By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
By that measure then I guess the US has loads of supercruise experience seeing how the SR-71 supercruised at Mach 3.2 for nearly four times as long as the Mig-31 could supercruise at Mach 2.3 huh? Not to mention all the time that was racked up by the Hustler supercruising.
true but none SR-71 flew over territory patrolled by MiG-31 tell me why?
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it was mere supersonic speed they wanted they didnt have to spend the millions and billions in making the F-119 to give those levels of thrust at dry power ( they produce enough thrust at dry power then many do at wet power) , they could have just built themselves an interceptor like the Mig-31 , mig-25 , but they wanted to add those qualities of dedicated interceptors into ALL ASPECT fighters like the Su-27 f-15 etc , and being able to supercruise at mach 1.7 at 45K gives the best of both worlds ( with time it should go up as engines are made more performing ).
What is a Supercruise engine? Russia already had the AL-41 it is a very powerful engine too
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 02:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes and how much power at dry setting does it deliver ??
Supercruising engine is simply something that can power the aircraft it is designed to power ( like f-22 for f-119) to supersonic speeds ( usually significantly over mach 1 ) without having to go into gas guzzling Afterburners . Basically you want to acheive max possible thrust generated in Dry mode ( you want to up that as compared to traditional engines)
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 02:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
true but none SR-71 flew over territory patrolled by MiG-31 tell me why?
For many reasons , however the point still remains that the Sr-71 could sustain high speed for longer .
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really? When did the Fulcrum and Flanker start packing stealthy nozzles?
The Mig-31 cannot fly at Mach 2.3 for 30 minutes without afterburners.
How do you base the MiG-31 uses afterburner?
the yield of the D30F-6 is 15510 kg of thrust slightly worst than the F-22, see this fact the F-22 the F-119 has a yield of 155 KN and the D30 of 152 KN, the Raptor can not supercruise at 2.35.
If the Mig-31 can supercruise at mach 2.35 and the F-22 can not tell me you have the MiG-31 manual where it gives you the time it can supercruise at Mach 1.5? that is classifed data even in the F-22
Do you know why the Russians are making the Su-35BM with new engines of more than 14 tonns of thrust?
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 02:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If it was mere supersonic speed they wanted they didnt have to spend the millions and billions in making the F-119 to give those levels of thrust at dry power ( they produce enough thrust at dry power then many do at wet power) , they could have just built themselves an interceptor like the Mig-31 , mig-25 , but they wanted to add those qualities of dedicated interceptors into ALL ASPECT fighters like the Su-27 f-15 etc , and being able to supercruise at mach 1.7 at 45K gives the best of both worlds ( with time it should go up as engines are made more performing ).
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 02:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is a Supercruise engine? Russia already had the AL-41 it is a very powerful engine too
Yeah and it's not even to the stage of developement the F119 was fifteen years ago. Fifteen years ago the F119 had already flown on two different fighters and on one of them flew with vectoring thrust nozzles and demonstrated them. When has the AL-41 done any of that?
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 02:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How do you base the MiG-31 uses afterburner?
the yield of the D30F-6 is 15510 kg of thrust slightly worst than the F-22, see this fact the F-22 the F-119 has a yield of 155 KN and the D30 of 152 KN, the Raptor can not supercruise at 2.35.
How come yeilds are being taken as those to be at DRY SETTINT ??? you realize that the max thrust available is only available in AFTERBURNER right ??
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 02:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When has the AL-41 done any of that?
Isnt it due to be fitted into the T-10BM ?? which means that it should be doing quite good now ?
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah and it's not even to the stage of developement the F119 was fifteen years ago. Fifteen years ago the F119 had already flown on two different fighters and on one of them flew with vectoring thrust nozzles and demonstrated them. When has the AL-41 done any of that?
Do you read aviation news? Russia had almost completed the Al-41 tests.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How come yeilds are being taken as those to be at DRY SETTINT ??? you realize that the max thrust available is only available in AFTERBURNER right ??
okay give me the dry settings for the F-119?
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
who cares?
what a hypocritical answer who cares yeah yeah you know well who cared: the USAF and THE CIA,
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 02:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Isnt it due to be fitted into the T-10BM ?? which means that it should be doing quite good now ?
From what I've read (admittedly not much) it's a cut down version. The original for the MFI was supposedly rated at 44klbs. The one on the T-10BM I thought was only something like 34k if that.
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 02:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
okay give me the dry settings for the F-119?
Something that is still clasified ( like the max power setting on the F119 ( they give class not exact thrust) ) however most suggest it is somewhere between the 24K to 29K range ,maybe Aerospacetech or adrian44 can clarify it more clearly but from the unclassified info that is what is available , the point being that it would need to be quite high because the F-22 isnt what you call a light weight fighter and to push it to speeds of mach 1.7 at 45 k without having to speed through the afterburner and use 35-40K of thrust means that you need a whole lot of thrust to be available at dry power setting and that was the goal if you read many of the books about the ATF , which also speculate between this particular range as the exact no.s are still classified /
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What aircraft is a 44,000lb thrust AL-41 with a vectoring nozzle flying on? (44k because that's what's been claimed for it in the past).
I think you do not understand why Russia is behind in fighter technology, Russia at this moments has almost all the technologies for a fifth generation fighter but they lack an airframe that combines all those technologies.
The MiG-31 has supercruise at least for 30 minutes it will fly at Mach 2.35, no other Russian aircraft will do that however lacks stealth and supermanoeuvrability, probably the F-22 has a more economical and modern engine.
The MiG-29OVT and Su-35BM are at least as agile as the F-22 but they have not supercruise or stealth Probably the SU-35 has some degree of supercruise .
Now in 2006 Russia is working on at least one F-22 equivalent and one F-35 equivalent and updating the Su-35 to Eurofighter level .
The MiG-1.42 was a Eurofighter equivalent but Russia decided to go for the F-22 equivalent and halted further work on the MiG.1.42 at least as we know it because the new MiG I-21 might have some degree of MiG-1.44 ancestry.
Russia`s test pilot was the creator of the Pugachev Cobra, the F-22 can do it albeit with thrust vectoring the most likely, without thrust vectoring the Su-27 can do it, the F-16 also can do the Cobra but also with thrust vectoring.
Russia has shown at least in technology is almost on par and sometimes ahead.
however economically the US has the money to build what in Russia at least up to now have only been prototypes.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
true but none SR-71 flew over territory patrolled by MiG-31 tell me why?
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What is a Supercruise engine? Russia already had the AL-41 it is a very powerful engine too
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 02:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes and how much power at dry setting does it deliver ??
Supercruising engine is simply something that can power the aircraft it is designed to power ( like f-22 for f-119) to supersonic speeds ( usually significantly over mach 1 ) without having to go into gas guzzling Afterburners . Basically you want to acheive max possible thrust generated in Dry mode ( you want to up that as compared to traditional engines)
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 02:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For many reasons , however the point still remains that the Sr-71 could sustain high speed for longer .
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How do you base the MiG-31 uses afterburner?
the yield of the D30F-6 is 15510 kg of thrust slightly worst than the F-22, see this fact the F-22 the F-119 has a yield of 155 KN and the D30 of 152 KN, the Raptor can not supercruise at 2.35.
If the Mig-31 can supercruise at mach 2.35 and the F-22 can not tell me you have the MiG-31 manual where it gives you the time it can supercruise at Mach 1.5? that is classifed data even in the F-22
Do you know why the Russians are making the Su-35BM with new engines of more than 14 tonns of thrust?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 02:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 02:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
who cares?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 02:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah and it's not even to the stage of developement the F119 was fifteen years ago. Fifteen years ago the F119 had already flown on two different fighters and on one of them flew with vectoring thrust nozzles and demonstrated them. When has the AL-41 done any of that?
Posts: 278
By: JFrazier - 4th October 2006 at 02:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You gotta be kidding me. How many times have we been over this?
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 02:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How come yeilds are being taken as those to be at DRY SETTINT ??? you realize that the max thrust available is only available in AFTERBURNER right ??
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 02:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL, wait a while Firebar and OverG ought to be by any minute. ;)
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 02:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Isnt it due to be fitted into the T-10BM ?? which means that it should be doing quite good now ?
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do you read aviation news? Russia had almost completed the Al-41 tests.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
okay give me the dry settings for the F-119?
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what a hypocritical answer who cares yeah yeah you know well who cared: the USAF and THE CIA,
Posts: 278
By: JFrazier - 4th October 2006 at 02:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good for them, we don't becuase it has nothing to do with the Raptor.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 02:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What aircraft is a 44,000lb thrust AL-41 with a vectoring nozzle flying on? (44k because that's what's been claimed for it in the past).
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 02:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From what I've read (admittedly not much) it's a cut down version. The original for the MFI was supposedly rated at 44klbs. The one on the T-10BM I thought was only something like 34k if that.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 02:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something that is still clasified ( like the max power setting on the F119 ( they give class not exact thrust) ) however most suggest it is somewhere between the 24K to 29K range ,maybe Aerospacetech or adrian44 can clarify it more clearly but from the unclassified info that is what is available , the point being that it would need to be quite high because the F-22 isnt what you call a light weight fighter and to push it to speeds of mach 1.7 at 45 k without having to speed through the afterburner and use 35-40K of thrust means that you need a whole lot of thrust to be available at dry power setting and that was the goal if you read many of the books about the ATF , which also speculate between this particular range as the exact no.s are still classified /
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you do not understand why Russia is behind in fighter technology, Russia at this moments has almost all the technologies for a fifth generation fighter but they lack an airframe that combines all those technologies.
The MiG-31 has supercruise at least for 30 minutes it will fly at Mach 2.35, no other Russian aircraft will do that however lacks stealth and supermanoeuvrability, probably the F-22 has a more economical and modern engine.
The MiG-29OVT and Su-35BM are at least as agile as the F-22 but they have not supercruise or stealth Probably the SU-35 has some degree of supercruise .
Now in 2006 Russia is working on at least one F-22 equivalent and one F-35 equivalent and updating the Su-35 to Eurofighter level .
The MiG-1.42 was a Eurofighter equivalent but Russia decided to go for the F-22 equivalent and halted further work on the MiG.1.42 at least as we know it because the new MiG I-21 might have some degree of MiG-1.44 ancestry.
Russia`s test pilot was the creator of the Pugachev Cobra, the F-22 can do it albeit with thrust vectoring the most likely, without thrust vectoring the Su-27 can do it, the F-16 also can do the Cobra but also with thrust vectoring.
Russia has shown at least in technology is almost on par and sometimes ahead.
however economically the US has the money to build what in Russia at least up to now have only been prototypes.