and his not referring to the new ones.
It is ur responsibility to prove that EF is much better than JAS-39A with same life engines and in exercises.
star49The 6 MiG-29M prototypes were not operational aircraft and were able to perform with unstressed engines. So your arguments in terms of decreased engine performance due to life consume rates is not really relevant. You should also be aware that engine components are often exchanged even out of the overhaul cycles. You can’t affort loosing 30% of thrust! That the engines might theoretically loose performance over the time is true, but no one will let it go for obvious reasons.
30% is for western engine. Soviet engine much more than that. and Prototypes are usually stressed much more than operational one. u have thousands of flights ususally in a very short time for FBW, Loads and Weopon testing. which is not case with operational ones. the fact that 10 to 15 years old with MIG-29 performed so excellently against JAS-39/F-16 speaks volumes about superior aerodynamic performance of MIG-29 in presence of extremely short life engine who was used well passed its operational life of 400 hrs.
What I do is saying that the MiG-29s parity or superiority which is allegded by you isn’t true.
u are trying to prove benefits of canards which is not true. Aircraft designed without computers and advance materials like MIG-29 with vastly inferior engines, lack of FBW, MMI, HOTAS , visibilty, age could do very well.
Gripen wing area is given with 24.8 m². You have to take into account that the Gripen is even smaller than the F-16 and that its deltas are relative small. Therefor the Gripen has relativ large canards.
by that logic even M2K is smaller than F-16. the difference is not that big. only F404 engine is shorter. And structuarlly Gripen is not less advanced than EF.
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/structure.html
56% of the structure is made of aluminium alloys. 26% is made of composites, including the fin, wing, canards, most control surfaces and many covers and doors. The wings are made of up to 146 composite layers
If you don’t accept performance data available from official and reliable sources it’s your problem not mine. I won’t run circle discussions.
that is sill paper specification. unless there is evaluation and exercisese done with neutrality.
The canards for the Flanker were studied, wind tunnel tested and test flown on the T-10-24 and they were subsequently integrated onto many Flanker derivates which followed. The Su-35s performance profit by that. That’s a simple fact and I see no further reason to discuss this.
and Flanker also suffered straight line performance, climb rates due to extra weight. thats what Sukhoi rectifying.
TVC provides benefits in the supersonic area right now in the F-22 and it will probably do so in the future for PAK FA, but not all aircraft using TVC will profit by TVC. The TVC of the Su-30MKI for example are only used at lower subsonic speeds and until no one really proves that it will be different for the MiG-35 or Su-35 I simply exclude it from the discussion, but keep it in mind. Nonetheless even with TVC no fighter at supersonic speed is more manoeuvreable than a missile.
MKI does not represent modern aircraft. It is continuation of that old SuperFlanker that Codeone described. U need new materials, newer engines, lighter avionics, less frontal area which new Su-35 represents.
http://mnpk.ru/index_ing/combat/sdu10mk/
16.04.2007 – Tests of complex control system КСУ-35
There are begun bench tests of the new complex control system КСУ-35 developed by experts МНПК “Avionics” for plane Su-35.
In terms of flight performance and I only speak about that here the avionics, cockpit, MMI etc. does only matter in terms of their weight not more not less.
and that weight consideration is taken during design of aircraft. shedding one to two tones makes big structural difference interm of support.
star49The old MiG-29M/K were using the RD-33K with a reheat thrust of about 86 kN. We don’t speak about payloads here.
86KN of 1980s is not the same as 86KN of 21st century in real world operational sense. Just look at life time of RD-33 than and now. almost 10 times difference. they are not only longer life but more economical.
http://www.royfc.com/news/may/1206may05.html
the MiG-29M has an increased flight range – owing to more economic engines and the present of an in-flight refueling system, a greater bomb load owing to an increase of the number of hard points and greater maneuverability.
Have u read F-16 articles. 30% of stated thrust is lost even for Western fighter in 80s. and thats why AL-41 of early 90s is obsolete even though it managed 175KN. ur making this mistake of comparing EJ-200 built in 21st century with 80s era engines.
I will stop the debate here about the Gripen as it isn’t the topic. The only thing is that Typhoon’s performance is significantly superior in most areas to that of the Gripen. No one blames the Gripen for that it is simply a much smaller and leighter single engined fighter. The performance of the Gripen is highly impressive for an aircraft in its class and in some areas it comes close to the Typhoon. ALL IN TERMS OF FLIGHT PERFORMANCE!
significant difference.? data does not support it. and Gripen wing area should be larger or closer to F-16. its delta.
That’s correct, but you are the one who said that the MiG-29A offers already similar performance to the Eurofighter and that is simply NOT true.
MIG-29A was exercised against JAS-39A. unless u provide neutral source of EF great advantage over JAS-39A. we are not going into hypothetical newer MIGs performance.
Lol an aircraft hanging in the sky will dodge a BVR shot:rolleyes: The last thing you want to do BVR is slowing down your speed and circling around your own axises. TVC is helpfull in a dogfight, but it does for sure not help you much in BVR, especially not older designs which make no real use of TVC at supersonic speeds.
offcourse u havent read this issue indepth. TVC are used for high supersonic fighters in the future. PAK-FA is replacement for MIG-31. Similar is Su-35 atleast in air to air mode. and MIG-35 should to the same with lighter avionics.
here is story of 1985 model Su-27M. Note the physical assertion with poor MMI and HOTAS. and 1960s era materials. the same is true for MIG-29A which is even more obsolete than Su-27M of 1980s. MMI, HOTAS, Lighter avionics, modern engines, advance construction materials all play a big part in utlizing aircraft to its maximum potential. It is not simply aerodynamics.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1994/articles/oct_94/oct2a_94.html
The Su-35 has a digital quadruplex fly-by-wire flight control system comparable to the latest Western aircraft. The airplane, otherwise, is an amalgam of other components and materials that can trace their origins back thirty years. Incorporating older, proven technology and materials, however, is no flaw. Rather, it is an exercise in utilitarianism. For Russian designers, usefulness outweighs the Western propensity for sophistication and complexity.Aerodynamically, the Su-35 represents little in the way of advanced thinking. It is, however, highly maneuverable and surprisingly agile for its size. Roll, pitch, and instantaneous turn rates throughout most of its sustained 9g envelope are comparable to Western fighters, though it reportedly requires exceptional physical exertion to maneuver through extensive aerobatics
star494500 kg to be correct for the old MiG-29M. I didn’t say the same, but the difference is probably not that high. The old MiG-29M offered more changes in contrast to the MiG-29, than the new MiG-29M/K does in comparison to the old MiG-29M/K.
MIG-29A and old MIG-29M were powered by same 8300KG engine with 1000Hr in life difference. the newer one with more powerfule engine and more than twice the life of former not mention atleast 15% composites from beginning. and 4000KG is under the wings for the former. In MIG they now mentions the wing payloads like 10 underwing weopon stations.
I have additional manufacturer prochures. Interestingly RAC MiG claims old payloads and engines though the data are basically given for the new MiG-29K/KUB.
This is old data. the newer data is at press release section.
TVC is an option which could be adopted for other new Fulcrums as well.
they have mastered this technology. they are going to adopt to Flanker and PAK-FA also.
Ehhm 30 % higher climb rate and acceleration is the same?
Note necessary.
http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/basic_data.html
The first Gripens weren’t that advanced at all, newer C/D modells are much more advanced. Gripen lacks such a comprehensive EWS, IRST/FLIR and I’m not sure about sensor fusion. Though the PS05A uses some similar technologies as the Captor the radar is inferior in terms of performance according to the available data. But the topic isn’t Gripen VS Eurofighter.
First Gripen came out decade ago. So it represents that time time. Batch 3 is the same export Gripen that is going to Eastern EU countries. Radar has similar performance as Captor but antenna size is smaller. It has more comprehensive EW/Communication suite. Remember Sweden was the first country with Active AWACS.
this is from 2005.
the Batch 3 aircraft is to receive a new Ericsson PS-05/A Mk3 radar, which has just been developed. The radar has a new D-96A high-speed processor with greatly increased computing power. This has enabled some new modes to be incorporated, as well as the ability to track an excess of 20 targets simultaneously (the precise number is classified, however). The radar range reaches 130-160 km, depending on various factors
Believe what you want. I see no reason why the pilots should lie. They have flown both types, they evaluated them against each other and the results were clear. Many people in the Luftwaffe were very sceptical about the Eurofighter, but changed their mind after they learned more about the type.
But they havent flown MIG-29OVT/MIG-35/MIG-29K. It is like deducing Su-35 performance from Su-27. Just compare the engine life. 10 times difference. Sukhoi claims Su-35 will do supercruise. that was for Western engine in 80s. U havent grasp the power difference due increased life between early 80s RD-33 and now.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1986/articles/apr_86/f16_aero/index.html
Although the F100 engine is in the 25,000-pound thrust class, it has never seen 25,000 pounds of thrust in its life. When you (1) deduct installation losses, (2) realize the engine is probably not in perfect trim, and (3) account for the usual thrust-level deterioration from age, you’ll see you don’t have a great big area where the F-16 is really greater than one-to-one
What has less computers to do with canards being used?
Computers and Research establishment organization has every thing to do with it. think about Macro levels and than Micro.
Eurofighter took long, yes but most other new fighters including F-22, Rafale, Gripen or Su-34 took similar. According your logic all these types must be obsolete now. And what about the MiG-35 or Su-35 these aircraft are based on 1970s designs and to so long before they have become what they are. Does it mean they are obsolete too? ACCORDING YOUR LOGIC YES.
F-22 is clearly in different class. and MIG/Su have now 3D TVC that enables them to dodge BVR shot. and that all matters. that Sukhoi video of Su-35 is correct representation.
star49It is in static tests. That shows the engine is not too far away, considering its a far less daunting project than the WS-10A which has gone into serial production and being used in J-11Bs.
less daunting task? I am sure u have now no understanding of engines. what is TWR of WS-10 and response time. It looks another cheap indigenous project.
And yet many countries prefer to buy more expensive F-16 and M2K, and they know it will cost them more to maintain MiG-29s in the long run.
which are those countries?
What German called it reliable? They have to downgrade engine thrust by 10% to gain more life out of it. In Karhil, the Indians got a lot more missions out of the Mirage 2000 than they did with the MiG-29, hence why the M2000 was their original front runner on their MRCA contract.
and still they call them reliable because it represents what is stated. No breakdowns in the middle or costly mid life dates. and M2K was bomb truck and MIG-29 like MIG-21 is airdefence fighter.
That does not sound very good. Poles are not upgrading their MiG-29s, they have already gone and bought Block 52plus F-16s
F-16s were given to them. they didnot bought it. MIG-29 upgrade to 4+ generation will cost them there own pocket money.
. Former Warsaw Pact countries are either going Gripen or F-16, not upgrading their MiG-29s. Sorry to bust your bubble, but the truth hurts.
u make me laugh. Do u think if those countries dont buy F-16/Gripen will they get EU Aid or US money? These are poor countries interms of defence budget.
star49The MiG-29M2 prototype was powered by RD-33 Series 3 and the aircraft was offered with that engines in the past, now as the RD-33MK is available it’s very likely that these engines would be used if the MiG-29M is selected by someone. The new MiG-29M is virtually the same as the MiG-29K in terms of flight controlls and aerodynamics. The MiG-35 is based on this NEW MiG-29M! If you are incapable of understand that then let it be.
Old MIG-29M were only able to lift 4000KG under the wings. MIG-29K/35 can do 5500/6500 KG under the wing. remember MIG gives only under the wing capability. there is completely new FBW for K version. when engine/wings/materials/FBW are different so why the flight performance will be the same?
BECAUSE they share common engines and airframe. There might be slight differences, but they aren’t that great at all in that direction. AND NO THESE AREN’T ASSUMPTIONS BUT DATA GIVEN.
data given where?
I never said the MiG-29K is using TVC. Are you grabing comments from sky or what?
u said every thing is similar. TVC is very major upgrade to structural weight and FBW.
Ok some figures for Gripen and Typhoon only to clear up differences:
JAS 39C/Typhoon
TWR with full internal fuel: 0.9:1/1.15:1
Wing load factor with full internal fuel: 365,72 kg/m² / 319 kg/m²
Top speed: Mach 1.8/>Mach 2
Supercruise: Mach 1.08 (not really supercruise) / Mach 1.2+ (both with AAMs and at least 1 drop tank)
Ceiling: 14000 m / >18000 m
Climb rate: to 10000 m in 2 min / to 12800 m in 1.5 min
Acceleration: Mach 0.5-1 in 30 sec (unspecified altitude)/ Mach 0.3-1 <30 sec (at sea level)
Gripen accelaration time is at low level. and l00 seconds precise for 10km hight. so there is no difference from operational figures. this is from same Pilot report.
The clean lines of the Gripen were apparent as Johansson and I had to keep track of my power setting and speed so as not to break Mach 1.0. The Gripen will do Mach 1.05 at low level in military power. Advertised maximum speeds for the Gripen are Mach 1.2 at low level and close to Mach 2 at high altitude. Maximum aerodynamic speed of the Gripen has been calculated to be 1,400 kph. or 755
These few specs should make clear that the Typhoon’s performance is significantly higher than that of the Gripen. The Gripen was designed as a light weight, cheap multirole fighter. The Typhoon was designed as a high performance AA fighter with secondary AG role. The requirements for both aircraft were totally different and so are the aircraft.
Reguriements are different? Gripen was designed to Soviet threat and they took every thing into consideration. Cheap in operational sense. Not interms of Aerodynamics/Avionics. It curretly boost superior communication system. and MK3/4 radars are comparable to Captor.
And on aerodynamics, weight… There is no single factor responsible for the whole thing.
******** we speak about flight performance and aerodynamics not about combat here. Again you mix things up and make senseless comments which say nothing and have nothing to do with the topic.
Flight performance and aerodynamics comes into play from real Esxercise when Pilots give there opinion and thats what carries the most weight especially if it comes from neutral source. Not like German Pilot for EF.
Ah yes and that is the reason why Sukhoi selected canards for the Su-27M, because they degraded the aircraft’s performance:rolleyes:
that was different times. I am sure u undestood Soviet times. Less computers.
EF type aircraft has taken so long from its concept to operational phase that it is already obsolete.
star49No, but it is in late testing stage.
Any source for this? there is not a single aircraft flying with. or we should now start assuming lab tests.
All these planes did nothing but give a bad reputation with all the countries flying it when compared to the Western aircraft they also possessed.
and western counterparts have that great reputation.? U can buy two new MIGs for just upgrading price of Old M2K and F-16. u dont see that cost of long life.
750hr MTBO is horrible, and in actuality, it is the AL-31F that achieves that and the RD-33 does considerably lower (300 to 400hrs). PW and GE gets all the contracts related to the planes whose engines they supply. A lot of MiG-29s especially in the former Eastern block isn’t even being upgraded, but replaced by F-16s. Ask the Poles.
300 to 400 for Soviet era engines. Infact the German called it extremely reliable. just look at F-16 vs MIG-29 crashes or M2K vs MIG-29 crashes.
And this has Nothing to do with what was offered in 90s. and Poles are still flying MIG-29 and those F-16s u can consider as handouts. With Russia either u buy on Cash or natural resources. There is no such thing as investment offsets.
star49The MiG-35 is nothing else than the new MiG-29M1/2 (9.61/9.67) with some new avionics. These aircraft share an identical airframe with the new MiG-29K/KUB (9.41/9.47), but without the modifications necessary for carrier operations. That are the most recent infos from Russia.
MIG-29M is not powered by RD-33MK. it is RD-33-3 engines. and MIG-29K completely new Digital FBW. so nothing else remaing of late 80s MIG-29M. I am not goint into wings. MIG-29K ordered in 2004 can have 15% composites. they were not present in 80s. MIG-35 will surely increase over it. there are structural features of MIG-35 that are not fully dislcosed.
Givi I Dzhandzhgava, Director General of the Ramenskoye design Bureau
A complete overhaul of the fighter has been proposed,” Dzhandzhgava said, adding “we will give the new aircraft some of the most modern features in the shape of 4 plus generation capabilites”.
“Great improvements in the shape of higher conversion rate of data links, mapping information, higher display resolutions are proposed which will make the new MiG-29’s far ahead in capability than SU-30MKI,” he said
We are ready to offer the top of the shelf technology including some new systems like stealth features for the Mig-35 fighters, which would be bidding for IAF’s 126 Medium Range Combat Aircraft tenders,” Dzhandzhgava said
Mach 2 is given as top speed and that is usually the max speed in a clean configuration. The 90s data of the MiG-29M has to with the new modells as the aerodynamical design is nearly identic with that of the new aircraft except the larger wings, with new flaps/slats. So the old MiG-29M can be seen as a relative good reference for the new versions, though there are some differences.
again more assumptions. why u keep bringing that old MIG-29M. u dont even have full information on MIG-29K flight characteristics let alone MIG-35. If MIG-29K is Mach 2 than why should MIG-35 be the same? One is generation ahead of the other.
TVC engines make a significant difference, but without these the difference might not be that high at all. The RD-33K used by the MiG-29M was only slightly weaker than the current RD-33MK.
MIG-29K does not use TVC. and it is not absolute thrust but response times that matters.
The Gripen is a completly different aircraft and not in the same performance class as the Eurofighter. So ALL relations you want to bring up are irrelevant!
Gripen is completely different aircraft. show me some figures of EF. Even Gripen claims they can also supercruise. and now Su-35 has the same claim.
I spoke about acceleration performance of the baseline model. Read more carefully you mix a lot of things up.
The article has nothing to do with the evaluation conducted by the Luftwaffe.
Acceleration depends on quality of engine. There is huge difference between actual performance delivery of 400Hr engine and 4000hr MK engine.
Its true that with a less advanced FCS its more difficult to achieve the aircraft’s maximum performance, but that has still nothing to do with HOTAS. HOTAS means keeping hands on throttle and stick during a fight as you can control all combat relevant functions with the help of buttons and switches on the controls.
So no concentration is needed for exercises. there is no virtual flght.
Canards for the Su-35 were rejected mainly to safe weight. This has nothing to do with the aerodynamics. It has also to be considered that the new Su-35 is offered as a comprehensive upgrade for existing Su-27, though it can newly be built.
Su-27 also does not have canards. and they can do better performance without canards. Less weight of canards.
star49That’s nonsense tranche 3 standard aircraft are not even defined. And before you suggest that more composites will find their way into the MiG-35 take into account that the Eurofighter is only made to 15 % of metal. The MiG-35 in its planned form has only 15 % composites. I highly doubt that any Fulcrum derivate will have composites anywhere close to the degree as the Typhoon.
when Russia is planning to turn whole aviation industry into composite so any new MIG-29 coming out at that time will automatically use more composites as workers will be trained on this. and 15% is for MIG-29K ordered in 2004. It has nothing to do with future MIG-35. It will depend on that point of time.
this is from Export bureau.
According to Rosoboronexport experts, fielding composite materials with Russian defense and engineering enterprises constitutes one of the most crucial advantages of the Russian economy, which has yet to be capitalized on. Composite materials will allow the risks, caused by growing prices on metals, to be reduced.
“Development of polymeric nano-composite materials is one of the promising workstreams as well. Russia has every chance of becoming a leader in this area, since two of ten European synchronized emission sources operate in Russia. In addtion to that, only Russia and the U.S. can successfully develop nano-technologies,” the press-service said
I didn’t speak about extra thrust but about normal thrust rating without reduction due to service life reasons. That infos come from persons from the GAF.
and normal thrust is equal to actual thrust. Soviet engines have very short life. so it is natural that they will lose there stated characteristics early due to wear and tear.
The manufacturer has brought up some data about speed, range and ceiling etc.. Exact turning rates etc. are not really available. It is known that the MiG-29 achieves 9g >mach 0.9. The limit with lowered to mach 0.85 for the MiG-29M. Some 1990s data about the MiG-29M suggest its max. AoA (without deactivation of limiters) has been increased to 35°. Though that’s probably the upper limit and may not even be the operational. Interestingly you question the data I might have about newer MiGs, while you are for sure unable to provide anything here about the Typhoon.
Mach 2 depends under what context? with weopons or without weopons. Flanker can achieve Mach 1.7 with weopons and Su-35 can go upto Mach 1.9. and what has 1990 data anything to do with current MIG-29OVT/35/K versions?. here is MIG-29K control systems. they are making even more complex for MIG-35.
http://mnpk.ru/index_ing/combat/ksu941/
Based on the few data available, some general understanding of the topic and the fact that no one here was able to proof that the MiG-29M offers significantly better performance than the MiG-29 baseline modell.
Because no airforce operates MIG-29M. Only MIG knows the real data. But judging from MIG-29OVT and increase thrust engine. it should be vastly different.
1.) RD-33MK have 9000 kg of thrust not 9300 kg
9000KG is normal thrust. emergency goes upto 10,500KG.
2.) MiG-35 has larger wings and its top speed is given with mach 2
MIG-35 with larger wing hasnt been flown yet. and Mach 2 under what conditions.
3.) The acceleration values are HIGHLY unrealistic
Older MIG-29A can deal with JAS-39. I dont see why the newer is not better than EF.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0208/FR0208d.htm
But we are a practice target with clipped wings: whereas the Gripens only have to observe the Mach 0.9 speed limit, the MiGs are not allowed to use afterburner or to pull more than 5g when turning either.
The Swedes, accustomed as they are to high technology, are astonished by the performance that is possible on the MiG-29
Maybe I’m able to find some charts for the MiG-29 in that direction.
how can charts know the classifed nature of MIG-29k/MIG-35 performance? unless some real world exercises is done.
I’m not twisting his statement, I was only explaining some basics.
You surely dont know more than the person who did the actual exercises. he mentioned Thrust to weigh ratio not some aerodynamic difference.
Any figures to proof that HOTAS has nothing to do with flight performance? LOL you really make me laugh. Maybe you inform your self about what HOTAS actually means!
u can only achieve good flight performance when u are comfortable and have good controls.
These data aren’t my assumptions they were given by sources. In fact I don’t really believe that the SMTs weight is exactly the same as that of the MiG-29, but it is given with that value. Ask the manufacturer not me. The MiG-29Ms V01420 aluminium-lithium alloys didn’t achieve the desired weight reduction and the MiG-29M is a bit more compact with more stuff in it and that adds simply some weight.
When Saturn Director is saying that Avioncis and radar are heavy. when Sukhoi managed to shed canards due to lighter avionics. so why do u think newer MIG-29 should be heavier than the old one? Less avioncis weight less structural strength required to support them. MIG-29M was built in previous era. It is not built in 2005-06 period. Avionics weight decrease only started with MIG-29K and Su-35BM. Before that every thing was heavy.
star49Lol you are kidding aren’t you? The Eurofighter Typhoon is at the BEGINNING of its service life there is a lot of room for improvements in the future. Your argument is completly nonsense here!
Interms of materials and construction is at the end of its life. No road map for future. there was Hitech show recently in russia where consensus were emerged that metal prices are rising so only composite materials are the way to go for every thing in future. so the same new material and construction knowledge from PAK-FA/Su-35 program will flow to MIG. and here EF has nothing to counter but losing that last edge also.
Though the MiG-29A engines in the Luftwaffe were downrated for normal operations, such tests were for cunducted with full rated engines.
any proof for that? Emergency extra thrust every engine is capable. nothing special here.
I suggest you to read more carefully! I didn’t say the performance of the MiG-29 is the same as that of the newer models. I pointed to areas where the new MiGs are better at and some data are already available for the newer MiG-29M.
where is data available for new MIGs? interms of climb rate, turn rate, acceleration. specially with MK engines. and how do u know that?
My point is that the newer Fulcrums offer better performance and handling characteristics in most areas over the 9.12, but I don’t think that there is a significant improvement in every area.
ur thinking based on what? any exercise report?
Newer MiGs are slower according to the manufacturer, but have a slightly better ceiling. Climb rate and acceleration similar. The main advantages are better handling and manoeuvreability at low speeds and high AOAs and a significantly increased range.
climb rate and acceleration similar?. here is specification of late 80s MIG-29 performance from Series 2 1400hr life engine. note the NTOW of 15 tons and 4 tons internal fuel.
Now why u think the performance of MIG-35 with 9300KG engine will be the same as old MIG-29M?
http://www.warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=255&linkid=1600
Summary of MiG-29M Fulcrum E improvements:
Engine Overhaul Cycle: increased to 750 hrs.
Engine Overhaul Growth: increase to 1400 hrs.
Max (wet) Thrust in A/B 8,300 kg.
Max Take-off T/W 1:1
Max level flight at SL 1500 kph.
Max level flight at altitude: 2400 kph.
Max Mach Number at alt: 2.3
Service Ceiling: 18,000 m. (60,000 ft)
Max Flight Range clean: 1,500 km. (820 NM.)
Max Flight Rnge/ CL Tank: 2,100 km. (1148 NM.)
Max Flight Rnge/ 3 x Tk’s: 2,900 km. (1586 NM.)
Accel time at 1000 m (3280 ft) 600 to 1100 kph 13.5 seconds
1100 to 1400 kph 8.7 seconds
The higher the drag the faster the speed you loose in the vertical. All F/A-18s share a common design and they aren’t lighter! There exists no dedicated land based version of the Hornet.
The US pilot was only referring to TWR. he didnot say that F-18 has lower performance due to more draggy airframe. ur twisting his simple statement.
The F404-GE-402 was introduced in the 90’s but it’s only used by the late C/D modells. The 402 is still ~250 kg weaker than the RD-33.
so 250kg thrust made all the difference? u dont see the there will be more loss of actual thrust in RD-33 case because of poor construction/design of engine in Soviet times. Just read about F-16. in actual conditions only 70% of stated thrust is delivered. the rest is lost due to wear and tear.
Yes in terms of combat actions, but that has still nothing to do with the pure flight performance.
so any figures for that.
So you take a box built in a 3-D TVC engine and it will fly better than any non TVC equiped plane for sure:rolleyes:
depending how much deflection is given. 90 degree TVC will surely work for it.
Assumptions and not more. Normal takeoff weight doesn’t necessarily include full internal fuel. There are no newer information available for the new MiG modells. SMT weight was given with 10900 kg as for the basic modell. MiG-29M with 11500 kg and MiG-29K with 12700 kg. You stick with your unproven assumptions do so, but don’t wonder that no one take this serious.
Now more assumptions that Normal takeoff does not include full internal fuel. it also includes AAMs. and why old MIG-29M is heavier than MIG-29SMT? which in ur assumption heavier than MIG-29A.think about front fuselage. u dont make any sense now.
Could you explain how that could cause the Mig to depart controlled flight while doing something that’s easy for the F-16?
when u implement Quad digi FBW with no analoque back. u take into account all control laws and spin recovery modes. I am not referring to FBW system of old MIG-29M
star49Depends on what you are claiming to be perfect:rolleyes:
there alot of things. imagine Russian built MIG-29 with polymeric nano composite materials. there thousands improvements u can make to Flankers and Fulrcums and still the cost will be cheaper. EF is at end of life interms of construction and materials.
Yes superior flight performance confirmed by ALL pilots who have flown both types! As mentioned the germans had the ability test pit the MiG-29A directly against the Eurofighter and their conclusion was clear!
surely derated MIG-29A.
Right but some here suggest that even these old MiGs have equal or even superior aerodynamics. Even the new MiGs don’t achieve the flight envelope of the Typhoon.
Suggestion based on what? Only MIG has data to newers MIG-29s and maybe one or two customers who got briefing. so it is based on ur speculation that old and new are the same.
1.) F/A-18 was required to to operate from carriers and a relative low wing sweep angle was selected. This has an effect on the aircraft’s speed and acceleration performance!
what this has to do with climbing. and there airforce version of F-18 and probably lighter.
2.) The F404 produces 1 t less thrust!
not necessary. 17,700 lbs since mid eighties and since exercises are done in mid 90s. i presume all customers have this engine. and u havent taken into account derated engines.
3.) Turning rates have nothing to do with the MMI and even the baseline MiG-29A didn’t suffer from low turning rates!
sure when u dont apply HOTAS concept properly. ur reaction time is slow.
4.) We are comparing Eurofighter’s aerodynamics against that of the MiG-29. The F-18 has neither to do with it, nor does it matter!
we are simply comparing TWR. aerodynamics simply does not matter when u have 3D TVC. It will turn circles around.
The new MiG’s weight probably up to 1 t more due to their more compact design (much more stuff is integrated), larger wings etc.. MiG-29Ms empty weight was given with 11500 kg, the new MiG-35 has additional systems and larger wings which add weight, though a bit weight could have been saved due to more advanced electronics and materials. Even if we take the 11500 kg as base for the new MiG-35 the Typhoon has still an edge in terms of TWR and wing loading. The MiG-35s aerodynamics improve handling characteristics and manoeuvreability at low speeds and high AoAs and set down the min speed for reaching 9 g. Now its your turn to prove significant performance edges for the newer MiGs.
there was report about MIG-29SMT that it lost 1 ton weight because of lighter avionics. u have to understand that Russians aircraft were designed taking into account the heaver avionics. Now the requirements are totally different. Just look at MIG-29K. 17.5 tons normal take off weight is given. (presumably with 5200KG fuel and 4 AAMs) I have also seen 1 central tank, 4 AAM and 2 Antiship as regular configuration. MIG-35 is way lighter than MIG-29K. here saturn chief is complaing about heavier avionics and Radar from 2001.
http://www.cast.ru/eng/journal/2001/6-lastochkin/
Combat aviation is facing a huge number of tasks. As a result combat systems are becoming very complex and multifunctional. Our strike aircraft systems are heavier than in the West. They are not worse but our radars are heavier, our avionics is heavier. There is a whole family of AL-41 engines with varying lengths of service life. Correspondingly, this weight requires guaranteed additional thrust. We are trying to reach this objective in our work on AL-41.
That would mean to redesign the aircraft, which is more than unlikely to happen!
It is easy for them to redesign aircraft compared to putting TVC on existing aircraft for West.
TVC was already developed and tested for the EJ200 on the ground with a 3-D nozzle which could be rotated by 23.5° in any direction at speeds of 110°/sec (nearly twice that of the KLIVT). Germans were involved into the X-31 project and Tranche 2 model engines are prepared to receive TVC (including DECMU). Of course it will take some time, but it could be done if there is a requirement!
I think Chinese also have shown some pictures of TVC. Unless u can certify an aircraft with full envelope. It is a paper project.
The MiG-35 has new missions avionics in contrast to the new MiG-29M. Their airframes are identical, even the cockpit, but their avionics are different. MiG-29K and M are similar in terms of avionics. But what does this has to do with the aerodynamics at all? NOTHING!
airframes are identical thats why they called MIG-35. MIG does not change designation unless there is other substantial changes beside avionics.
F-16 pilots who flew the Mig-29 said they’d rather keep their plane thanks. They tried manuevers that were easy for the F-16 and had to be stopped by the back seaters because the Mig would have departed controlled flight. Not something the “perfect” design would do wouldn’t you say?
The reasons are already written in that Codeone link. It has nothing to do with design of aircraft. It is lack of cockpit ergonomics, visibility, poor implemenation of HOTAS, lack of FBW. it was uncomfortable for pilot to properly utilize the aircraft.
star49Every design is a compromise and has its pros and contras. There is no perfect design at all.
Flankers and Fulcrums are perfect designs.
Suggesting that the MiG-29s aerodynamics are superior to that of Rafale or Typhoon is simply nonsense.
any proof for that.
German pilots be it test pilots or airforce pilots have flown the MiG-29 operational and they now fly Eurofighter. As long as the MiG-29s were available they were pitted against each other and evaluated. EVERY pilot confirmed that the Eurofighter’s aerodynamics and flight performance is clearly superior.
German pilot have flown aircraft without advance FBW, Wing and older engines.
And if you do your math you will figure out that Typhoon has a superior TWR with similar load and lower wing loading as well. Eurofighter excells the MiG-29 in nearly every area and not only a bit!
yes show me the ur math. I will show u some thing now.
here is F-18C specifications. 10,800KG empty weight (which are presumbly true because of other figures) and 18,000 lbs class engines.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18-specs.htm
and now look at this comment
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/july2a_95.html
The most impressive aspect of the Fulcrum’s performance for the American pilots was its low-speed maneuverability. “In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet,” explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. “But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster
The Westernization of an Eastern aircraft has presented its own problems. The MiG-29’s powerful Isotov RD-33 engines, designed as disposable commodities for a mass force, were intended to run about 400 hours before they had to be replaced. (By comparison, F-16 engines can run about 4,000 hours between overhauls.) The Germans have managed almost to double the RD-33’s lifespan by detuning the engines by ten percent. Besides lowering thrust, the cost-saving fix has reduced range and dirtied the exhaust at lower altitudes. The move from JP-4 to NATO’s standard fuel JP-8 has also hurt engine performance.“The engines have been extremely reliable,” commented Raubbach. “It goes from afterburner to military power, without problems, at various speeds and under varying g conditions. I can feel the difference detuning makes only at higher speeds. We have many spare engines. We had a shortage at one time, but we now have a big supply. Engines do not represent a shortcoming for us.”
Explain. when it is claimed that MIG-29 has similar weights as F-18C than why this Pilot is saying MIG-29 has thrust advantage even with derated engine over F-18C? . here we are not comparing turn rates which older MIG-29 lack because slow man machine interface and advance FBW system.
Higher top speed means nothing and the cobra might be a nice airshow manoevre which can’t be flown by the Eurofighter, but it isn’t really important in aircombat. The Eurofigher can pull into a 9 g turn much faster and over a wider flight envelope. It will push 9 g turns longer and loose less speed and provide better control authority at very low speeds and high AoAs. Acceleration and climb rate is superior as its altitude performance.
that is ur opinion. u dont have data to new MIG-29s with different engine not only interms of thrust but response times, weight, advance FBW, wing structure.
. TVC is a technology which could be integrated into the Typhoon as well,
And Canards and delta wing can also be integrated into MIG-29 at much lower cost and cheaper. simply time and money is not on ur side.
but there is simply no requirement for that at the moment. BTW MiG-29M-OVT is neither the MiG-35, nor is TVC standard for the MiG-35! TVC is an available option.
TVC takes years of flight test with FBW. it isnot simple plug and play especially when u havent done it before. and what is difference between MIG-29M and MIG-35 interms of FBW?. there is 90% commonality between MIG-29K and MIG-35. and MIG goal is to achieve almost 100%. change to even bigger wing.
star49Yes, the picture is on the engine thread in the CDF.
a picture of engine does not qualify it operational.
Yup, it does not have a good reputation. Even the RD-93 had at least 5 rejects out of 15 delivered, an abominable 33% rejection rate.
Not good reputation based on what? 95% of more than 1000 operational MIG-29s are using the same 80s era engine while western counterparts have went through costly midlife update programs several times which costs more than the engine.
there is no delay in FC-1 flight test regimes due to engine or problem reported. It looks very compressed schedule. the only issue for discussion is Augmentation of thrust. no one has asked for increasing life.
Life is too short, with only 750 hours between major maintenance and often do not even meet these hours. These are less than a quarter of equivalent Western engines.
750 hr MTBO is pretty good for the price and i doubt Western counterpats goes more than this anyway in practice. otherwise u will not see all those contracts going to PW and GE or simply aircrafts are retired from front line service after 15 years.
star49Central tank is not considered part of normal takeoff weight. As a matter of fact, the normal takeoff weight revised on the JAS-39A is over 8700kg. Simply said 8500kg is no longer the right number.
I don’t have to prove anything. I have proven you DEAD WRONG.
Cental tank is not part of normal takeoff weight. u made this definition. there is nothing to suggest that it isnt. this is from October 1999.
Read this report. those sustain turn rate figures, Supercruise at low altitude. all are from JAS-39B with 11 tons normal take off weight. they were using external tank but without fuel. it is part of Gripen aerodynamic configuration.
lighter JAS-39A may be more.
GRIPEN PILOT REPORT
DAVID M. NORTH
I was fortunate to be invited to visit the F7 Wing at Satenas in late October to fly the Gripen
THE SWEDISH APPROACH to fuel capacity and fuel usage is quite simple–when the internal fuel capacity is full, the gauge registers as 100% in the cockpit. There is no fuel quantity in kilograms or pounds, nor is there a fuel flow meter. and when a full center drop tank is flown, it shows 140%. Fuel bingo also is shown in percentage remaining. While we were carrying a center drop tank, there was no fuel in the tank. Ramp weight of the JAS 39B was close to 24,000 lb
Stick movement became more of a factor later when I did a full-throw aileron roll at Mach 0.79. Roll rate was on the order of 240-deg./sec, Johansson said. The altitude was near 15,000 ft. at the time. An initial 6g pullup to a loop was done at 450 kt., and I came out at 10 deg. off heading. A 6.5g turning pull in military power showed the excellent turning capability of the Gripen. Sustained turn performance of the 9g aircraft is given at 20-deg./sec. As Johansson said, the delta wing Viggen seemed to push the air around in a turn, while the Gripen cuts through the air almost effortlessly. The aircraft also provides a very steady gun platform, which I learned as I flew some steep gun attacks against the top of clouds.The clean lines of the Gripen were apparent as Johansson and I had to keep track of my power setting and speed so as not to break Mach 1.0. The Gripen will do Mach 1.05 at low level in military power. Advertised maximum speeds for the Gripen are Mach 1.2 at low level and close to Mach 2 at high altitude. Maximum aerodynamic speed of the Gripen has been calculated to be 1,400 kph. or 755 kt
Who cares? The numbers are irrelevant. You are just technologically incompetent behind to read the numbers, failing to realize that sometimes performance numbers given by manufacturers are exaggerated or failed to give the context given.
thats my point. when u don know the context. there is little to comment on. Just look at Gripen performance. Brazilian found out. It is close to the older Su-35 with TVC. In acceleration and climb rates it beats any other single engine fighter.
SAAB says Gripen’s empty weight is 6800kg with JAS-39C and that’s that. You are not factory nor engineer or designer of Gripen to say anything better.
Yeah. the same line u can continue for ever. Su-24 looks similar to Su-34.
and operational radius is calculated with drop tanks and 3000kg weopon load which is exactly equal to its normal weopon load not the maximum weopon load.
so ur theory is not true about external tanks.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
Operational radius of action at sea level in mixed mode (Vcr in the 200-km area, V=900 km/h in other areas) with PTB external fuel tanks and 6x FAB -500M-62 bombs, km 615
star49What an idiot. The internal fuel of the Gripen is around 2270kg/
prove it. how 8.5tons takeoff weight is achieved. with all those AAMs and central tank.
Really, you are getting more and more stupider all the time.
So you know more what is the actual weight of the Gripen than the factory that built it?
Want to prove against the FACTORY? Who built the jet, you or SAAB? Factory said 6800kg for the JAS-39C, and 6800kg it is.
Go ahead and embarass yourself further.
so F-15E is 20tons. F-18E is 16tons and Su-24 has the same ability as Su-34.
Su-27 has 3530KM range. the same as Su-35.
unless u understand the meaning behind those numbers.
Sign In
