Parameter value(Maximum Aerodynamic Quality at M=0.9)
1.F-15A=10.0
2.Su-27=11.6
This is a record figure among 4th generation fighters…
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
1 Like
Would you mind sharing how this is calculated?
This does not translate well for me, could you instead explain it in the thread so we are all understanding what particular aspects are being looked at to give these planes their “maximum aerodynamic quality”?
Максимальное аэродинамическое качество несимметричного самолета (studopedia.su)
Аэродинамическое качество — Википедия (wikipedia.org)
D1S01_Volkov.pdf - Яндекс Документы (yandex.ru)
Spoiler
In fact, only for 5th generation aircraft, the desired parameters were officially determined in advance…All other generations are conditional and basically correlate with the years of production…
- If we approach this problem strictly, the F-15 is not a 4th generation airframe, it does not have an integrated layout…Also, for example, according to the airframe, the MiG-31 /F-14 / Mirage-2000/ Grippen do not belong to the 4th generation…and Rafal is the 4th generation…
- Instead of the integral area rule, the designers of the F-15 focused on the differential one, when the optimization of the complete sections of the aircraft along the length to obtain the greatest aerodynamic quality is due to the difference in their area above and below the wing plane. In addition, this allows you not to make a “waist” on the fuselage that is inconvenient for the layout and difficult to manufacture.The wing and tail profiles are different – designed not for minimum resistance and maximum speeds, but for maximum quality, cruising flight and maneuverable dogfight.
1 Like
No one said it was the best. Again, its one of the most perfected aerodynamically proven designs.
However, you initially thought aerodynamically perfected meant speed and referred to tunnel testing. That is not what aerodynamically perfected means.
The Su27 is by far over most fighters to be aerodynamically perfected. It is optimized for speed and high Mach flight, Angle of attack over 90 degrees as well as supermaneuvrability without the use of thrust vectoring engines.
It is capable of performing maneuvers not possible with traditional aerodynamic techniques. There is no American fighter capable of its combination of high alpha, supersonic flight & supermaneuvrability with traditional control surfaces.
Again, the Flanker is one of the most aerodynamically perfected designs, ever.
1 Like
Your argument is not backed by any real understanding of aircraft design, unfortunately. Good sir who believes the Mirage 2k has canards like the Kfir:
So, to help you out I can share videos of United States Airforce weapon school personnel and Pentagon analyst stating the exact words verbatim if you like. Or you need some study from aviation organizations? We can bring them in too. I just have to find them again.
The Su27 is literally one of, if not the only aircraft that is capable of supermaneuvrability without thrust vectoring while at the same time still is optimized for high Mach flight capable of over Mach 2.
How many US aircraft are capable of performing angles of attack over 90 degrees and supermaneuvrability without any thrust vectoring? How many of those aircraft can still go Mach 2 at the same time? How many can do this with limited or no assistance with Fly-By wire?
ZERO.
That is an aerodynamically perfected combat aircraft design by definition.
Ehrm, Su-33 :nerd:
:3
1 Like
Lol lets play I got a Mig29 to unlock :(
Sure man, discord?
1 Like
These are all derivatives of the Su-27, Ziggy also forgets about the MiG-29M.
What?
The Su-33 is a modification of the Su-27, the MiG-29M also has super maneuverability without OVT
how
The Su-33 is a cooler Su-27, and will not be considered an Su-27 for the sake of tarnishing its cool-ness.
How is the Mig-29M capable of supermaneuverability to the degree of its Sukhoi counterparts? It has far less effective control surfaces, does not incorporate a full airframe lifting body, and it still designed on the basis of prior MiG-29 models.
From that I doubt it could match them in performance in any similar realm.
2 Likes
Su-33 much heavier ( +3t )
b-but canards!
That word gives me ptsd
3 Likes
Silently
1 Like
I don’t know, I’d imagine it would be quite loud