By: JSR
- 1st October 2016 at 03:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mig-31 has a lower operational speed and its enough for AF requirement. it doesn't fry its engines when doing a supersonic dash, and it can sustain a high Mach over considerable time.
Lot's of fuel going.
MIG-31 does not have lower operational speed. infact it has the highest operational speed. there is context to word operational.
with lighter avionics/radar and engine boost. MIG-31 is 30km altitude fighter.
By: Starfish Prime
- 1st October 2016 at 08:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK, riddle me this. What is the top speed of B-1A vs B-1B? What is the top speed of early Su-24 Fencer A vs later models?
Forget about M 2.2 and M 1.3 at sea level. That is the placard limit. And a loaded Tornado is barely able to reach M 1.3 and a little over M 1 at sea level so why bother with variable intake ramps. German ECR Tornados (the newest jets) came with fixed intakes right from the production line.
It may well be a limit with 2270L DTs, but not clean. I can only imagine they added ramped intakes due to the fact there's an ADV but that said, barely any fighter currently with variable ramp intakes actually needs them.
The B-1B was limited by structure relative toe B1A. B1B was designed to have 1/10th the RCS of the B1A though.
I also question what that fight envelope you've shown is for but it doesn't say Tornado or GR4 anywhere and the speeds and ceiling is all wrong. Data Basis - Estimated.
Since bot the German and Italian AF statements were not enough for you, here is the manufacturer.
By: garryA
- 1st October 2016 at 08:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MIG-31 does not have lower operational speed. infact it has the highest operational speed. there is context to word operational.
with lighter avionics/radar and engine boost. MIG-31 is 30km altitude fighter.
For the benefit of everyone, please go! or stop clutter the thread with your Russia stronk propaganda
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 1st October 2016 at 08:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what you are trying to say is that pitot intake ( on F-16) can achieve the same performance as variable intake (on f-15 )up to Mach 1, hence fixed intake on Typhoon vs variable inlet on Mig-29 should have similar behavior ?
Seem reasonable enough , what is your reply Andraxxus?
No, I'm saying the F-16 uses a pitot intake which produces 1 normal shock only, which is the least efficient kind of intake possible above M1.0. Yet at M1.2, the difference vs variable ramps is negligible.
The Typhoon uses a fixed ramp, which produces one oblique shock followed by a normal shock, which is far superior to pitot and will perform similarly to a variable geometry system up to about M1.6 and is probably only about 5% down at M2.0. Yet even though less efficient after M2.0, the Typhoon's T-D is such that it still manages a higher top speed that the MiG-29. A fixed ramp basically functions the same as the fixed cone inlets on early fighters.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 1st October 2016 at 08:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIK Mig-25 is limited to Mach 2.8 or around that , not sure if that is with load or not though
i wondered if Mig-31 can reach similar speed - altitude or much slower due to high bypass turbofan engine.
If you look how flat the right side of that envelope is, you'll note it's an artificial limit to protect the HP turbine.
By: haavarla
- 1st October 2016 at 09:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The EF can't do more than M2.0
I've seen others like you before.
It was claims that F135 had static thrust of 45.000Ib, cause it was mentioned in some magazine.
But at PW site it says 41000Ib of thrust.
Well and then we have JSR..
Same club as far as i'm concerned.
Never underestimate nationalistic mixed with ignorance.
A terrible result.
By: JSR
- 1st October 2016 at 09:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For the benefit of everyone, please go! or stop clutter the thread with your Russia stronk propaganda
this how MIG-31 upgraded with 21st century equipment should operate not based on manual written in 1970s. its your bias that you cant digest the latest news.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 1st October 2016 at 09:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The EF can't do more than M2.0
I've seen others like you before.
It was claims that F135 had static thrust of 45.000Ib, cause it was mentioned in some magazine.
But at PW site it says 41000Ib of thrust.
Well and then we have JSR..
Same club as far as i'm concerned.
Never underestimate nationalistic mixed with ignorance.
A terrible result.
The uninstalled thrust of an F-135 is 50,000lbf, but the installed thrust is 43,000lbf. However, citing AIR International July 2015, the F-22's engines are underrated.
By: haavarla
- 1st October 2016 at 10:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
this how MIG-31 upgraded with 21st century equipment should operate not based on manual written in 1970s. its your bias that you cant digest the latest news.
You can't make that call.
For many years the Mig-31 has operated quite below operational standard due to tear and wear. They had to design a complete new cockpit glass sinse the prod line had long close Same with spares for engines.
That does not mean the Mig-31 operate above originale requirement now!
If anything, they have manage to increase the durability of the Mig, which I guess is a quality of its own.
By: FBW
- 1st October 2016 at 11:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The EF can't do more than M2.0
I've seen others like you before.
It was claims that F135 had static thrust of 45.000Ib, cause it was mentioned in some magazine.
But at PW site it says 41000Ib of thrust.
.
You probably looked at the F135-pw-600, it produces 41,000lbs of thrust in the F-35B
You need to show me where they produce 45000Ib thrust then. Its has been mentioned by several of the usual suspect in the past.
What are you on about anyway. I did not say anything wrong.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 1st October 2016 at 13:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You need to show me where they produce 45000Ib thrust then. Its has been mentioned by several of the usual suspect in the past.
By: haavarla
- 1st October 2016 at 13:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not by me.
Under a different alias perhaps?
Anyway my point was you post the same crap, like EF can do M2.3 when the Manufactor state otherwise.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 1st October 2016 at 13:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Under a different alias perhaps?
Anyway my point was you post the same crap, like EF can do M2.3 when the Manufactor state otherwise.
EADS always used to state M2+. BAE used to state 1,522mph at altitude. Austrian air force states M2.35.
Why do you so adamantly suppose it can only do M2.0? An F-16 with pitot intake manages M2.05 and that's nowhere near as well optimised for supersonic flight as a Typhoon. There's a Typhoon pilot over on Eagle Dynamics, you can ask his opinion if you like.
M2.0 was the minimum design requirement but in terms of T-D they exceeded all design requirements by a country mile. It wasn't even expressly designed to supercruise but it ended up being the fastest supercruiser about (M1.5) except for the F-22.
By: JSR
- 1st October 2016 at 17:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't make that call.
For many years the Mig-31 has operated quite below operational standard due to tear and wear. They had to design a complete new cockpit glass sinse the prod line had long close Same with spares for engines.
That does not mean the Mig-31 operate above originale requirement now!
If anything, they have manage to increase the durability of the Mig, which I guess is a quality of its own.
I didnot made this call. Look at up the RT report for altitude and inteecept.MIG-31 will have to operate well above the original requirement as missile and radar technology in Flanker advanced enough that original operational requirements will make MIG-31 obsolete and redundant.
By: JSR
- 1st October 2016 at 18:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See who talking ...
Look JSR , no one here care about RT or sputnik or Fox new or whatever kind of electronic toilet paper you brought up , alright?. Just stop!
stick to content of news and try to understand logic why a weopon system exist considering manpower training, salaries are premium. they can be transferred to other weopon systems if the particular system does not provide unique capabilities.
By: eagle
- 1st October 2016 at 20:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It may well be a limit with 2270L DTs, but not clean. I can only imagine they added ramped intakes due to the fact there's an ADV but that said, barely any fighter currently with variable ramp intakes actually needs them.
The Tornados are limited to ~ M1.3 not because of Hindenburger tanks but because the intakes are fixed. Get over it. The Hindenburgers are subsonic iirc but I can't be bothered to check.
The Tornado had variable ramp intakes because there was a requirement for M 2+ capability. But that was always on paper. As far as I know, even on check flights i.e. with a completely clean aircraft (no pylons), pilots reached M 1.6, 1.7 tops. Like the data from the manual suggests, surprise surprise.
The B-1B was limited by structure relative toe B1A. B1B was designed to have 1/10th the RCS of the B1A though.
The difference is air intakes. The Su-24 similar to the Tornado and B-1 was a (in theory) M 2+ aircraft, M 1.35 after they changed the intakes to fixed ones.
I also question what that fight envelope you've shown is for but it doesn't say Tornado or GR4 anywhere and the speeds and ceiling is all wrong. Data Basis - Estimated.
It is for an Italian PA 200. I'll let you figure out what that is. I know it says estimated but that is a hell of a lot better than useless glossy brochure "data".
Drag index 20 is with 7 pylons only - with Sidewinders and ECM/dispenser pods, drag index is 40, top speed less than M 1.3
So? Speed limit is M 2.2 just like the manual says.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248653[/ATTACH]
Attachments
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 2nd October 2016 at 08:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Tornados are limited to ~ M1.3 not because of Hindenburger tanks but because the intakes are fixed. Get over it. The Hindenburgers are subsonic iirc but I can't be bothered to check.
The Tornado had variable ramp intakes because there was a requirement for M 2+ capability. But that was always on paper. As far as I know, even on check flights i.e. with a completely clean aircraft (no pylons), pilots reached M 1.6, 1.7 tops. Like the data from the manual suggests, surprise surprise.
The difference is air intakes. The Su-24 similar to the Tornado and B-1 was a (in theory) M 2+ aircraft, M 1.35 after they changed the intakes to fixed ones.
It is for an Italian PA 200. I'll let you figure out what that is. I know it says estimated but that is a hell of a lot better than useless glossy brochure "data".
Drag index 20 is with 7 pylons only - with Sidewinders and ECM/dispenser pods, drag index is 40, top speed less than M 1.3
So? Speed limit is M 2.2 just like the manual says.
I've just given you evidence directly from Panavia that they aren't. WTF is wrong with people on this forum? It's getting to the stage where I can show someone something black and someone here will tell me it's white. Also, what bearing this has on the Typhoon I don't know.
To provide the desired performance, several features were used in the RB.199. To operate efficiently across a wide range of conditions and speeds up to Mach 2, the RB.199 and several other engines make use of variable intake ramps to control the air flow.
Go tell a Tornado pilot that their aircraft can't fly above 35,000ft.
Secondly, do you seriously think going from a variable ramp to fixed would drop Vmax from M2.27 to M1.3? You do realise that a fixed ramp would lose hardly anything against variable ramps at M1.3, and even a pitot intake would only lose ~6%, which is not enough to drop speed from M2.27 to M1.3.
What you're claiming is pure mathematical nonsense.
New
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime
- 2nd October 2016 at 08:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 1st October 2016 at 03:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MIG-31 does not have lower operational speed. infact it has the highest operational speed. there is context to word operational.
with lighter avionics/radar and engine boost. MIG-31 is 30km altitude fighter.
https://www.rt.com/news/361038-mig-plane-russia-drills/
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 1st October 2016 at 08:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It may well be a limit with 2270L DTs, but not clean. I can only imagine they added ramped intakes due to the fact there's an ADV but that said, barely any fighter currently with variable ramp intakes actually needs them.
The B-1B was limited by structure relative toe B1A. B1B was designed to have 1/10th the RCS of the B1A though.
I also question what that fight envelope you've shown is for but it doesn't say Tornado or GR4 anywhere and the speeds and ceiling is all wrong. Data Basis - Estimated.
Since bot the German and Italian AF statements were not enough for you, here is the manufacturer.
http://www.panavia.de/aircraft/overview/
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 1st October 2016 at 08:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For the benefit of everyone, please go! or stop clutter the thread with your Russia stronk propaganda
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 1st October 2016 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, I'm saying the F-16 uses a pitot intake which produces 1 normal shock only, which is the least efficient kind of intake possible above M1.0. Yet at M1.2, the difference vs variable ramps is negligible.
The Typhoon uses a fixed ramp, which produces one oblique shock followed by a normal shock, which is far superior to pitot and will perform similarly to a variable geometry system up to about M1.6 and is probably only about 5% down at M2.0. Yet even though less efficient after M2.0, the Typhoon's T-D is such that it still manages a higher top speed that the MiG-29. A fixed ramp basically functions the same as the fixed cone inlets on early fighters.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 1st October 2016 at 08:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you look how flat the right side of that envelope is, you'll note it's an artificial limit to protect the HP turbine.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 1st October 2016 at 09:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The EF can't do more than M2.0
I've seen others like you before.
It was claims that F135 had static thrust of 45.000Ib, cause it was mentioned in some magazine.
But at PW site it says 41000Ib of thrust.
Well and then we have JSR..
Same club as far as i'm concerned.
Never underestimate nationalistic mixed with ignorance.
A terrible result.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 1st October 2016 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
this how MIG-31 upgraded with 21st century equipment should operate not based on manual written in 1970s. its your bias that you cant digest the latest news.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 1st October 2016 at 09:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The uninstalled thrust of an F-135 is 50,000lbf, but the installed thrust is 43,000lbf. However, citing AIR International July 2015, the F-22's engines are underrated.
Take it up with the Austrian AF.
http://www.bundesheer.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml
The difference is all my claims have supporting evidence. The EAP and DA2 with RB199s even exceeded Mach 2.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 1st October 2016 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't make that call.
For many years the Mig-31 has operated quite below operational standard due to tear and wear. They had to design a complete new cockpit glass sinse the prod line had long close Same with spares for engines.
That does not mean the Mig-31 operate above originale requirement now!
If anything, they have manage to increase the durability of the Mig, which I guess is a quality of its own.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 1st October 2016 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do nationalistic claims have to do with you posting the wrong information? Eyeball check, what does Pratt claim?
https://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_Kits/pdf/f135-specs-chart.pdf
You probably looked at the F135-pw-600, it produces 41,000lbs of thrust in the F-35B
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 1st October 2016 at 12:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You need to show me where they produce 45000Ib thrust then. Its has been mentioned by several of the usual suspect in the past.
What are you on about anyway. I did not say anything wrong.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 1st October 2016 at 13:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not by me.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 1st October 2016 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Under a different alias perhaps?
Anyway my point was you post the same crap, like EF can do M2.3 when the Manufactor state otherwise.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 1st October 2016 at 13:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
EADS always used to state M2+. BAE used to state 1,522mph at altitude. Austrian air force states M2.35.
Why do you so adamantly suppose it can only do M2.0? An F-16 with pitot intake manages M2.05 and that's nowhere near as well optimised for supersonic flight as a Typhoon. There's a Typhoon pilot over on Eagle Dynamics, you can ask his opinion if you like.
M2.0 was the minimum design requirement but in terms of T-D they exceeded all design requirements by a country mile. It wasn't even expressly designed to supercruise but it ended up being the fastest supercruiser about (M1.5) except for the F-22.
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 1st October 2016 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I didnot made this call. Look at up the RT report for altitude and inteecept.MIG-31 will have to operate well above the original requirement as missile and radar technology in Flanker advanced enough that original operational requirements will make MIG-31 obsolete and redundant.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 1st October 2016 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See who talking ...
Look JSR , no one here care about RT or sputnik or Fox new or whatever kind of electronic toilet paper you brought up , alright?. Just stop!
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 1st October 2016 at 18:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
stick to content of news and try to understand logic why a weopon system exist considering manpower training, salaries are premium. they can be transferred to other weopon systems if the particular system does not provide unique capabilities.
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 1st October 2016 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Tornados are limited to ~ M1.3 not because of Hindenburger tanks but because the intakes are fixed. Get over it. The Hindenburgers are subsonic iirc but I can't be bothered to check.
The Tornado had variable ramp intakes because there was a requirement for M 2+ capability. But that was always on paper. As far as I know, even on check flights i.e. with a completely clean aircraft (no pylons), pilots reached M 1.6, 1.7 tops. Like the data from the manual suggests, surprise surprise.
The difference is air intakes. The Su-24 similar to the Tornado and B-1 was a (in theory) M 2+ aircraft, M 1.35 after they changed the intakes to fixed ones.
It is for an Italian PA 200. I'll let you figure out what that is. I know it says estimated but that is a hell of a lot better than useless glossy brochure "data".
Drag index 20 is with 7 pylons only - with Sidewinders and ECM/dispenser pods, drag index is 40, top speed less than M 1.3
So? Speed limit is M 2.2 just like the manual says.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]248653[/ATTACH]
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 2nd October 2016 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've just given you evidence directly from Panavia that they aren't. WTF is wrong with people on this forum? It's getting to the stage where I can show someone something black and someone here will tell me it's white. Also, what bearing this has on the Typhoon I don't know.
http://www.panavia.de/aircraft/overview/
The intakes are not fixed on a Tornado at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado#Engine
Go tell a Tornado pilot that their aircraft can't fly above 35,000ft.
Secondly, do you seriously think going from a variable ramp to fixed would drop Vmax from M2.27 to M1.3? You do realise that a fixed ramp would lose hardly anything against variable ramps at M1.3, and even a pitot intake would only lose ~6%, which is not enough to drop speed from M2.27 to M1.3.
What you're claiming is pure mathematical nonsense.
Posts: 949
By: Starfish Prime - 2nd October 2016 at 08:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See page 8-28.
http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/europe-and-consortiums/panavia/tornado/aer1f-pa200-1a-panavia-200-tornado-flight-manual-performance-data-italian-series-aircraft.html
It's M1.9 on combat power with Mk101 engines. We are now on Mk105 engines and that version of Tornado is no longer flying.
http://www.panavia.de/aircraft/rb-199-power-plant/
The Mk101 had only 14,840lbf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-Union_RB199
The latest derivative has 17,270lbf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado#Specifications_.28Tornado_GR4.29