Russian Flanker and SU-3X Thread: Videos, Pictures, News, Views

[Air Force Brat]

have you seen this documentry,
it shows that the su27 has a lower wing loading than it seems

Not necessarily Aksha, and the proof as they say is in the pudding, the Typhoon is very good at very high altitudes that leave your standard Flanker winded, at 50,000 ft the Phoon can "hang wit" the Raptor, and that my friend is Thrust and Wing, you've got to have them both to operate on the high ground, the Flanker is very good up through the medium altitudes, but runs out of steam as we climb onto the true "high ground", she needs more thrust, the SU-35 is attempting to fill that gap?

 

[Scratch]

Now why would we want to use the same weight for both aircraft, the Flanker is much heavier, and has a higher wing loading, which was my point. Typhoon has a much higher thrust to weight ratio and a higher ITR!

Now to be fair, I think Thud ment to say "comparable" instead of "same" weight. If you reverse his math it seems that in both instances he used a "loaded weight" of 16t for Typhoon and 23,43t for the MKI. Which adds up pretty nicely for the MKI having 7,6 or so tonnes more empty weight.
However at only 85% the wingloading, Typhoon still comes out at 96,5% of a AL-31F M1 equipped Flanker-H.

That being said I wonder were the notion of Typhoons having crappy turn rates comes from. An aircraft that can maintain 7G supersonic, is able to hold it's own against F-22s in the WVR region and still has lower wing loading then early F-16s certainly is no lame duck.
All the previous, conventional (tailless) deltas in the past generally had a rather small wing anyway and needed to deflect a rather large portion of that wing (flaperons) to turn. Further decreasing the effective wing area and driving wingloading south.
Non of that applies to a Typhoon that can keep it's already rather large wing and does the attitude change with shallow deflection of far front (long lever arm) mounted canards.
It is, as I have stated in the past, an energy fighter and will turn pretty happily for prolonged times if you can manage your energy and keep the speed up. Of course you'll have to watch to not let you "drag" into a min radius / slow speed fight by an OVT equipped opponent.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Now to be fair, I think Thud ment to say "comparable" instead of "same" weight. If you reverse his math it seems that in both instances he used a "loaded weight" of 16t for Typhoon and 23,43t for the MKI. Which adds up pretty nicely for the MKI having 7,6 or so tonnes more empty weight.
However at only 85% the wingloading, Typhoon still comes out at 96,5% of a AL-31F M1 equipped Flanker-H.

That being said I wonder were the notion of Typhoons having crappy turn rates comes from. An aircraft that can maintain 7G supersonic, is able to hold it's own against F-22s in the WVR region and still has lower wing loading then early F-16s certainly is no lame duck.
All the previous, conventional (tailless) deltas in the past generally had a rather small wing anyway and needed to deflect a rather large portion of that wing (flaperons) to turn. Further decreasing the effective wing area and driving wingloading south.
Non of that applies to a Typhoon that can keep it's already rather large wing and does the attitude change with shallow deflection of far front (long lever arm) mounted canards.
It is, as I have stated in the past, an energy fighter and will turn pretty happily for prolonged times if you can manage your energy and keep the speed up. Of course you'll have to watch to not let you "drag" into a min radius / slow speed fight by an OVT equipped opponent.

exactly so Master Scratch, and as I stated before the very high altitude performance of the Typhoon is the real proof of who has more?, dare I say it? "Scratch"? We did have that rather serious discussion not to far in the distant past about the Phoon having its AoA "opened up" to allow it to achieve much higher angle of attack than previously, and no the Phoon will definitely turn rather well as some of these more serious excercises are proving!

however the Flanker is a very amazing aircraft, and when flown well past its limits is very good and a rather large "pussy-cat", I have always been a fan of the Flanker

 

[aksha]

from the exercises

 

[Scratch]

This photo is a good illustration of the size of the Flanker as opposed to the Typhoon, ...

Just wanted to top off that thought with the following illustration. The respective images are off the net, which I then scaled. Really shows how massive the MKI is for a fighter.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Just wanted to top off that thought with the following illustration. The respective images are off the net, which I then scaled. Really shows how massive the MKI is for a fighter.

Thank you Master Scratch, (I am so thankful to have you back on board), you have very perfectly illustrated what I was trying to share, and you have overlayed the Typhoon over the Flanker, to perfectly illustrate the confluence of the center of mass of both aircraft, the "phoon" simply has less aircraft to get around the corner so to speak. These aircraft pivot about the center of gravity and center of lift, that distant coupled canard of the Typhoon is much more effective given its great moment arm, hence the Typhoon will turn well inside the Flanker.

Now, lest someone think I am beating on the Flanker, that greater mass and larger airframe will retain more energy longer as the turn continues, in other words it does not "bleed" energy nearly as quickly as the Typhoon, it will also carry much more fuel, armament and personnel without taxing that airframe.

These are both very fine fighter aircraft that would serve anyones Air Force in good stead, they must be flown with-in their optimum envelope to win, and that while challenging, it is do-able every day, the reason USAF and USN developed Top-Gun and Red-Flag.

I will say that my own preference would be the Flanker, as I greatly appreciate its much longer range and payload, also as you burn fuel the Flanker gets "much better" as it gets lighter, just another fact of life, in fact I would bet most Flanker missions launch with a little over half fuel for these very reasons? just surmising here?

 

[Scratch]

... as I greatly appreciate its much longer range and payload, also as you burn fuel the Flanker gets "much better" as it gets lighter, just another fact of life, in fact I would bet most Flanker missions launch with a little over half fuel for these very reasons? just surmising here?

I guess one of the really usefull, but perhaps not so often metioned, advantages of the Flanker is that, due to it's capacity, can go on quiet a few missions without the need to carry external fuel tanks.
In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of very few pictures of a Flanker carrying drop tanks. Topping off just the internal tanks in the air, may give it enough fuel to go places, do buisness and return.

That of course leaves even more space, which a Flanker has plenty already, to carry weaponry.

 

[Air Force Brat]

I guess one of the really usefull, but perhaps not so often metioned, advantages of the Flanker is that, due to it's capacity, can go on quiet a few missions without the need to carry external fuel tanks.
In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of very few pictures of a Flanker carrying drop tanks. Topping off just the internal tanks in the air, may give it enough fuel to go places, do buisness and return.

That of course leaves even more space, which a Flanker has plenty already, to carry weaponry.

True and in the past bombers often had a "fighter escort" to occupy enemy fighters while the bombers did their thing, with Russia's stated intention to build more Black-Jacks? is that the NATO code name?, sending a fighter escort with those anachronistic bombers would no doubt be a smart move, and it would certainly raise eyebrows if they were to begin accompanying those old Bears, which they could no doubt manage?

 

[Scratch]

I think the Blackjacks entered service a year after the B-1B and are therefore just over 25 years old. While certainly not kept up to date in the way the Lancer is, the Blackjacks are probably not yet anachronistic, in my mind. Having one or two of those, together with a few Flankers, fly through the Baltic, or down the Norwegian and Scottish cost, would certainly turn some heads in NATO. And be a real message, instead of a lone Bear.

On the other hand a few years back a few Tu-22M3, escorted by Flankers, apparently flew a mock attack on a Swedish island (Gotland?).

 

[Jeff Head]

In fact, off the top of my head, I can think of very few pictures of a Flanker carrying drop tanks. Topping off just the internal tanks in the air, may give it enough fuel to go places, do business and return..

I have never seen an SU-27 or SU-30 with drop tanks...not even the centerline tanks. I do not know if they are even plumbed for them.

I know (and have seen) the SU-34 with a large centerline drop tank:

​

...and I have heard that the SU-35 is definitely plumbed for two wing mounted drop tanks...though I have never seen a picture of it.

I have seen many pics of Mig-29s with drop tanks...and Su-34s for example...but I have never seen an SU-27 or SU-30 with them.

Does anyone have pics of it?