thegopnik wrote:Guess any real estimates on fuel range without external tanks would be deemed as embarrassing for LM so they have not included it but are reliant on tanks to only post info with the tanks included as their marketing preference Some users here which I cant understand why are hell bent for a little Mach 0.1-0.3 to add on super cruise as more important than having an aircraft that literally already has 75% more range than the other in a internal fuel consumption range(not including drag). Than of course some users here(you know who you are and there is more than 1 stating this) put a lot of emphasis on how much drag greatly effects like if it didn't have those tanks it will still be close to the advertised external fuel tank range but are not giving any numerical value to calculate the drag but believe it is that bad
? Even if we all pretend that the 12000kg is the internal fuel range which of course it isn't the fuel efficiency is still higher than the afterburner speed efficiency the F-22 has over the Su-57 anyway
I mean they could design a higher thrust engine to begin with on the 1st stage but the fuel efficiency is a no-go to monitor the airspace of a very big country. But either way we are comparing fruits to vegetables and that is no way to predict a country's engine technology(as some are drawing conclusions based on that, on who is ahead in aircraft engines). For example if the F-22 did not go for high thrust numbers but numbers similar to the Su-57 1st stage or Su-35 engine would it have better internal fuel consumption of those 2 aircrafts? If the Su-57 or Su-35 did prioritize higher thrust similar to the F-22 would it still have a better internal fuel consumption(and lockheed not feeling too embarrassed to disclose the internal fuel range to compare them)?
Please copy and paste this shit to other forums because as meaningless as this 1st stage su-57 vs F-22 engine debate is. I am sure the future argument will be a izdelie 30 vs F-35 ADVENT(which is not going to work for debate anyways). and far future argument will be mig-41 ramjet detonation engines vs whatever the F/A-XX program is doing and it would be a god send if they are nearly the same in some aspects to make more fair comparisons than what this board is currently doing.
What a mess of a post
1. US normally provides aircraft ranges either as combat radius for a given profile or as ferry range, for F-22 and for the rest of their planes. Russia provides range on internal fuel. Those metrics are tricky to compare.
2. The "some users" BS is unnecessary, if you are referring to me say it clearly. Supercruise is something Russians have been trying to implement since the 80's, it was the intent of the original MFI and associated AL-41 engine on which they spent massively. You failing to understand why has actually zero relevance once every serious airforce out there knows its value and is ready to invest heavily and sacrifice other aspects to obtain it. US did take the "easy" way with a low bypass engine that is not good for subsonic range, we will need to see what Russia does. I hope and actually expect them going the same way they went already 30 years ago with the original AL-41 which was a VCE, but it has not been disclosed in an explicit way.
3. When I am referring to EFTs and their drag I, differently to you, am not making a politic argument but a technical one. You cannot pretend doing calculations to disguise a 30% error because your entry data is garbage. The original calculation by Isos is not even remotely accurate, that is all. Nobody is saying range with and without EFT is the same, that is
absurd.
are not giving any numerical value to calculate the drag but believe it is that bad
Do you a remote idea of what the drag index is? Have you taken an actual look to flight manual DI / range calculations? If you would have done you would not be making such silly statements
Even if we all pretend that the 12000kg is the internal fuel range which of course it isn't the fuel efficiency is still higher than the afterburner speed efficiency the F-22 has over the Su-57 anyway
What the hell are you talking about?
I mean they could design a higher thrust engine to begin with on the 1st stage but the fuel efficiency is a no-go to monitor the airspace of a very big country. Not to hit a nerve but I believe there is a good reason why LM advertises the external tank range over the internal fuel range
That is called low BPR engine and is one of the routes to supercruising. The other is VCE as said. You are not hitting any nerve, you rather seem completely lost.
But either way we are comparing fruits to vegetables and that is no way to predict a country's engine technology(as some are drawing conclusions based on that, on who is ahead in aircraft engines).
There are certain technological parameters like TIT or OPR that very clearly indicates who is "ahead". An engine like the F135 is a 3,600 °F (1,980 °C; 2,260 K) machine that is head, shoulders and waist above what we know, at least in the public space, about other engines. The jury is still out regarding izd. 30 and even izd. 117, but the advantage is massive regarding all other operational engines, essentially anywhere. Again, if all is a big lie and the TIT is false and the thrust is false, well, bad luck and we know nothing. I as anyone out there have to work with open sources.
For example if the F-22 did not go for high thrust numbers but numbers similar to the Su-57 1st stage or Su-35 engine would it have better internal fuel consumption of those 2 aircrafts?
Depends on the engine. If it had used a high BPR engine it could have better SFC than the Sukhois, since better OPR and TIT mean better efficiency, but no supercruise. They preferred a low BPR engine because the supercruise was considered a priority. They could also have used the YF120, which could have provided both good SFC and supercruise, but probably thought it was high risk.
If the Su-57 or Su-35 did prioritize higher thrust similar to the F-22 would it still have a better internal fuel consumption(and lockheed not feeling too embarrassed to disclose the internal fuel range to compare them)?
The Su-35 and arguably the Su-57 have substantially more internal fuel than the F-22, so they would normally have more range even if they had the same type of low BPR engine.
Please copy and paste this shit to other forums because as meaningless as this 1st stage su-57 vs F-22 engine debate is. I am sure the future argument will be a izdelie 30 vs F-35 ADVENT(which is not going to work for debate anyways). and far future argument will be mig-41 ramjet detonation engines vs whatever the F/A-XX program is doing and it would be a god send if they are nearly the same in some aspects to make more fair comparisons than what this board is currently doing.
Yeah, cry me a river
GarryB wrote:For external tanks to make sense using they would have to extend flight range by a significant value in the subsonic flight regime where the extra drag wont render the extra fuel they carry irrelevant.
Of course. That does not mean that the range of the plane can be calculated linearly based on the fuel amount disregarding the presence of the EFTs.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
LMFS
