For the Su-27 T/O, its “50% fuel” should actually be 34% in game. About 3 tons of fuel is used for ferry flights, which are not filled up on most missions and therefore are not counted.
This needs to be taken into account when calculating the thrust-to-weight ratio and flight performance of the Su-27 at half fuel.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
Hmm… I’m actually not sure if the J-11A can use the PL-12.
The PL-12 actually uses the same seeker (9B-1103M) as the R-77. So if the onboard fire control system recognizes it as an R-77, it can be launched and guided normally. This is how the Chinese naval aviation allows the Su-30MKK2 to carry and launch these missiles.
But the J-11A - I have never seen it carry or launch the PL-12 in various channels.
Regarding issues, I once tried to submit an issue about the Su-27SM engine problem, but it was rejected. I’m not sure what information is meaningful and what is not. There are not many ways to directly disclose the technical details of Russian (and Chinese) weapons and equipment. It would be great if you can give me some help.
Great post brother. But I am not sure about how the J-11A ability is set up because gajin has not determined if the J-11A we are getting is the J-11A MLU or not. It has the MAW receivers modeled as a late model J-11A but is still not confirmed. This determines the radar capability somewhat. I would think. The radar they are getting is not the Su-30MK2 afik.
As for our Su-27SM.
The Su-27M is currently the Russian domestic version of the Su-30MK2-based SMK mid-life upgrade, equipped with a N001VP Radar.
The radar in in the Su-27SM the N001VP because Russia does not use export controlled export versions with less capability.
Anyway besides the name radar (not really important) our Su-27SM should have the capability of tracking 10 targets simultaneously & able to target two of them with ARHs (R-77s) simultaneously or two of them with SARHs (R-27RE) simultaneously.
Additionally since our radar is the domestic version of the Chinese N001VEP. It has all the same upgrades of of it, the 70km targeting range, the additional search modes etc. plus further capability as the domestic version not export. But those extra differences are not easily defined & disclosed.
The radar may not have the power, range & precision of the Zhuk-27, but It is said that the N001VEP does have all capabilities of it. such as modes & tracking of 10, but targeting of 2.
The radar we have is not modeled at all. Hopefully soon. But I feel it should have happened already.
1 Like
What source did you use for the losses and the thrust before losses on the GE-402?
What should the Su-27 static installed thrust be in-game?
The upper intake ducts on the MiG 29 have no function to AoA. Not the ones on the 9-12. They were removed on the 9-15 version because they needed to increase the amount of fuel. Maybe today’s MiG 35. But the older versions have none of the magic they copied on the F-22. No offense.
Someone already posted pictures from the manual here.
These are standard losses for supersonic air intakes
I didn’t quite understand your answer, the upper entrances are also used for additional recharge
There’s a lot of threads here and there’s confusion, I was responding to Ziggi who says that the MiG 29 didn’t lose air supply at high AoA due to the upper surfaces of the intake ducts and that this was subsequently used on the F-22, thanks to the MiG 29.
The RD-33 has a very high reserve of gas dynamic stability.And the upper entrances, though, do not provide enough air.But they still help the main entrance on large AoA
1 Like
The F/A-18 ducts and fan are not flow limited in these conditions, installed thrust is higher than you expected.
Thanks to a thesis on the navy engine program we know the static installed thrust is ~16,200 lbs as stated. 16,200 x 1.1 = 17,820 lb-f thrust…
And as I also stated… I used the uninstalled public figure of 17,750 lb-f instead which is already lower. I have it some benefit of the doubt.
Anyhow that is all off topic at this point… Just my explanation for why I used that number for the calculation.
Isn’t the top surface of the intake duct shielded by the hull and isn’t it mainly about blowing excess air away ?
Why are you multiplying by 1.1? The F-18 has the same losses in the air intake as all the others.There are no new physical principles in it.This means that the thrust of 16200×0.45=7240kgf has already been given taking into account losses
1 Like
1 Like
Yes the MiG-29 had a better ability to breath than most fighters at high angles of attack. It is a a high alpha fighter after all & is the only other fighter of the 4th generation classified supermaneuverable. It lacks the aerodynamics for controlled side slipping & limited to dynamic decelerations. The aircraft is equipped with the massively powerful RD-33s.
Airflow is distorted at the intake inlets when operating at angle of attack. As the degree of alpha increases, distortion increases. The engine is starved of adequate oxygen & thrust drops.
At high angles of attack airflow separation occurs at the intake and airflow within the inlet pools begins to swirl & vortices develop.
This disruptive airflow will reach the compressor unevenly & will result in a compressor stall.
A compressor will only pump air in a stable manner up to a certain pressure ratio. Beyond this value the flow will break down and become unstable.
Of course the intake louvre the top of the MiG-29 LERX assist in providing stable airflow to the compressor & prevent airflow from pooling. Airflow still travels along the LERX when the aircraft pitches & enters the intake.
Why would the MiG 29, a fighter designed for alpha flight not have any auxiliary intakes to assist it? It’s supermaneuverable capable. It’s nonsense to think it didn’t.
Was the intake louvers a perfect design? No. the most modern MiG-29s no longer equip the intake louvers or duels mode intakes & have simple but effective network of perforate panels through out the aircraft, within the wheel well of the landing gears etc. that provide stable uniform airflow to the compressors in the entire flight envelope.
The Su-27 has its intake louvers placed under the aircraft’s fuselage on the engine intakes & inlets at a slight angle so that when the aircraft pitches in alpha flight airflow pushes the louvers down & provides stable airflow to the intake inlet precisely where there is distortion.
How would this not help the Su-27 in high alpha flight & supermaneuverability?
You actually believe the su27 only have one ability to intake stable airflow?
1 Like
I don’t think so, but it doesn’t matter. I tried DCS and the “gills” don’t open at higher AoA at 9-12.9-12S, also the manual for the MiG 29G doesn’t mention them opening at higher AoA.
But I still think some small effect could be there, as BRCRF wrote. Nothing extraordinary.
2 Likes
The new MiG aircraft use a controlled air intake edge for continuous flow at high angles of attack
2 Likes
@Ziggy1989 you guys are arguing about many things regarding SU-27, but all i know is that in the game the FM of SU-27 is utterly horrible and worthless.
Instead of arguing on such things, could you guys make reports about SU-27 FM? i really doubt a plane designed for dueling and maneuverability would be this shit in dueling and BFM. It is utterly horrible to use.
1 Like
tests are needed. STR at different heights and different speeds, rate G, acceleration 600-1100 km/h 1100-1300 km/h per 1 km.
1 Like