Any experimental model is interpreted with Math, any aircraft design is tested using math.
Math is the basis and language of aviation, i guess you do not like Math
Aerodynamics thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
Math is the basis and language of aviation, i guess you do not like Math
Re: Chinese Engine Development
Correct, and the smaller aircraft is always cheaper, the F-22 and F-35 compassion has to consider inflation at the moment the aircraft are made and production numbers.
F-35 is cheaper since a twin engine aircraft will require two engines so only the price of an additional engine will increase price, ad the number of TR modules of an AESA will increase on a larger radar.
higher weight also demands more powerful engines that will burn more fuel and longer range will mean more fuel, thus the big fighter always is used as a BVR fighter.
Bigger size also increase drag since larger aircraft carry more weapons and have larger aerodynamic surfaces thus requiring more engine power.
but here comes the but, as technology improves you can have a single engine fighter with a radar better than a twin engine fighter, ie Gripen versus F-4E, a modern MiG-35 is much lighter than a Flanker then at combat weight the small fighter will enter combat with both less fuel internally and externally while the BVR is used primarily as an interceptor and last resort WVR.
Or a twin engine fighter with better TWR in example F-16 versus F-4.
In Africa, the MiGs were beaten by the Sukhoi for two reason, earlier detection and better training, but the MiG is the lighter and the better dogfighter.
However big Nations like China require long range fighters thus the Su-27 makes more sense than the shorter range MiG, and the same is for Russia since less fighter available and a huge territory to patrol meant the Flanker was preferred as an interceptor.
Correct, and the smaller aircraft is always cheaper, the F-22 and F-35 compassion has to consider inflation at the moment the aircraft are made and production numbers.
F-35 is cheaper since a twin engine aircraft will require two engines so only the price of an additional engine will increase price, ad the number of TR modules of an AESA will increase on a larger radar.
higher weight also demands more powerful engines that will burn more fuel and longer range will mean more fuel, thus the big fighter always is used as a BVR fighter.
Bigger size also increase drag since larger aircraft carry more weapons and have larger aerodynamic surfaces thus requiring more engine power.
but here comes the but, as technology improves you can have a single engine fighter with a radar better than a twin engine fighter, ie Gripen versus F-4E, a modern MiG-35 is much lighter than a Flanker then at combat weight the small fighter will enter combat with both less fuel internally and externally while the BVR is used primarily as an interceptor and last resort WVR.
Or a twin engine fighter with better TWR in example F-16 versus F-4.
In Africa, the MiGs were beaten by the Sukhoi for two reason, earlier detection and better training, but the MiG is the lighter and the better dogfighter.
However big Nations like China require long range fighters thus the Su-27 makes more sense than the shorter range MiG, and the same is for Russia since less fighter available and a huge territory to patrol meant the Flanker was preferred as an interceptor.
Last edited:
I didn't say skipping spares. I said spares smooth out oversupply. You produce enough engines for new, refit, and spares for both. Technically your capacity is supposed to drop off anyways as you reach end of production rub of the fighter. If your rate of production is creating more engines than you need that simply means you're ahead in your production of spares and replacements, which means an earlier slowdown or end of production, but that's hardly a problem. That's assuming you don't simply offset that capacity to a related project. Yes the SF-A is a parallel project, but the point is if they share the same production process when you're ramping up production for that you don't need to build entirely new capacity, you can just reallocate the excess.
Last edited:
I love math, but math doesn't mean much when you're not applying it. Math is the interpretation, not the phenomena. Discovery uses the method of interpretation to study and understand the phenomena. Aerodynamics is the phenomena. Math serves aerodynamics and not the other way around. Math is of course universal. That is not deterministic of the experimental outcome, which is to say that the math is the same for everything, and the physics is the same for everything, but that doesn't mean we know everything about the physics, and may not even know everything about the math and that was my point. Just because the physics is the same that does not mean we fully understand all possibilities of the physics.
Last edited:
Math is the phenomena since Physics is useless without it, and forces are vectors, vectors can be interpreted with math ie electromagnetic waves using electricity and magnetism as the quantifiable vectors or in aviation as the quantifiable forces of lift and drag.
Turn rates are quantifiable phenomena, lift will be measured with trigonometry on a turn, in fact they are vectors thus you just need to know the lift required for the jet to achieve the turn rate demanded
There is no simulation that does not use math in aviation, and not experiment without a mathematical interpretation.
Last edited:
Engineer
Major
Of course J-20 is faster and more maneuverable than J-10. For one, J-20 is designed to super-cruise, whereas J-10 is not. For another, J-20 combines multiple vortex lift unlike the J-10, allowing J-20 to attain higher lift coefficient and more maneuverability.
Generating fraction of lift is still generating lift. Also, canard works with zero angle-of-attack, which is shown very clearly in the second graph on the left column. Regardless, canard generates lift, unlike what some have claimed otherwise.
Of course. The diagram doesn't show something that is not true. For a given lift coefficient, canard layout experiences less drag than a layout without canard. This can be seen in the third graph on the left column.
Energy is transferred to the vortex, not loss. Since the vortex is generated upstream of the wing, the energy has the opportunity to be transferred back into the aircraft, and this transfer contributes to lift. The process is quite efficient and the fighter doesn't lose much energy.Fighter loses energy when generating vortices, canards or no canards. Bigger vortex means more energy is lost . So, if your canard equipped fighter goes for higher AoA then it will lose more energy, but it will also turn tighter for a time. There is no magical source of energy in canard, it is just piece of metal . It converts kinetic energy (speed) into lift (form of potential energy) . That is all.
Engineer
Major
Aircraft design is an evolution rather than revolution. Fifth generation fighters have improved characteristics compared to forth generation fighters, not dissimilar characteristics.
A turn less than 15 seconds is still a turn. Since a turn is about flying at high angle-of-attack, the J-10 performing a low-speed flyby is representative of a turn. Good performance can be seen despite the use of a delta wing.
The fact here is very simple: J-10 features a delta wing, yet still manages to complete a turn in similar time as the PAK-FA. To be fair, the PAK-FA was still a prototype with possible flight envelop restrictions, but I digress. Whether ITR is better or STR is better cannot negate how the real world contradicts your analysis.
Yet, the J-20 has better performance, showing fighter performance no longer correlates with the metric of wing loading.
Last edited:
I did not say that you can do aviation without using math, but math doesn't determine that high aspect ratio wings have greater lift coefficients than low aspect ratio wings. Math can tell us pressure distribution and flow conditions over a wing, but it does not determine what those conditions are, how they are, or why they are. What it comes down to is that simply discussing force diagrams won't tell you what is causing those forces or vector changes. That's where the debate is. We simply don't know how the J-20 performs because we don't know the HOWS and WHYS of the design without more complex instruments.
Where did you get that idea.
You know i hate discussions where ignorance and speculation is presented as facts.
Any simulation is math, any physical phenomenon is quantifiable, here all the discussion is sterile and stupid, what makes an aircraft turn is the total lift it generates with regards its weight speed and banking angle
see the equation and stop this stupid argument, see the equations, no equation is given aircraft has canards or not, it simply gives you speed banking angle Tan and gravity, the rest is pure non sense.
The turn rate always will be given in math expressions and are these factors what matter regardless the aircraft is a fighter, a strike aircraft or an airliner, it does not matter it has canards or not or it is tailless.
The configuration only matters to know at what speed and altitude it works better, 5th generation aircraft are designed for Mach 1.5 cruise speeds which forces a limit in their agility at Mach 0.9 thus they need thrust vectoring to fix their limits at lower speeds
question for you why J-20 changed the shape of the LEX of its wing?
If you say you do not know, i just just recommend you google a bit about the F-16 aerodynamics and you will find the answer, the reason is not as complex as you think, in the same way the F-18E changed the shape of its LEX, the reason lies simply in what things do compromises between lift and low pressure vortices and drag.
simulation is not what you think, pretty much all designers do it before launching their projects.
Last edited: