By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 02:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MiG-31 has supercruise at least for 30 minutes it will fly at Mach 2.35, no other Russia aircraft with do that however lacks stealth and supermanoeuvrability, probably the F-22 has a more economical and modern engine
Again not supercruise but flying supersonic !! Dont you understand the difference b/w the two my friend ??
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 02:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again not supercruise but flying supersonic !! Dont you understand the difference b/w the two my friend ??
Tell me how you know the MiG-31 uses afterburner?
Show me the performance Charts where it tells you how long a MiG-31 can fly at Mach 1.5? that remember is the F-22 supercruise speed.
Bring_it_on
The MiG-31 flies and cruises at mach 2.35 at that speed the F-22 will use afterburner if it reaches that speed, how long the F-22 can keep that speed?
The F-119 afterburner is a high yield engine that combines economy with a ligh airframe and good aerodynamics.
The D-30 to fly cruising at least for 30 minutes at mach 3.35 has to have similar features because the MiG-31 and F-22 are almost in the same weight class however the MiG-31 is heavier and the MiG-31 airframe is highly optimised to have low drag
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The MiG-31 flies and cruises at mach 2.35 at that speed the F-22 will use afterburner if it reaches that speed, how long the F-22 can keep that speed?
The Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR of the purest sence NOT COMPARABLE TO THE F-22 , su-27 or EF typhoon which are all aspect fighters .
Tell me how you know the MiG-31 uses afterburner?
Show me the performance Charts where it tells you how long a MiG-31 can fly at Mach 1.5?
Ummmm dont you have to proove your claim that you laid down that the mig-31 can supercruise ???
F-119 afterburner is a high yield engine that combines economy with a ligh airframe and good aerodynamics.
High yeild yes but high yeild at both aspects , at military power aswell as at dry power , what the F-119 has been designed to do is to narrow the gap between max dry power and max wet power so that the advantages that are gained from high thrust are also available at lower engine settings .
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Performance: MiG-31 - Max speed Mach 2.83 or 3000km/h (1,620kt), max speed at sea level 1500km/h (810kt) max cruising speed at altitude Mach 2.35, economical cruising speed Mach 0.85. Time to 32,800ft 7mm 54sec. Service ceiling 67,600ft. Combat radius with four R-33 AAMs and max internal fuel at Mach 2.35 720km (388nm), radius with four R-33s and external fuel at Mach 0.85 1400km (755nm). Ferry range with external fuel 3300km (1780nm). Endurance with external fuel 3hr 35mm.
economical ie not in the gas guzzling afterburner mode the mig-31 could do mach 0.85 just like other legacy fighters.
I find it hard to believe that a fighter that weighs 20K more pounds with the same dry thrust(unlikely) with missiles hanging off of it would supercruise at the same speeds as the F-22.
The interceptor is that size because it needs to carry a lot of fuel while flying in AB at supersonic speeds for long periods of time.
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 03:13Permalink- 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.
Neither can the Mig-31.
however lacks stealth and supermanoeuvrability, probably the F-22 has a more economical and modern engine.
At $10 million each I doubt the F119 costs less than the DF-30.
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 .
As do numerous others. There's a huge difference between Mach 1.02 clean and Mach 1.72 with 8 AAMs though.
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 .
Russia is not funding a lightweight fighter. The Mig one got dumped. The only way there will be a lightweight fighter is if Mig pays to develope it out of it's own pocket.
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.
The Mig 1.42 was suppose to be an F-22 equivalent. Most likely it got cancelled because they realized it wasn't. (Sure people will talk about cost, collapse of FSU etc. but if they truly are going to attempt an F-22 EQUAL then the cheapest way to go would be to pick up where they left off. PAK-FA is a clean-sheet design.)
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.
As others have pointed out the YF-17 was doing it in the 70s.
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The D30F6 had a little over 34K thrust opposed to the between 35,000 and 40,000 class of the F-119 , carried 4000Kg more fuel , flew at a ceiling 67,600 ft ( as opposed to 45k for raptors mach 1.72 Supercruise ) .
By: sferrin
- 4th October 2006 at 03:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tell me how you know the MiG-31 uses afterburner?
Show me the performance Charts where it tells you how long a MiG-31 can fly at Mach 1.5? that remember is the F-22 supercruise speed.
You're starting to sound as desperate as Firebar. Continueing to repeat that the Mig-31 flys at Mach 2.35 without afterburner does not make it so no matter how much you might wish it so.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 03:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR of the purest sence NOT COMPARABLE TO THE F-22 , su-27 or EF typhoon which are all aspect fighters .
Ummmm dont you have to proove your claim that you laid down that the mig-31 can supercruise ???
High yeild yes but high yeild at both aspects , at military power aswell as at dry power , what the F-119 has been designed to do is to narrow the gap between max dry power and max wet power so that the advantages that are gained from high thrust are also available at lower engine settings .
So tell me the data for max dry setting for the F-119?
tell me the sources that says how long the MiG-31 can fly at mach 1.5?
i will give you some dat and you can figure out how long it can fly the most likely at Mach 1.5
The MiG-31 can fly a normal mission for at least 3.6 hours, it has a range of 1400km flying at 2500km/h fully armed with 4 R-33, it has a range of 2400km at Mach 0.8 without fuel tanks.
You can calculate that if the MiG-31 flying at Mach 0.8 (that is around 800-900km km) flies at least 3 hours calculate the range at the speed at Mach 1.5.
Of course this is not a mathematical method but it gives you a more less fair idea the MiG-31 flying at Mach 1.5 must have more than the 30 minutes flying time at mach 2.35 and less than the 3 hours flying time at Mach 0.8
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the F-22 can do it albeit with thrust vectoring the most likely, without thrust vectoring the Su-27 can do it
Pure speculation on your part , VORTEX has time and again demonstrated how the F-22's aerodynamics are very good and manueverability suitable , do you want them to pull the TVC out and demonstrate the performance ?? if you want that then i'd say give about a 50 million dollar grant to the GW bush presidential library which will be comming up soon and maybe they'll do it just for you ( either way)
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 03:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pure speculation on your part , VORTEX has time and again demonstrated how the F-22's aerodynamics are very good and manueverability suitable , do you want them to pull the TVC out and demonstrate the performance ?? if you want that then i'd say give about a 50 million dollar grant to the GW bush presidential library which will be comming up soon and maybe they'll do it just for you ( either way)
It is not speculation it is pure reality thet MiG-31 has an economical engine and a highly optimised low drag airframe layout, this gives it a supercruise time at Mach 2.35 of more than 30 minutes fully armed with four R-33s.
The Russians had to think how to make a fighter that could fly long periods of time at mach 2.35 becasue the MiG-31 is not a dog fighter and relies in sheer speed to intercept bombers and elude fighters.
The solution was a fighter large that carried lots of fuel, with very low drag airframe configuration and very powerful and economical engines even at afterburner
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So tell me the data for max dry setting for the F-119?
tell me the sources that says how long it can fly
It can fly indefinately until it runs out of fuel , that is the main concept of supercruise my friend !!! the highest military thrust doesnt start to go down with time why dont you understand . The only reason why the raptor wouldnt be able to supercruise was because it ran out of fuel in which case it wouldnt matter . They had demands for supercruise but they defined radius depending upon a minimum supercruise requirment , for example for a practical supercruise of 100 nm the raptor has a total combat radius of 410-420nm , if you reduce the supercruise to 50 nm then the radius jumps to 500nm and if you cancel the supercruise all together then the no. will go to around 580-590 nm ( required ATF values were 5% lower then that but the raptor bettered range and supercruise (15%)by quite a bit) , now you can choose to fly supercruising speeds all day but your no. for combat radius will fall to levels which will most likely be close to 250-300nm combat radius or so at altitude , these are all permutations , the reason why ATF specified 50nm or 100nm was because had they not done so then it would have been very tough to factor in the concept of supersonic range into the overall radius requirments , these 50nm and 100nm scenarios set a very simple method to decide what they wanted , as in to say hey i want the ATF to be able to give me 500nm radius while supercruising 50nm or say i'm closer to base , give me 400nm with a 100nm supercuise and if you still can afford to cut the total radius you can well supercruise throughout the flight ( and this is done for hundereds of miles ( remember this is combat radius not range) with IFR by dozer as he has said in his various articles posted here by myself and frazier) .
You can calculate that if the MiG-31 flying at Mach 0.8 hat is around 800-900km km flies at least 3 hours calculate the speed at Mach 1.5.
why would i do that? the 0.85 is at dry setting whereas the 1.5 would need to be at afterburner setting - apples and oranges!!!
Of course this is not a mathematical method but it gives you a more less fair idea the MiG-31 flying at Mach 1.5 must have more than the 30 minutes flying time and less than the 3 hours flying time at Mach 0.8
This isnt simple interest - but engine , you still have to push the mig-31 to mach 1.5 in the first place and for that you need Afterburner which then doesnt fall under the principle of supercruise but supersonic flight just like so many aircraft before it.
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not speculation it is pure reality thet MiG-31 has an economical engine and a highly optimised low drag airframe layout, this gives it a supercruise time at Mach 2.35 of more than 30 minutes fully armed with four R-33s.
you quoted a post of mine that didnt even mention the Mig-31 but talked about the manuveraibility of the f-22 and you right a para on the mig-31 doing mach 2+ for 30 minutes something that everyone has known for years!!
By: eagle
- 4th October 2006 at 03:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F119 dry thrust is given as 27'000lb or 12'258kg (more static thrust than F-15C in full burners). Thats from the same sources though, that give max. thrust as 35'000lb and which are several years old. So it could be more.
Reg. supercruise: thats a marketing term from Lockheed Martin. Flying fast without burners is nothing new (concorde...), but its new for an air superiority fighter. Also, it doesnt matter much if requirements are achieved with AB or not as long as they are achieved (MiG-31 or SR-71 cruise with burners for long time).
Interesting thing is, in an old mag about ATF selection, I read the YF-22/23 used about 2/3 of fuel compared to an F-15 at Mach 1.5. No big improvements here. Really funny the F-104s can fly further than a Raptor when in supersonic flight.
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
flogger here is a little snippet from a site that you might appreciate -
Earlier supersonic aircraft could exceed Mach I on the level only in maximum afterburner, when the rate at which fuel was burned was so high that supersonic speed could not be sustained for longer than about a minute. Today such aircraft as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor or Eurofighter Typhoon can accelerate to supersonic speed (with or without using augmentation) and then sustain such a speed indefinitely in dry thrust.
The point i'll again reiterate is that you could go mach 1.5 for a long time in a mig-31 , heck it carries 4000kg more fuel , flies at 67,000 Ft altitude and doesnt need to manuver as hard , but inorder to go mach 1.5 you would need to engage afterburner as at dry or eco setting the engines are only able to propel the aircraft which is quite heavy to speeds of 0.85 as venick has shown in the link i have posted . Now you could do this and still get good range at afterburner and mach 1.5 but it wouldnt be supercruise but would be supersonic flight with afterburner which is fine for an interceptor but it is very very tough to have it on a all aspect fighter such as su-27 , f-15 that is why we havent seen the su-27 do mach 1.5 for prelonged periods of time unless it sacrifices serious range and/or payload .
Now what the ATF through the F119 has done and what russia has done with AL-41 is to narrow the gap between what max. thrust an engine produces at DRY setting and what maximum engine thrust it produces at high settings therfore what we get is a engine which is perhaps able to produce 80% of its maximum thrust ( just hypothetical) at dry setting which isnt as fuel consuming as After burners therefore it gives su-27 and f-15 type jets the ability to do things that the BIG interceptors and Big recce aircraft like the mig-31 and sr-71 did ( in that sence obviously nothing like mach 2.3 or mach 3) but still not loose what advantage they have being ALL ASPECT FIGHTERS RATHER THEN PURE INTERCEPTORS.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 03:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you quoted a post of mine that didnt even mention the Mig-31 but talked about the manuveraibility of the f-22 and you right a para on the mig-31 doing mach 2+ for 30 minutes something that everyone has known for years!!
Bring_it_on
At after burner settings at very low power a single engine will burn at least 5000kg of fuel, at full afterburner a single engine can burn up to 18000kg of fuel in one hour
The MiG-31 carries around 16,000kg of fuel and has two engines, that is not enough even for an engine at full afterburner setting.
The MiG-31 even if it uses afterburner at Mach 2.35 has an economical engine, because must be using the engine at very low afterburner other wise it would spend all its fuel in few minutes.
The Raptor is quoted as having Supercruise at beyond mach 1.5 far bellow the Mach 2.35 the MiG-31 can do it in fact almost with a Mach of difference.
We are not calculating the MiG-31 flying time at Mach 1.5 and what engine setting it has but it must be quit economical and the flying time long enough
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 03:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Flying fast without burners is nothing new (concorde...)
And what a fighter that was :)
Also, it doesnt matter much if requirements are achieved with AB or not as long as they are achieved (MiG-31 or SR-71 cruise with burners for long time).
yes , going with AB yeilds to so many problems that would have made it impractical for the f-22 raptor such as stealth , the need to pack in more fuel , weight increase etc etc therefore the only way was to go with supercruising engines .
I read the YF-22/23 used about 2/3 of fuel compared to an F-15 at Mach 1.5. No big improvements here
Are they the same engines ?? same thrust levels ?? Could the F-15 engines propel the f-22 to same speeds ?? The problem with such comparison is ( we use in comercial airliners all the time ) that you aint comparing apples to oranges , the raptor is stealth fighter which is in a totally different weight class therefore the engines are more powerful to support that moreover the raptors engines conserve IR stealth whereas the f-15 will be full nitpicking at AB , moreover what is the supersonic range of the F-15C with a load of 8 missiles ???
the F-104s can fly further than a Raptor when in supersonic flight.
give it all aspect stealth , a means to penetrate IAD , put 8 missiles onboard , IR supression and all the electronics which we think we made so that we can be better and then compare it - see the trouble when you compare apples to mangoes ?? ;)
By: bring_it_on
- 4th October 2006 at 04:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At after burner settings at very low power a single engine will burn at least 5000kg of fuel, at full afterburner a single engine can burn up to 18000kg of fuel in one hour
Which Engine are you talking about . Sfc varies from engine to engine .
The MiG-31 even if it uses afterburner at Mach 2.35 has an economical engine, because must be using the engine at very low afterburner other wise it would spend all its fuel in few minutes.
Again it depends what the Sfc of the engine is ( specific fuel consumption) , this depends upon engine to engine and at effeciency to effeceincy etc .
The mig-31 also performs at a altitude of around 67,000 feet where drag is known to be less .
The Raptor is quoted as having Supercruise at beyond mach 1.5 far bellow the Mach 2.35 the MiG-31 can do it in fact almost with a Mach of difference.
raptors supercruise is at 45k and is mach 1.72 according to the FTD available on the official website .
We are not calculating the MiG-31 flying time at Mach 1.5 and what engine setting it has but it must be quit economical and the flying time long enough
And in that sence the Sr-71 could even give more flying time and speed , however you are still comparing apples to oranges whereas you need to be comparing apples to apples , do you realize the differense between a mig-31 type interceptor and a su-27 or f-22 type all aspect aircraft ?? , Interceptors and fast movers have demonstrated high supersonic speeds well in excess of the raptor for distances well in excess of the raptor but they have always eluded aircraft like the raptor such as Su-27.30 , f-15,16,18 because you would need to put in 16,000Kg of fuel , ceiling to 67000K , limit manuverability etc etc therefore the ability to fly fast for long was left for interceptors like the mig25 and mig31 however aircrafts such as the F-22 and PAKFA will change that in the sence that due to the fact that the current engines can produce very high ammounts of thrust ( well in excess of mig-31's engine's thrust) and still economically power a su-27 type aircraft for hundereds of miles at a speed of mach 1.72 w.o needing to light up and zip off , that was what was limiting the su-27 f-15 and f-18 from doing what the f-22 is doing now back then when the sr-71 mig-25 etc were zipping past mach 3 , however afterburners werent acceptable for stealth reasons aswell so overall it fit the bill quite nicely .
The russians arent dumm to want supercruise out of the Al-41 as the -31 didnt produce it on the 30 flanker .
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 4th October 2006 at 04:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which Engine are you talking about . Sfc varies from engine to engine .
Again it depends what the Sfc of the engine is ( specific fuel consumption) , this depends upon engine to engine and at effeciency to effeceincy etc .
The mig-31 also performs at a altitude of around 67,000 feet where drag is known to be less .
raptors supercruise is at 45k and is mach 1.72 according to the FTD available on the official website .
And in that sence the Sr-71 could even give more flying time and speed , however you are still comparing apples to oranges whereas you need to be comparing apples to apples , do you realize the differense between a mig-31 type interceptor and a su-27 or f-22 type all aspect aircraft ?? , Interceptors and fast movers have demonstrated high supersonic speeds well in excess of the raptor for distances well in excess of the raptor but they have always eluded aircraft like the raptor such as Su-27.30 , f-15,16,18 because you would need to put in 16,000Kg of fuel , ceiling to 67000K , limit manuverability etc etc therefore the ability to fly fast for long was left for interceptors like the mig25 and mig31 however aircrafts such as the F-22 and PAKFA will change that in the sence that due to the fact that the current engines can produce very high ammounts of thrust ( well in excess of mig-31's engine's thrust) and still economically power a su-27 type aircraft for hundereds of miles at a speed of mach 1.72 w.o needing to light up and zip off , that was what was limiting the su-27 f-15 and f-18 from doing what the f-22 is doing now back then when the sr-71 mig-25 etc were zipping past mach 3 , however afterburners werent acceptable for stealth reasons aswell so overall it fit the bill quite nicely .
The russians arent dumm to want supercruise out of the Al-41 as the -31 didnt produce it on the 30 flanker .
Bring it own
SFC is not enough to justify supercruise, add more weight to the Raptor and you will see it will reduce range and will be forced to use more fuel.
The MiG-31 is a piglet it weights around 21 tonnes at empty weight, the F-22 is much lighter in that sense, materials play an important part in supercruise, the PAK-FA will be light enough due to new materials like the F-22 did The I-21 will be light in fact they want something between the Su-27 and the MiG-29.
you might be thinking the F-119 is the super engine, but is is more advertizing than any other thing, the D-30, might be less economical but to calculate how economical you have to check two important aspects
One is SFC at full afterburner, example the AL-31 has a lower SFC than the D30 however it has lower yields so in reality it is more expensive in terms of fuel, second is what engine setting it`s used at what speed.
It is very important to consider drag because air resistance impacts the fuel consumption, the MiG-31 in that aspects fairs well, it would not fly at Mach 2.35 for slightly more than 30 minutes if it would not have low drag and good SFC.
The Eurofighter also supercruises thanks to light weight and economical engines
Just consider that the D30 has at max military power more thrust than a Klimov RD-33 or a EJ-220 at full afterburner tell me if that is not economical
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 02:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again not supercruise but flying supersonic !! Dont you understand the difference b/w the two my friend ??
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 02:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Tell me how you know the MiG-31 uses afterburner?
Show me the performance Charts where it tells you how long a MiG-31 can fly at Mach 1.5? that remember is the F-22 supercruise speed.
Bring_it_on
The MiG-31 flies and cruises at mach 2.35 at that speed the F-22 will use afterburner if it reaches that speed, how long the F-22 can keep that speed?
The F-119 afterburner is a high yield engine that combines economy with a ligh airframe and good aerodynamics.
The D-30 to fly cruising at least for 30 minutes at mach 3.35 has to have similar features because the MiG-31 and F-22 are almost in the same weight class however the MiG-31 is heavier and the MiG-31 airframe is highly optimised to have low drag
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mig-31 is an INTERCEPTOR of the purest sence NOT COMPARABLE TO THE F-22 , su-27 or EF typhoon which are all aspect fighters .
Ummmm dont you have to proove your claim that you laid down that the mig-31 can supercruise ???
High yeild yes but high yeild at both aspects , at military power aswell as at dry power , what the F-119 has been designed to do is to narrow the gap between max dry power and max wet power so that the advantages that are gained from high thrust are also available at lower engine settings .
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Performance: MiG-31 - Max speed Mach 2.83 or 3000km/h (1,620kt), max speed at sea level 1500km/h (810kt) max cruising speed at altitude Mach 2.35, economical cruising speed Mach 0.85. Time to 32,800ft 7mm 54sec. Service ceiling 67,600ft. Combat radius with four R-33 AAMs and max internal fuel at Mach 2.35 720km (388nm), radius with four R-33s and external fuel at Mach 0.85 1400km (755nm). Ferry range with external fuel 3300km (1780nm). Endurance with external fuel 3hr 35mm.
economical ie not in the gas guzzling afterburner mode the mig-31 could do mach 0.85 just like other legacy fighters.
Posts: 278
By: JFrazier - 4th October 2006 at 03:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to this the MiG-31 is in the 80-90,000lb weight class on normal takeoff.
I find it hard to believe that a fighter that weighs 20K more pounds with the same dry thrust(unlikely) with missiles hanging off of it would supercruise at the same speeds as the F-22.
The interceptor is that size because it needs to carry a lot of fuel while flying in AB at supersonic speeds for long periods of time.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 03:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Neither can the Mig-31.
At $10 million each I doubt the F119 costs less than the DF-30.
As do numerous others. There's a huge difference between Mach 1.02 clean and Mach 1.72 with 8 AAMs though.
Russia is not funding a lightweight fighter. The Mig one got dumped. The only way there will be a lightweight fighter is if Mig pays to develope it out of it's own pocket.
The Mig 1.42 was suppose to be an F-22 equivalent. Most likely it got cancelled because they realized it wasn't. (Sure people will talk about cost, collapse of FSU etc. but if they truly are going to attempt an F-22 EQUAL then the cheapest way to go would be to pick up where they left off. PAK-FA is a clean-sheet design.)
As others have pointed out the YF-17 was doing it in the 70s.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The D30F6 had a little over 34K thrust opposed to the between 35,000 and 40,000 class of the F-119 , carried 4000Kg more fuel , flew at a ceiling 67,600 ft ( as opposed to 45k for raptors mach 1.72 Supercruise ) .
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 03:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're starting to sound as desperate as Firebar. Continueing to repeat that the Mig-31 flys at Mach 2.35 without afterburner does not make it so no matter how much you might wish it so.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 03:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So tell me the data for max dry setting for the F-119?
tell me the sources that says how long the MiG-31 can fly at mach 1.5?
i will give you some dat and you can figure out how long it can fly the most likely at Mach 1.5
The MiG-31 can fly a normal mission for at least 3.6 hours, it has a range of 1400km flying at 2500km/h fully armed with 4 R-33, it has a range of 2400km at Mach 0.8 without fuel tanks.
You can calculate that if the MiG-31 flying at Mach 0.8 (that is around 800-900km km) flies at least 3 hours calculate the range at the speed at Mach 1.5.
Of course this is not a mathematical method but it gives you a more less fair idea the MiG-31 flying at Mach 1.5 must have more than the 30 minutes flying time at mach 2.35 and less than the 3 hours flying time at Mach 0.8
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Pure speculation on your part , VORTEX has time and again demonstrated how the F-22's aerodynamics are very good and manueverability suitable , do you want them to pull the TVC out and demonstrate the performance ?? if you want that then i'd say give about a 50 million dollar grant to the GW bush presidential library which will be comming up soon and maybe they'll do it just for you ( either way)
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 03:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not speculation it is pure reality thet MiG-31 has an economical engine and a highly optimised low drag airframe layout, this gives it a supercruise time at Mach 2.35 of more than 30 minutes fully armed with four R-33s.
The Russians had to think how to make a fighter that could fly long periods of time at mach 2.35 becasue the MiG-31 is not a dog fighter and relies in sheer speed to intercept bombers and elude fighters.
The solution was a fighter large that carried lots of fuel, with very low drag airframe configuration and very powerful and economical engines even at afterburner
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It can fly indefinately until it runs out of fuel , that is the main concept of supercruise my friend !!! the highest military thrust doesnt start to go down with time why dont you understand . The only reason why the raptor wouldnt be able to supercruise was because it ran out of fuel in which case it wouldnt matter . They had demands for supercruise but they defined radius depending upon a minimum supercruise requirment , for example for a practical supercruise of 100 nm the raptor has a total combat radius of 410-420nm , if you reduce the supercruise to 50 nm then the radius jumps to 500nm and if you cancel the supercruise all together then the no. will go to around 580-590 nm ( required ATF values were 5% lower then that but the raptor bettered range and supercruise (15%)by quite a bit) , now you can choose to fly supercruising speeds all day but your no. for combat radius will fall to levels which will most likely be close to 250-300nm combat radius or so at altitude , these are all permutations , the reason why ATF specified 50nm or 100nm was because had they not done so then it would have been very tough to factor in the concept of supersonic range into the overall radius requirments , these 50nm and 100nm scenarios set a very simple method to decide what they wanted , as in to say hey i want the ATF to be able to give me 500nm radius while supercruising 50nm or say i'm closer to base , give me 400nm with a 100nm supercuise and if you still can afford to cut the total radius you can well supercruise throughout the flight ( and this is done for hundereds of miles ( remember this is combat radius not range) with IFR by dozer as he has said in his various articles posted here by myself and frazier) .
why would i do that? the 0.85 is at dry setting whereas the 1.5 would need to be at afterburner setting - apples and oranges!!!
This isnt simple interest - but engine , you still have to push the mig-31 to mach 1.5 in the first place and for that you need Afterburner which then doesnt fall under the principle of supercruise but supersonic flight just like so many aircraft before it.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you quoted a post of mine that didnt even mention the Mig-31 but talked about the manuveraibility of the f-22 and you right a para on the mig-31 doing mach 2+ for 30 minutes something that everyone has known for years!!
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 4th October 2006 at 03:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F119 dry thrust is given as 27'000lb or 12'258kg (more static thrust than F-15C in full burners). Thats from the same sources though, that give max. thrust as 35'000lb and which are several years old. So it could be more.
Reg. supercruise: thats a marketing term from Lockheed Martin. Flying fast without burners is nothing new (concorde...), but its new for an air superiority fighter. Also, it doesnt matter much if requirements are achieved with AB or not as long as they are achieved (MiG-31 or SR-71 cruise with burners for long time).
Interesting thing is, in an old mag about ATF selection, I read the YF-22/23 used about 2/3 of fuel compared to an F-15 at Mach 1.5. No big improvements here. Really funny the F-104s can fly further than a Raptor when in supersonic flight.
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
flogger here is a little snippet from a site that you might appreciate -
The point i'll again reiterate is that you could go mach 1.5 for a long time in a mig-31 , heck it carries 4000kg more fuel , flies at 67,000 Ft altitude and doesnt need to manuver as hard , but inorder to go mach 1.5 you would need to engage afterburner as at dry or eco setting the engines are only able to propel the aircraft which is quite heavy to speeds of 0.85 as venick has shown in the link i have posted . Now you could do this and still get good range at afterburner and mach 1.5 but it wouldnt be supercruise but would be supersonic flight with afterburner which is fine for an interceptor but it is very very tough to have it on a all aspect fighter such as su-27 , f-15 that is why we havent seen the su-27 do mach 1.5 for prelonged periods of time unless it sacrifices serious range and/or payload .
Now what the ATF through the F119 has done and what russia has done with AL-41 is to narrow the gap between what max. thrust an engine produces at DRY setting and what maximum engine thrust it produces at high settings therfore what we get is a engine which is perhaps able to produce 80% of its maximum thrust ( just hypothetical) at dry setting which isnt as fuel consuming as After burners therefore it gives su-27 and f-15 type jets the ability to do things that the BIG interceptors and Big recce aircraft like the mig-31 and sr-71 did ( in that sence obviously nothing like mach 2.3 or mach 3) but still not loose what advantage they have being ALL ASPECT FIGHTERS RATHER THEN PURE INTERCEPTORS.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 03:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bring_it_on
At after burner settings at very low power a single engine will burn at least 5000kg of fuel, at full afterburner a single engine can burn up to 18000kg of fuel in one hour
The MiG-31 carries around 16,000kg of fuel and has two engines, that is not enough even for an engine at full afterburner setting.
The MiG-31 even if it uses afterburner at Mach 2.35 has an economical engine, because must be using the engine at very low afterburner other wise it would spend all its fuel in few minutes.
The Raptor is quoted as having Supercruise at beyond mach 1.5 far bellow the Mach 2.35 the MiG-31 can do it in fact almost with a Mach of difference.
We are not calculating the MiG-31 flying time at Mach 1.5 and what engine setting it has but it must be quit economical and the flying time long enough
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 03:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And what a fighter that was :)
yes , going with AB yeilds to so many problems that would have made it impractical for the f-22 raptor such as stealth , the need to pack in more fuel , weight increase etc etc therefore the only way was to go with supercruising engines .
Are they the same engines ?? same thrust levels ?? Could the F-15 engines propel the f-22 to same speeds ?? The problem with such comparison is ( we use in comercial airliners all the time ) that you aint comparing apples to oranges , the raptor is stealth fighter which is in a totally different weight class therefore the engines are more powerful to support that moreover the raptors engines conserve IR stealth whereas the f-15 will be full nitpicking at AB , moreover what is the supersonic range of the F-15C with a load of 8 missiles ???
give it all aspect stealth , a means to penetrate IAD , put 8 missiles onboard , IR supression and all the electronics which we think we made so that we can be better and then compare it - see the trouble when you compare apples to mangoes ?? ;)
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 4th October 2006 at 04:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When you're only pushing a 3000lb beer can it's not that hard :diablo: (ELP might have some info on the Starfighter though- I think)
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 4th October 2006 at 04:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which Engine are you talking about . Sfc varies from engine to engine .
Again it depends what the Sfc of the engine is ( specific fuel consumption) , this depends upon engine to engine and at effeciency to effeceincy etc .
The mig-31 also performs at a altitude of around 67,000 feet where drag is known to be less .
raptors supercruise is at 45k and is mach 1.72 according to the FTD available on the official website .
And in that sence the Sr-71 could even give more flying time and speed , however you are still comparing apples to oranges whereas you need to be comparing apples to apples , do you realize the differense between a mig-31 type interceptor and a su-27 or f-22 type all aspect aircraft ?? , Interceptors and fast movers have demonstrated high supersonic speeds well in excess of the raptor for distances well in excess of the raptor but they have always eluded aircraft like the raptor such as Su-27.30 , f-15,16,18 because you would need to put in 16,000Kg of fuel , ceiling to 67000K , limit manuverability etc etc therefore the ability to fly fast for long was left for interceptors like the mig25 and mig31 however aircrafts such as the F-22 and PAKFA will change that in the sence that due to the fact that the current engines can produce very high ammounts of thrust ( well in excess of mig-31's engine's thrust) and still economically power a su-27 type aircraft for hundereds of miles at a speed of mach 1.72 w.o needing to light up and zip off , that was what was limiting the su-27 f-15 and f-18 from doing what the f-22 is doing now back then when the sr-71 mig-25 etc were zipping past mach 3 , however afterburners werent acceptable for stealth reasons aswell so overall it fit the bill quite nicely .
The russians arent dumm to want supercruise out of the Al-41 as the -31 didnt produce it on the 30 flanker .
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 4th October 2006 at 04:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Bring it own
SFC is not enough to justify supercruise, add more weight to the Raptor and you will see it will reduce range and will be forced to use more fuel.
The MiG-31 is a piglet it weights around 21 tonnes at empty weight, the F-22 is much lighter in that sense, materials play an important part in supercruise, the PAK-FA will be light enough due to new materials like the F-22 did The I-21 will be light in fact they want something between the Su-27 and the MiG-29.
you might be thinking the F-119 is the super engine, but is is more advertizing than any other thing, the D-30, might be less economical but to calculate how economical you have to check two important aspects
One is SFC at full afterburner, example the AL-31 has a lower SFC than the D30 however it has lower yields so in reality it is more expensive in terms of fuel, second is what engine setting it`s used at what speed.
It is very important to consider drag because air resistance impacts the fuel consumption, the MiG-31 in that aspects fairs well, it would not fly at Mach 2.35 for slightly more than 30 minutes if it would not have low drag and good SFC.
The Eurofighter also supercruises thanks to light weight and economical engines
Just consider that the D30 has at max military power more thrust than a Klimov RD-33 or a EJ-220 at full afterburner tell me if that is not economical