Boo-Hoo, do write a letter of complaint.

Should it be in the same format as this one?

If you’re going to throw other people’s statements back in their faces you’re going to get little to no respect. We’ve all been wrong about something in one way or another, myself included, and the majority of us have been fine to had been corrected and took on-board what has been put to us. It’s those that doesn’t like being corrected and attempt to steer around discussions or try to word things differently to crawl out of the hole to make themselves feel better by having their head firmly wedged up their rectum, your stubborn point on CASAER/Captor-E being one example (ever wonder why industry and analysts refer to each radar as being totally different…And you call me and others “thick”….) and refusing acknowledge the likes of Sintra’s source being another example because you “couldn’t be ar$ed” to go through the effort checking it out. You most definitely fall into the latter category.

One will let member’s comments speak for themselves.

Dammit, man, what’s wrong with you? Anyone can make a mistake. Someone with a touch of moral fibre would say “OK, I got it wrong”, not make a stupidly transparent attempt to fake the record.

– Swerve.

I couldn’t access Sintra’s source. What hasn’t been mentioned is that the magazine article saying 160 built and 32 delivered to Saudi Arabia was 6 months out of date (assuming it did say that). Now 38 have gone to RSAF, so some more have probably gone to the RAF too. So is it 160-38 or 166 minus 38, or 178 minus 38? A lot of other people made some cast iron claims on RAF number and so far only HaveQuick2’s source looks solid on the RSAF number. I’m not sure I’ve seen a solid source for current RAF numbers, but plenty of people have maintained absolute certainty wrt a figure just over 120.

What one should do is have some courtesy when discussing things in the knowledge that there are different seemingly official sources that are not always consistent, rather than resorting to childish name calling. If you resort to rudeness, you’ll get rudeness back and I assure you that I can do it much better than you.

Problem is your lack of understanding error accumulation and significant figures in precision, obviously you are far from engineering. I am tired of explaing such basic problems explained in very first semester of engineering courses;

If I am 200 litre off in 15000L+2000L(+/-200) I will be making +/-1,3% error in this calculation. Total range of this error is 2,6%.

If you are off by same amount and try to find 1500/2000(+/-200) = 0,75 you will be making -9% +11%, with total range of your 20%. Then you accumulate your error everytime you use your EFT values and mutliply it with a number. End number is so off no suprise you can claim Typhoon can carry more fuel than Su-27.

Its your own stupitidy to think 2000l tank is exact 2000l, -it may well be 1700l you dont know that-, and its your stupitidy added to your ignorance finding this unimportant.

The problem is you can’t grasp that multiplying a Typhoon’s ferry range by Internal Fuel (IF)/Total Fuel (TF) gives roughly 60% of an Su-35’s ferry range and 75% of an Su-27’s stated range, without even allowing for the extra drag and weight of 3 drop tanks on the Typhoon.

Your error accumulation theory holds no weight, I’ve already shown the figures when recalculated using a full range of densities for the Typhoon (3ton for 4000L is already the lowest density for Su-35).

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?130672-Typhoons-intercept-Russian-air-armada&p=2148364#post2148364

Can you not understand that even at the very worst case, the Typhoon internal fuel range comes out at 75% of the Su-27’s range? I.e. this doesn’t even allow for drop tank drag and weight.

Starting with a Typhoon’s internal fuel mass of 5,000kg and 3000L external (assume whatever density you like for the external fuel from 0.743kg/L to 0.876kg/L), show me how a Typhoon’s range works out to 60% of 3530km starting with the Typhoon’s 3800km ferry range.

GO!

Its your own stupitidy to think 2000l tank is exact 2000l, -it may well be 1700l you dont know that-, and its your stupitidy added to your ignorance finding this unimportant.

And have I assumed that there’s fuel left in the Typhoons drop tanks? Ignore the Su-35s ferry range and 2000L tanks if it makes you feel better.. Just look at the Su-27’s range of 3530km and the Typhoon’s 3800km ferry range and do the calculation asked for above and show me how you come up with 60% of 3530km for Typhoon internal fuel range. I don’t want to hear another squeak from you on the subject until you have.

After you do the calculation above take a look at this specific range chart for an F-18E. Note the specific range clean with internal fuel only (~46,000lb). Now add a DI of 50, and 6,000lb, the weight of 3 370 US Gal drop tanks and see how it changes. This is just a ball park approximation for the range reduction caused by the drop tank drag when ferrying relative to flying in internal fuel only. More than 20% difference and this is with 2 drop tanks at370 US Gal (1480L) each. 3 1000L drop tanks likely weigh slightly more.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=188248

2000L tank does not necessariliy 2000.00 litres, there can be unusable fuel, or its a simple rounding for a public advertisment. Most certainly its not a good way to estimate fuel density.

:stupid: Seriously dude, give it up. Your points get more and more stupid. You could say the same thing about the Typhoon’s tanks and it would be BS in that case too.

Su-35 uses different engine, with different fan stage for 15% higher thrust, 117S is not necesarily as efficient as AL-31F. Historically each engine upgrade without touching the engine core made it more fuel inefficient. I wouldn’t be suprised if Su-35 has only marginally better non-EFT ferry range with Su-27, despite 22% increase in fuel capacity.

Well that’s a fantastic bit of conjecture. So the Su-35 engine is 22% less efficient at cruise than the older Su-27’s because of this fan stage. Well…

a) You can’t possibly be right on that because even the Su-35’s ferry range divided by IF+ EF multiplied by IF gives more range (circa 3,600km) than the figure quoted by Sukhoi for the Su-27.

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbp

b) It still wouldn’t make the Su-27 capable of having the same range as a Typhoon with 64% internal fuel.

You just don’t get it. If even taking a Typhoon range based on ferry range divided by IF+EF and multiplying by IF gives more than 64% of the Su-27’s range (in fact 75%), then the range cannot be less than that and is in fact likely a lot more due to removing ~6,000lb in weight and a DI of 50+. So all these random BS figures of 60%, 62.5% and 64% are all total horse**** unless you think an Su-27 can do >4,140km on internal fuel….. but even that assumes that the Typhoon suffers no weight/drag penalty from 3 1000L tanks. In reality when you make statements pertaining to the same range with 64% fuel, you’re claiming the Su-27 has a range of about 5,000km on internal fuel.

Yes it was and you would be surprised to learn how much wrong information is contained even in those specialised magazines! That doesn’t mean everything is wrong, but errors are possible.

I know. It’s entirely possible that the magazine got it completely wrong and said that 160 were with the RAF with 32 sent to RSAF, which is what I initially thought. It’s probably easy to misinterpret it as that either way, especially when you know that 160 have been contracted by the MoD.

Nothing wrong with that. But a lot wrong with lying, pretending you never got anything wrong, trying to fake the evidence – & doing it so stupidly & clumsily.

I deliberately corrected incorrect information that I’d written, if only others would do the same. Only you assumed that I was actually trying to hide anything, so you could get your end off. You think I don’t know that it adds time stamps after edits? It speaks volumes as to your wit if you even think it was even an attempt at concealment.

Grow up. You’re the one who you’ve damaged, not me.

Yes, let me tend to my repairs immediately. Oh wait, I don’t have any, this is the internet.:stupid: Again, the fact that you assume this matters at all says a lot about your life.

Learn from the ever-reliable Scorpion, or Mercurius.

I notice you chose not to use yourself as an example.

Quick impression, who’s this?

ALERT! ALERT!

Lukos has gone back & edited a post to make it look as if he was right!

:stupid::stupid::stupid::eagerness:

Were you a GPWS in a former life or something?

WHOOOP! WHOOOP!

Pull up! Pull up! Low Altitude.

According to Wolverhampton Aviation Group UK Serials websites (http://www.wolverhamptonaviationgroup.co.uk / http://www.ukserials.com) , the following 38 have been delivered so far:-

6 of those have gone fairly recently.

Lukos,

Senior members (in posts if not years) on this thread are beginning to lose patience with you because you are rude.

I have no time for these endless claims of fuel carriages superiority from either side and those who may have supported you have long lost patience too.

You have gone from champion of all that is good, to a rude version of JSR who cannot accept he has got facts (about RAF fleet size for example) wrong.

Perhaps you need to sit on the naughty step because your bad behaviour is spreading to other members.

I’ve been rude only to people who’ve been rude to me, like EELightning.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?130672-Typhoons-intercept-Russian-air-armada&p=2147647#post2147647

I think I have actually admitted the possibility that RAF fleet size might only be 128 since 32 of the 160 built in the UK were given to RSAF. Others claimed the UK build figure of 160 was wrong.

Perhaps if you stop being rude by mentioning things like ‘naughty step’, you won’t receive any rudeness back.

Read the sentence again.

I don’t believe you once said that the EF has more fuel than the Su-27.

No but what’s that got to do with it?

Fuel tank capacity is not usefully measured in kg.

I could take a tank of “capacity” 1kg, say it then applies at a fuel density of 0.743 kg/litre, which means the tank is 1.35 litres big.

Then someone else can turn around and say at density of 0.876 kg/litre that the 1.35 litre tank can hold 1.18 kg.

18% error. Just like that.

Any source that lists the fuel tank capacity in kg means nothing, regardless of how official the source is. Unless you know the fuel density (or temperature it was calculated at), its meaningless. Tank volume is not open to PR bullsh!t (well, it is, but thats another story and beyond the comprehension of most PR clowns), whereas fuel weight is very manipulable… even by those simpletons.

Kg is the best we have right now. For some reason the only official sources for the Typhoon, Su-27 and Su-35 have chosen to quote in kg.

Your point is moot overall anyway, because if you examine my calculation it relies on ratios pertaining to one aircraft only, and is not extended beyond that. I.e. whether we take the lower or upper fuel density for the fuel the ratio of internal fuel to total fuel for an Su-35 is the same. So if you look, the external fuel volume is 4000L (2 x 2000L). That’s been stated as 3t. That also takes a lowish density (0.75kg/L).

So the calculation for the Su-35 of:

[4500/(11500 + 3000)]*11,500 can be re-written as:

4500 * [k(11500 + 3000)/k(11500)] where k is a factor representing the variation in density given by k = Actual Density/0.75kg/L

It can clearly be seen that the ks cancel, and the same applies for the Typhoon. The heavier density is present in both numerator and denominator.