Isn’t the 35k lbf static thrust?
It could cue it’s missiles with radar iirc
yeah, that line aged badly x)
~ 15k kg thrust,
i hope it is per engine
the other problem is that it might have more thrust, but depending on the surce it is as heavy, if not heavier as the Su-30 and has smaller wings than the Flankers and so a higher wing loading
(ik it is a Su-33 on the image, but it should be enough to get an idea)
that might certainly be true, but in an actual dogfight a HMD seems alot better to me than having to actively using your radar
Yeah F-22 is 35k lbf each engine static thrust.
And recently F-22 got HMD but I’m fine if it doesn’t since APG-77 is a very good radar, probably best in-game when added
is that really for inside the airframe or just bench thrust, because normally you only find the numbers for bench thrust
but to be fair, if there is a Flanker that would have to face the F-22 it would be the Su-35S
(atleast i hope that gaijin manages to do some decompression before adding 5th gens)
I mean maybe, but I’ve heard it can put out more power than they say so they could be using installed static as bench to hide true capabilities.
Something about being able to do mach 2 with 118% out of 150% power
If that isn’t an excess of thrust, I don’t know what is
Mach 2 at 40k with 118%, “I could go supersonic by the end of the runway”, “brake release to mach 1.7 and 60k in 3 minutes 30” (wasn’t allowed to go supersonic below 30k)
well highly dpends on altitude and if we are talking pure speed the Mig-25 beats it with mach 3
i hate when ppl use percentages like that
so 100% would be full dry thrust and 150% full afterburning, i assume
if we translate that to WT (as we are all a bit more familiar with that) 118% would corelate to about 104% throtle in WT (it would be percisely 103.6%, kinda hard to do in WT)
40,000 feet =12,192km
mach 2 is already possible to acive in the currently avaiable jets in WT at 104% throtle, at a lower altitude, while flying in a straight line
and i was able to get it up to mach 1.12 with 103% throttle
Can you check how long it takes to go from mach 1.6 to 1.9 at 40k ft, and 0.9 to 1.2 at 40k?
at full burner?
Yeah just gun it, I’m assuming that’s what F-22 test pilot did
around 30 seconds
i love when the embeds fail
around 33 seconds
probably not 100% accurate, because i couldnt exactly hold the altitude
Thanks. Seems like Raptor is worse from .9 to 1.2 (assuming max burner) and better from 1.6 to 1.9
Flanker might be tuned to high for that regime too
it might also be underperforming, we just dont know
the point iam trying to make is that the Su-35S would be better than the Su-27Sm, because it gets the
Al-41 (to be more percise the Izdelie 117S)
and i read somewhere that it has a variable bypass ratio, but i cant find it anymore, so take that with a grain of salt
(Item 117 is a misstranslation of Izdelie 117)
“The Pakfa can indeed supercruise anywhere between M1. 2-1.4 with the present Item-117 engines. The Su-35S is said to supercruise at Mach 1. 2-1.3 with an air to air load. Not its full complement of 14 A2A missiles but with 4-6 air to air missiles. Now the Pak-Fa has more advanced aerodynamics, lower wing loading, a higher L/D ratio, no exposed pylons and internal carriage of weapons. So it is only logical that the Pakfa will supercruise, and not at the wee low end of Mach 1.1-1.2 but a notch higher.”
Vladimir Karnozov:
“Russia’s new Sukhoi Su-35 fighter is already showing its high-performance capabilities. This new single-seat aircraft — which combines the proven Su-27 Flanker airframe, 16% more powerful engines and a totally new set of onboard systems — is said to have reached supercruise speed, a distinct feature of fifth-generation fighters.”
So F-22 would probably remain best supercruiser and have a lot of thrust and speed left for any fighting, and tvc for low speed if it came to it.
I’ve also heard of PW119 really being 39,000lbf static so on F-22 on ground it would be 35k and maybe even go higher at speed and altitude
The F-22 does get faster the faster you go
Well that is how every modern jet engine works,
The question is for what speeds a certain engine is optimized for.
A good example on that is the F-18, it has pretty good acceleration until mach 1 and then basically hits a wall.
On the other end of the spectrum would be the Mig-25 which doesn’t have the best acceleration until it reaches supersonic speeds.
The only way to do decent at all speeds would be an engine with a variable bypass ratio.
An iam uncertain at best if the Al-41 has it and don’t know at all about the PW119
found this tho:
so the Izdeliye 117S has only ~1000kgf less thrust than the PW-119,
with the Su-35 weighing around 19 tones and the F-22 around 20 tones from what i can find
(both empty weight)
max weight for the Su-35 would be ~34 tones and for the F-22 ~38 tones
with the Su-35 having a lower wing loading than the F-22
(from the estimations that i found)
that indicates it has a better STR than the F-22, a good example is the F-16 vs the F-2
while the F-2 is heavier than the F-16C it has a better STR, due to a lower wing loading
(F-2 has a overall better dogfighting ability than the F-16C while being heavier)
1 Like
Really? It can carry 18k lb of fuel max internal plus 43k lb empty, adding what like 4k for AAM and 1k for other stuff, it’s about 67,000lb so 33.5 ton max payload, max internal fuel
F119 also not variable bypass, if there was a real threat to the US air Superiority in 90’s then F-22 would probably have gotten variable bypass, and SLAR, IRST etc. if only they knew about Su-57, it would have had no advantages over the 22 in that alternative timeline
Welp I don’t know the exact weight of either of the jets, I the only exact weights I have for the Su-35 are the following:
~11000kg of internal fuel carrieage +
Is there no empty weight available?
With the 19 tones (I’m guessing it’s 1000kg and not 2000lb type right?)
It weights more than F-22 on combat load with same conditions as the F-22