plawolf
Lieutenant General
Higher TWR helps with sustained turn ratio, while TVC improves instantaneous turn rates. But that is only the most crude and simplist view, many other factors also come into play.
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Higher TWR helps with sustained turn ratio, while TVC improves instantaneous turn rates. But that is only the most crude and simplist view, many other factors also come into play.
Agility IMO is the rate at which a plane can change its velocity, and that implies changing both its speed and heading direction.
TVC mainly allows you to change thrust direction, so that will have more effect on your nose heading due to moment effect although your plane body may still have enough momentum to travel in the original direction even if you turn your nose, thus the drift effect.
More TOW ratio allows you to accelerate faster in a given direction, though your plane will still not be maneuverable in the dog fighting sense if it cannot change it's heading fast enough. But higher acceleration may help because the crude view is that travelling faster with respect to the air around you allows more force to be generated by the control surfaces and through other aerodynamic properties of the plane to change it's direction faster.
That's my view and it may not be correct.
Also I think there is no free launch between instantaneous and sustained turn rate. While an aircraft may be designed to excel in both it has to choose between one or the other in real life. That is because a high instantaneous turn rate will bleed energy rapidly - you plane don't just change direction and maintain at the same speed - the speed in the new direction always start from zero - though that transition is gentler if your turning is less abrupt. There is not really a clear cut distinction between instantaneous and sustained turn rate and it really depends on how hard you turn. If you turn harder, the speed drops faster and you can maintain it for less period of time before the plane stalls. So all things being equal having a more powerful engine allows you to stay in the same turn longer before you stall if ever.
Last edited:
kwaigonegin
Colonel
it it's simplest form, the agility of a plane corresponds directly with the amount of energy (i.e thrust) it gives out. A high T/W ratio means more energy. TVC is like 'cheating' in a sense that while it doesn't increase a plane's total energy per se it redirects it's energy so the net effect is more energy from a particular angle where the plane wants to point to.
You are talking apples and oranges because while both methods increases a plane's agility it does it very differently and achieves different outcomes.
Agility is more than just how fast a plane banks and rolls or turn. It must have the ability to go up to speed fairly quickly once it loses it energy. The inescaple laws of physics states that everytime a plane banks, turns or rolls etc it loses significant energy which means it will lose it speed. For it to be agile again the plane has to regain as much energy as it can as soon as it can otherwise it will either fall out of the sky OR it will get shot down.
In a dog fight whoever that has more energy to reposition the aircraft will most likely win. You can be the best pilot in the world but if your plane can't regain speed quick enough after a turn you're dead.
Last edited:
mwanamwale
New Member
An unstable design is also important
Engineer
Major
A plane will fly without thrust vectoring as long as there is thrust or with the engine running. However, a plane with thrust vectoring control and no thrust will go nowhere. This should answer your question.
A good fighter aircraft should have high thrust-to-weight and high lift-to-drag ratios. An aircraft encounters additional drag during a turn, which slows the plane down. High thrust-to-weight ratio allows an aircraft to regain speed quickly and provide additional force to overcome the drag. High lift-to-drag lets an aircraft turn without losing much speed.
PLAAF open admission that J-11BS copy of SU-27SK are unreliable and inferior.
despite the aircraft include more composite material, but load still unable to match SU-27SK
the J-11BS that power by WS-10,rarely fly supersonic, reason, WS10 unrelaible, mechanical problem....etc.
problem also incle metallurgy..
no wonder. China seeking to purchase SU-35
one area, is the avionic.the paper supeior to SU-27SK.
I would said the link you post are total BS.
Why? First off... it is from bbs.wforum.com... I wonder why would people still read that. Second, the person who post it never quote any reliable source... and how he come out with that report is totally questionable.
Secondly... DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT RUMORS ON CHINESE INTEREST IN BUYING SU-35 with any opportunity that you people have OR UNRELIABLE RUMOURS FROM UNRELIABLE SITE THAT CAME OUT? I mean... come on! Until now the Chinese government and Russian government HAD deny the sales and stuff like that for whatever reason. If the Chinese wanted to buy that aircraft they would already had done it... the Chinese had the resource and the monies and the Russia would be happy to sell their aircraft... so why is there no deal that we know of?
I mean... come on!
Last edited:
article scan from official chinese magazine. this amount to official acknowledgement.the problem not only in the engine but also other area, such as metallurgy,composite material..
in fact AVIC spoekman told aviaition week that chinese make engine are unrelalble and suffer from short life span.
Gentlemen, we have a Chinese Su-35 thread, please move your discussion to that thread, as to the original question of thrust to weight vs OVT, as usual the Eng nailed it! brat
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
All the articles I read referring to this latest have been quoting Pinkov. Remember this whole thing was started by him. I also read China has to buy Su-35s and submarines in order to get S-400s.
- Status