Will these improvements to Typhoon cause a change to the mark number? Ie F(GA)4 to 4A or 5?

Regards

Tr1 to Tr2 to Tr3 didn’t, so I’m guessing ‘no’ at this point.

Your graph. I’m not great with Russian but that seems to be a Cd vs Cl graph for one given wing, which therefore isn’t even relevant to the point being discussed. It’s showing how Cd varies as Cl changes with changing AoA not with changing wing area. Theoretically, if you maintain planform, that graph receives a x2 multiplication of it’s y-axis values when you double wing area but the shape of the graph curve remains the same. So the top line at 0.12 x value would read as 1.6 y value.

What the graph does show is that if you start at low Cl, Cl = 0.2 and Cd = 0.05, double Cl to 0.4 and Cd only increases to 0.07 (up 40%, so A is dominant in CdA). Conclusion, larger wing area can increase drag in steady level flight when required Cls are low, e.g. cruise.

At high values, say Cl = 0.5, Cd = 0.08, but at Cl = 1.0, Cd has more than tripled to 0.27 (+237.5%). Clearly Cl is dominant in determining Cd at high Cl. Conclusion, larger wing area will reduce drag in 9g turns when required Cls are high

What’s also interesting to notice is that aircraft with less wing area seem to have higher Cd0 values. This is logical. The fuselage is still the same size and the wing span is often near the same too. So you still have much of the drag except referenced to a smaller area via:

Cd0 = D0 / (0.5*Density*Area*V^2)

L ~ 9mg

Cl = L / (0.5*Density*Area*V^2)

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ukraine-traffic-controllers-instructed-mh17-to-fly-lower-mas-says

In a statement here, MAS explained that MH17 had initially filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000 feet above Ukrainian territory, which it described as close to the “optimum altitude”.

“However, an aircraft’s altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground.

“Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000 feet,” the national carrier said.

The decision by MH17’s pilots to skim closely to the prohibited air zone — which is 32,000 feet, according to Europe’s aviation authority Eurocontrol — has prompted numerous questions whether this may have contributed to what is believed to be a case of mistaken identity.

Source?I see no course change or lower altitude.Check full flight history for Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 at flightradar24(please notice they climbed from 31000 feet to 33000 feet when entering Ukrainian airspace .Airspace over Ukraine was closed up to 31000 feet AFAIK)
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh17/#3d6095b

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ukraine-traffic-controllers-instructed-mh17-to-fly-lower-mas-says

In a statement here, MAS explained that MH17 had initially filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000 feet above Ukrainian territory, which it described as close to the “optimum altitude”.

“However, an aircraft’s altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground.

“Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000 feet,” the national carrier said.

The decision by MH17’s pilots to skim closely to the prohibited air zone — which is 32,000 feet, according to Europe’s aviation authority Eurocontrol — has prompted numerous questions whether this may have contributed to what is believed to be a case of mistaken identity.

– See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ukraine-traffic-controllers-instructed-mh17-to-fly-lower-mas-says#sthash.OnW6k70I.dpuf

I doubt the Russian or Ukraine professionals pulled this off.

They don’t call the rebels terrorists for nothing. It’s an unfortunate atrocity. In hindsight many people could have prevented the whole thing from all parties military and civilian alike. The victims probably had no idea of the danger of this flight’s route and it was likely never revealed to them prior to leaving.

The decent airlines avoided the area, the cheap-skate airlines used it to save fuel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/ukraine-crisis-airplane-qantas-idUSL4N0PT07020140718

I disagree; low wing loading translates to low Cd true, but also translates to high A. For delta’s, total CdA has been higher than conventional wings. One reason no one used it in the past. However; Typhoon has sufficient thrust to give comperable STR at subsonic speeds, and use all the advantages of canard-delta configuration at supersonic regime. I don’t agree on the part Typhoon has substentially better maneuverability than legacy 4th gen fighters.

You’re ignoring the fact that a higher wing loading requires a far higher Cl and Cd has a non-linear dependence on Cl (Cd = Cd0 +kCl^2), so at high g loads, Cl grows hugely and the second term dominates both the equation for Cd and subsequently the CdA product. At 7-9g Cd0 + kCl^2 –> kCl^2. So if you half the wing area and double the wing loading you roughly quadruple Cd and double CdA.

How? The airliner flies much higher than the Ukrainian aircraft they target. UA has far more medium and long range SAM assets in the region.

Not seeing how its likely the seps at all.

There was an An-26 shot down at 21,000ft on the 14th of July.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28299334

In fact it’s more complex than that, like every time is matter of compromise, the wiki article give a good basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overall_pressure_ratio

I’m not specialist but we can notice that on the three engines the more the PR is high the more the size of the nozzle, thrust and weight are high.

Wow, those airliner engines are really high, although I guess when the F-35 goes supersonic, the effective overall pressure ratio will get higher, as with the Concorde.