lukosThe Eurofighter has a fuel tank volume of approximately 5700 litres. [albeit, its classified, so thats a best guess]
At a fuel upper density of 0.876 kg/litre, that is just under 5 tonnes.
At a nominal fuel density of 0.785 kg/litre, that is 4.475 tonnes.
At a lower bound density of 0.743 kg/litre, that drops to 4.235 tonnes.For the Su-27, estimated tank volume is around 11,775 litres – but the full g envelope is only available for fuel volume below ~6,600 litres due to limits of various tanks in the system.
For the various fuel densities then:
0.876 = 10.315 tonnes/5.78 tonnes
0.785 = 9.245 tonnes/5.18 tonnes
0.743 = 8.750 tonnes/4.90 tonnesSo, if you want to be a lying bstart and use the upper EF fuel weight of 5 tonnes, and use the Su-27 lower fuel density and 9g only tanks then you can say the EF (5 tonnes) has more fuel than the Su-27, 4.9 tonnes! [In reality, there the EF has 86% the capacity of the Flanker.]
But, as we all know, the initial portions of any mission in which endurance/range is a factor do not involve 9g maneuvering, so the Flanker indeed has the full 11775 litres to use – which means the EF has 48% the fuel tank capacity.
I use the figures quoted by the manufacturer, you then guess the Typhoon’s fuel capacity in litres and call me a lying *******? Are you JSR’s twin?
11,500kg internal, 3,000kg (4000L external)
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbp
http://www.webcitation.org/6J6cwo1bR
>20% more than Su-27.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35#Modernization
9,400kg
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/
Typhoon fuel in L is referenced in two places as 6,215L but I suspect that’s a back calc from either 5,000kg or 11,000lb in both cases. No official figures other than the ‘5t’ quoted in Eurofighter World (March 2010 I think).
http://eurofighter.airpower.at/technik-daten.htm
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#Technische_Daten
http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/efworld/ef_world_3-2010web.pdf (The dead link in question, don’t know if anyone can source this elsewhere).
lukosFuel weight varies dependent on fuel density. So you are both right and there is another truth as well. I have posted a cockpit shot of DA7 years ago already the AC sitting on the ground and the fuel read out on the HUDCP ROL and MHDD show 4934 & 4940 kg respectively. Approx 5 t is with medium fuel density (F34) IIRC. It’s about +/- 200 kg dependent on the fuel used.
Concerning the built numbers for the RAF EEL, Swerve and Sintra are all right. It’s true however that about 160 ac have been built and delivered to the RAF AND RSAF. No block 20 example has been delivered anyway as this standard isn’t cleared yet i.e. Waiting for its type acceptance.
Thanks Scorpion. You know I did read something about 32 of either Tr1 or 2 going to RSAF in the notes of the same article where I read the ‘160’ now that you mention it, so maybe the RAF is currently at 128??? It’s a shame I didn’t actually buy the mag, then I could check.
lukosmy maths is better. and I explained to you already. Most of Flanker ranges were calculated with Soviet era heavier avionics and engines. that’s why 4 ton extra heavier and draggier Su-30MKI still can get 3000km range on 9.4 ton fuel.
Well we’ve recalculated with current range figures.
Just look around countries with money has different requirements.
I’m still waiting for a valid point.
It is just on paper capability.
The 40,000lbf AL-41 is just on crack capability.
Su-35 does not carry fuel tanks at this point operationally and those 3600km with 6AAM western equal AAM is just estimate.
Irrelevant. The ferry range of 4,500km is quoted with them:
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbp
Ferry range: 4,500
with 2 х PTB-2000 external tanks, km
So that’s <20% more ferry range than a Typhoon, carry 3 ton of external fuel and >20% more internal fuel than an Su-27.
[4500/(11500 + 3000)]*11,500 = 3569km with 11,500kg of internal fuel. Su-27 has 9,400kg internal fuel.
[3569/11500]*9400 = 2917km
Except we are told it’s 3530km – 21% more, due to removal of tanks. Now 6600lb of fuel is a smaller proportion of >66,000lb than 4,800lb is wrt 34,000lb… but nevertheless, when I do the same thing for the Typhoon:
[3800/(11000+4800)]*11000 = 2650km
1.21 * 2650km = 3207km.
So my calculation and estimation of drag effects was more or less bang on. But thanks for wasting my time.
Typhoon cannot go 3100km on internal fuel. and it is meaningless number anyway.
I’ve just blown that one right out of the water.
Su-35 can take tighter turns due to TVC so less fuel is consumed.. it can carry big jamming pods on wing tips much more advanced than Su-30MK. It is full spectrum comprehensive solution not half baked approach
TVC affect on fuel consumption is minimal and more or less negated by weight. But I guess if you argue TVC is better for fuel consumption, then the calculation above works out even more in my favour, since the estimate of the Su-27’s range without tanks or TVC (the 2917km), would be even smaller after factoring for TVC loss, making the correction factor (the 21%) to actual value bigger and hence the same factor applied to the Typhoon makes its internal fuel range bigger too.
lukosSu-27S/P/SM/SM3 and Su-30,-30M/M2 and Su-35 cannot carry EFTs, all sources are very clear on this one, and visually they dont have wet pylons to accomodate fuel tanks. Su-33 do have wet pylon (station #1) but that is for buddy refuelling, they should be able to carry EFT, but no source as far as I know claims as such. Some Su-30 variants are said to carry one PTB-3000 on centerline, and some are said to carry two PTB-2000s on wings, but I havent seen a single one carrying. From closeups, I haven’t seen any wet stations either. Su-34 can carry PTB-3000 on centerline. Su-35S is said to carry two PTB-2000s on wing pylons, but I haven’t seen one. There arent enough closeups to verifiy if stations 3,4 (which are most likely to get EFTs) are wet or not.
Su-27SMK can carry drop tanks. Even taking 3530km, the Typhoon’s range on internal fuel comes out at 3100-3200km, so the difference is nowhere near what many try to make it out as. Anyone would think the Typhoon’s range on internal fuel was nearer 2000km.
Ok, lets take it as 5 ton then, its still 96,2% internal fuel on Typhoon for matching 62,5% fuel on Su-27, like I’ve said.
No, it’s about 90% fuel in an Su-27 to match Typhoon on 100% internal fuel, as I’ve calculated. So a Typhoon would only need 69.4% internal fuel to match a flanker at 62.5%.
What 20% are you talking about? Su-27 at 90% fuel can reach 3177 km range. Are you implying Typhoon can reach this range on internal fuel? So each EFT only extend the Typhoons range by 200 km, Eurofighter engineers must be living in caves then.
Yes. 3000L fuel weighs about 4,800lb:
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=13899&mode=view
[3800/(11,000+4,800)]*11,000 = 2650km
But you have to account for the removal of 3 tanks (drag index >50) and all that weight. We don’t have any charts for how that affects range but we do have charts showing how it affects acceleration for an F-16. A 49s sprint from M 0.54 to M1.02 at 30,000ft with GW=28,000lb, DI=0, increases to 64s at GW=32,000lb, DI=50. The DI increase alone increases it by >10% and because we’re at low speed we’re looking at acceleration that’s affected more by mass than DI. That’s only a 4,000lb increase and you can see from the drag index listing in the link above that 3 drop tanks probably comes to more than DI=50
So that 2650km comfortably increases to well over 3,000km, probably nearer 3,200km when you factor in for the reduced drag/weight due to removing the 3 tanks.
“Find another source”?!
WTF?
How old are you?!
Do i really have to ***************** google for you?
Instead of behaving like a ………., why dont you behave like a grown man and just say “oh yeah, you were right, thanks for the information”?!
I would except my information came straight from the pages of either AirForces Monthly or Combat Aircraft last month. So you understand why I’m reluctant to alter my opinion. World renowned magazine vs internet gossip. If they’ve got it wrong then fair enough but the correction is on them not me.
I can’ make heads or tails out of Lukos calculations here.. does he claim the Typhoon Drops three EFT in order to reach an teoretical Ferry range?
If so, i would like to see that ever happening 🙂
Surly, any official figures here would imply the EFT stays during the whole Ferry flight?
The calculation is simple. I divide ferry range by the total fuel (internal + external) and then times by internal fuel and then factor for the reduced drag and weight of going from a 3 drop tank configuration to clean one. Andraxxus has completely cracked out though. I can’t make head nor tail of what he’s doing.
lukos2x1000L + 1x1500L = 3200 kg IIRC
Anyway, correct my calculation for those numbers; 4810 kg fuel. 96,2% assuming 5000kg internal capacity is right. Can you source it?
5t internal fuel was quoted in Eurofighter World but the link is now dead.
lukos2x1000L + 1x1500L = 3200 kg IIRC
Anyway, correct my calculation for those numbers; 4810 kg fuel. 96,2% assuming 5000kg internal capacity is right. Can you source it?
Your weights are way off even taking that fuel load BUT the Typhoon does not have a 1500L tank as of yet. Only 1000L tanks are available. 3000L weighs about 2180-2200kg.
lukosThough its clearly more than idiotic to compare Su-27 and Tyhpoon with respect to range;
I still cannot find the logic (even by your standards) how you end up with this conclusion.
Su-27 with 100% internal fuel = 3530 km Ferry Range; 1760 km Combat Radius
Eurofighter with 100% internal fuel PLUS 3xEFTs = 3780 km; 1390 km Combat RadiusAssuming 5% reserve at ferry range, and assuming everything works linearly (which clearly doesn’t but this applies to both aircraft);
When Su-27 flies 1500 km; it is at 95%*(3530-1500)/3530+%5 = 62,5%;
When Eurofighter flies 1500 km; it has 95%*(3780-1500)/3780+%5 = 65% fuel.
Now calculating Su-27 is simple because its not even capable of carrying EFTs, this 62,5% is ONLY the internal fuel Su-27 has.
Eurofighter has 4630 kg internal plus 3280 kg external fuel capacity, totaling at 7910 kg; 65% means it has 5141 kg of fuel. This means its on 100% internal fuel plus 511 kg fuel on EFTs.
You may argue comparison is invalid as Eurofighter has 7% better Ferry Range with this fuel; Ok; mutliply 5141 kg with 0,93; its still 4781 kg; 151kg greater than Eurofighters internal fuel capacity. In either case, Eurofighter is clearly at 100% internal fuel to match Su-27 at 62,5%; we can only debate if an extra EFT is also needed or not. Besides Su-27 reach 26% greater combat radius than Typhoon, consider this also.
So I will repeat my comment to all Typhoon fanboys;
-A Su-27 at 100% internal fuel will have just as good if not better take-off time/length, climb and acceleration than Typhoon with 3 EFTs.
-A Su-27 at 62,5% fuel will outturn, outclimb, outaccelerate Typhoon with 100% internal fuel at ANY point on the flight envelope.
I’m sure I don’t have to explain why taking a quoted ‘range’ is dangerous unless it’s very specific. Ferry range is very specific and has only one meaning – as far as you can get on full internal fuel plus a maximum complement of drop tanks. A combat range could mean with external drop tanks and a certain amount of ordnance, it really could mean anything.
The Su-27 is capable of carrying MTB-2000s AFAIK, at least some version are.
Your weight estimates on Typhoon fuel load are also out internally and externally. 3000L of fuel does not weigh 3280kg (see link I posted in response to eagle). The Typhoon has about 5,000kg internal fuel:
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2250
So when you get:
(3800/15800)*11000 ~2650km But then you have to allow for the 3 tanks not being there, which represent a combined drag index of probably 50 or so, and the lighter weight. You’re looking at about 20% more than that. The Su-27 is at about 90% internal fuel to match a Typhoon on full internal fuel.
lukosIt’s 5000kg internal plus 3000l or 2400kg external, 7400kg total.
This seems to suggest 4,800lb (~2180kg) for two 370 US Gal (1480L) tanks.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=13899&mode=view
lukosOr… You don’t want to be corrected more like.
Plug it. Your opinion that a newspaper lacks credibility just because they report on a situation where the Korean government removes decision-making powers from decision-makers after they make a decision speaks for itself.
lukosComing from someone that struggles to distinguish the differences between ‘First flight 2007’ and ‘First flight 3rd 2014’ with regards to CASEAR and Captor-E, whom of which last heard that the RAF ordered “260” Typhoons, seemed to didn’t know that the RAF will be receiving the F-35 etc. Yeah…
You still fail to get my point on that one. If I want to use the acronym CAESAR for Captor-E, I will. I mean, seriously, you can’t call the F-35 ‘Lightning’ because another aircraft called ‘Lightning’ first flew in 1939, and then another had a first flight in 1954. The acronym fits, so I’m using it.
They were reporting on something that turned out to be nothing. Even DAPA (the decision makers) themselves turned out to be wrong as they were supposedly against procuring the F-35 and were, apparently, in favour of the F-15SE, this was widely reported. As it turned out it was bull-sh*te. Those sources have questionable credibility.
Exactly my point. You can hardly undo the credibility of the Korea Times based on reporting the decision of the decision makers accurately.
Do you bloody understand the difference between accurate reporting or not, or do you have some kind of density issue? You can’t blame a newspaper for reporting something that’s 100% accurate at the time of going to press. What they’ve written is still accurate on that day.
If they write that an EADS radar expert said something, then he definitely said it. If you want to question his calculations then fair enough but that’s an issue separate from the Korea Times and their integrity as journalists. You understand?
So when you said:
The Korean Times were 100% certain that the F-15 “Silent Eagle” was going to win the FX-III “competition”, reporting that the F-35 was all but out and had no chance of being selected according to their “ears inside”… Pretty much sums up their credibility.
In reality you should be saying something like, “DAPA were so damn sure that the F-15SE was going to win as they they had been delegated as the decision makers but then it turned out that the imbeciles who put them in charge changed their mind, probably after being politically/financially influenced??? etc…,” and then somehow you link that to how an EADS radar expert isn’t a credible source. Don’t know how you’ll do that, that’s your problem to think over. Got it?
lukosOr you could register
:angel:Just a thought
Can’t be arsed and it’s still inconclusive because it doesn’t say whether they’re for the RAF or RSAF.
lukosNope, numb-nuts. One is just quite a bit more up to speed than you.
But sadly travelling in the wrong direction.
Yet the simple fact of the matter is, the F-35 still got selected despite all the positive chatter about the F-15SE and the negative banter of the F-35. Claims, statements and accusations went out of the window at that point the F-35 was officially announced as the winner. ‘Nearly did’ [elimination] is a non-story.
They were reporting on a developing situation. At the time of going to press, what they said was 100% accurate, so there’s no reason to doubt their credibility.
Eurofighter GMBH would build the entire Tranche 3 for the RAF and RSAF in a few months would they? At two per month?
https://www.flightglobal.com/fg-club/in-focus/eurofighter-typhoon/
I will repeat myself, according to plans the last RAF Typhoon will be built in 2017, and untill now, the RAF has received a bit more than 120 airframes.
Password protected link, requires registration. Find another source.
lukosHardly. What Swerve and Sintra said, Mr. Brains. Nice try attempting to dig yourself out of gutter though. Not.
I wasn’t aware that you work in RAF logistics, Mr. Bull.
The Korean Times were 100% certain that the F-15 “Silent Eagle” was going to win the FX-III “competition”, reporting that the F-35 was all but out and had no chance of being selected according to their “ears inside”… Pretty much sums up their credibility.
And it nearly did. If you remember the F-35 was eliminated from the first competition on cost and then a last minute problem was found with the Typhoon bid, and then they reopened and LM dropped their price.
EADS’s Eurofighter Typhoon has been eliminated from a $7.3 billion South Korean fighter program, which failed to meet some requirements, according to Yonhap News.
The reports suggest that EADS did not meet the requirements, while the Lockheed Martin F-35 offer did not meet the government’s strict budget cap.
“A problem was found in the proposal document of one of two final bidders,” Yonhap quoted the DAPA official as saying, adding the troubled bidder was known to be EADS.
“The company in question was deemed unfit (to join the final bid)”, the official was quoted as saying by Yonhap News.
Seoul is seeking 45 one-seater aircraft and 15 two-seaters, but EADS proposed only six two-seater aircraft, which is costly to produce on the required budget scale.
It also quoted that the estimated budget was in British pounds instead of in U.S. dollars as demanded by Seoul, the news agency said.
SEOUL — Since South Korea launched a multibillion-dollar fighter acquisition plan in 2011, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 has always been regarded the leading candidate due to the “fifth-generation” jet’s stealth functions.
Just a few steps before the finish line, however, the front-runner is on the razor’s edge because the South Korean customer isn’t satisfied with the price guaranteed by the US government.
http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/f-35-and-eurofighter-eliminated-from-s-koreas-fx-iii-competition/
Lockheed and Martin’s Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon have been eliminated from the FX-III competition to build South Korea 60 new fighter jets, Yonhap News Agency reports. That leaves Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle as the only remaining aircraft vying for the contract.
lukoswhy it is dumb statement?.
Because you made it.
If you don’t know why, then there’s really no point in explaining. It’s like trying to explain why 1+1=2. The problem is elemental, it can’t be further simplified, it’s a principle on which all mathematics is based, just as requirements based on needs is the fundamental basis of engineering.
I already shown you China example of building J-20/Flanker series. India is another example of going top heavy planes. Saudi is another example. The bottom line is those who have money always go for bigger planes in larger numbers.
What has that got to do with anything.[/quote]
The engine upgrade capability seems to be just waiting in the wings:
A further boost to agility could also come from the addition of thrust vectoring, which Hilditch likens to an extra control surface. Eurofighter, he says, has done quite a bit of work on the concept and could move forward with customer interest.
You cannot make up the numbers. Su-27SK (aircraft older engines and avionics than Su-27SM) has 3530 ferry range with 4AAM. (equal to 6 western AAMs in weight). where you get this number of Typhoon with 6AAM and 3 drop 1000L drop tanks?. where is external tanks on SU-27SK.
I assumed it carried the same external tanks as the Su-35:
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbp
the aircraft can carry two external fuel tanks with 2,000 liters capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35#Modernization
– 3 tons of external fuel
Same MTB-2000 tanks as Su-27. Standard Flanker tanks.
So my calculation is a fairly good indicator. On internal fuel the Typhoon should make around 3,100+km with 4 semi-recessed MRAAMs based on”>3800km(2000nmi) with 3 drop tanks (1000L)..
This website claim. which does not mean other cannot do it. just look at paris airshow Su-35 takeoffs or J-10. They all surpass EF. it is good that you drop reduced RCS EF claim.
Manufacturer’s figures. They should know. There’s no way an Su-27/35 can match that, even with only 75% internal fuel. An Su-35 would need to be reduced to about 50% internal fuel to stand a chance and that would leave it a long way behind on range (probably <60% range of a Typhoon on full internal fuel if the Su-35 is only half full).
lukosAh… It was in a press release…. that means it must be trooo.
A press release combined with two other official secondary sources is better than chit-chat from la fan-club Rafale.
And from March to June Eurofighter has delivered to the RAF 40 airframes?
Having already built them, delivering them is fairly quick.
Sign In
