Aerodynamics thread

[b787]

Let me add that fighter philosophy is changing, and super-maneuverability is no longer considered to be the game changer in a combat situation that it once was??? Much more emphasis is being placed on shooting the bad guy- BVR!

Future air combat will lack many of the accomodations and niceties we afforded one another in the past, such as the option to "disengage"??

That is not what the designer of the A-10 and F-16 thinks, he says basically the F-35 philosophy is flawed why? tiny wing, slow, over emphasis in avionics and BVR AAMs, the thrust vectoring is in the top air superiority fighters F-22 and T-50, it means it has uses they are important; furthermore AAMs do not have a 100% kill probability, just to give you an example an Iraqi MiG-25 dodged several AIM-120s launched at it and even AIM-54s, active homing radars missiles also can be jammed, virtually losing their ability to kill.

in few words if a F-22 carries 10 AAMs only 3-4 will be effective at the most versus fast targets like MiG-31s, T-50s or MiG-25s due to their speed, if the enemy has AESA radars, in example 5 like T-50, the ability to hit the PAKFA will be reduced due to supercruising, top speed, jamming and stealth plus the ability to dodge missiles thanks to thrust vectoring.


So a fighter of earlier generation with no super crusing and Thrust vectoring will have no chances versus F-22 and T-50 once they fly at supercruising speeds using thrust vectoring to reduce drag and and the ability of these fighters of dodging AAM even BVR because these ones at fired at longer ranges and are effective in a very short span of time.

You can not expect Thrust vectoring control is not used at supersonic speed, once the combat degenerates into gun battles super maneuverability at subsonic speeds will show why a T-50 and F-35 on a pure gun battle the PAKFA will crap it and that will explain why the USA still uses F-22 and does not export it

 

[b787]

Does the T-50 even has thrust vectoring?

I think it's pretty much accepted that thrust vectoring is just an effective way of losing all your energy. The combination of canards and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

vortex controllers is the more elegant way to archive similiar flight characteristics without dealing with heavier engines.

Not that extremely high AoA is really sustainable anyway.

that is not true, F-22 does not use a HMS (helmet mounted sight) and can beat and has beaten F-15s with HMS in close combat, if you are agile enough and stealthy enough there is no better combination of stealth and super maneouvrability, F-22 can fight without a HMS and only they needed it because T-50 has one and F-22 even uses AIM-9Xs without a HMS giving the extra off bored sight capability thanks to its thrust vectoring Nozzles

 

[Air Force Brat]

Does the T-50 even has thrust vectoring?

I think it's pretty much accepted that thrust vectoring is just an effective way of losing all your energy. The combination of canards and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

vortex controllers is the more elegant way to archive similiar flight characteristics without dealing with heavier engines.

Not that extremely high AoA is really sustainable anyway.

Of course the T-50 has OVT, the J-20 would have had it as well if the technology had been/was there, but it isn't. Super maneuverability remains a very desirable attribute of any fighter aircraft??? the J-20, T-50, and Typhoon all go to great lengths to achieve a very high level of maneuverability, as do the Chinese J-11, J-15, Su-27, Su-30, etc.

Your statement that thrust vectoring is a way to lose all of your energy is simply a current internet fan-boy statement that is NOT true??

Many Air Forces operate aircraft with very high thrust that depend on OVT for their "combat edge" primarily the F-22, T-50, and Su-35.??? right??

Your statement that high AOA is not sustainable is really not cogent to the equation either, as high AOA is an objective of all current fighter aircraft, the Eurofighter Typhoon has recently undergone mods to increase its ability to achieve high AOA in order to improve its turning performance, and all fighter aircraft are all about turning performance.

What I believe you are trying to highlight, is that F-35, J-20, FC-31 are all attempting to achieve sufficient high AOA numbers aerodynamically without OVT/TVC, so thrust vectoring is no longer considered a necessity to achieve high performance in the fighter world?
But OVT is Sukhoi's claim to fame with the Su-35 and T-50 when it comes to extra-ordinary turning performance.

 

[delft]

I like the claim to fame but doubt if the price in weight and thrust loss is low enough to justify the small increase in manoevrability. But of course Sukhoi are the masters in that respect even before they used OVT. Perhaps the Indian experience shown in the Red Flag exercise shows a need for a higher level of pilot training.

 

[Pmichael]

Well, calling somebody an internet fanboy is quite childish and even pointless and even stupid. All nations have non-TVC aircraft in service or in developement so what's the deal?

Second, the only thing you can only archive with TVC and not with aerodynamic solutions are improvement in the post-stall area. Something you don't really need because you don't want to turn your aircraft into a brick but maintain a high level of energy.

And the sustainable AoA is general limited by the output of the engine - on paper you could archive high AoA with TVC but you will run into the same problem of losing too much energy - though the F-35 is also capable of archiving stunning AoA values even without TVC.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Well, calling somebody an internet fanboy is quite childish and even pointless and even stupid. All nations have non-TVC aircraft in service or in developement so what's the deal?

Second, the only thing you can only archive with TVC and not with aerodynamic solutions are improvement in the post-stall area. Something you don't really need because you don't want to turn your aircraft into a brick but maintain a high level of energy.

And the sustainable AoA is general limited by the output of the engine - on paper you could archive high AoA with TVC but you will run into the same problem of losing too much energy - though the F-35 is also capable of archiving stunning AoA values even without TVC.

If you read my response to your claims, I did NOT call you a fan-boy, and I'm very sorry if I offended you?? I do take exception with the authoritative manner in which you repeated statements made by internet fan-boys who do not understand aerodynamics or OVT/TVC, statements which are in fact in-accurate??? keep citing them if you wish???, but for the record, they are bombastic and in-accurate, though they do contain an element of truth.

As master delft correctly reminded us, much of the negative press given to OVT stems from the Indians first debut at Red Flag in the Su-30 MK1s, as OVT must be used judiciously, and if in fact you are over-enthusiastic in your application, you will find yourself slow, heavy, and totally defensive, in short "DEAD". The Indians have in fact upped their game, in fact some of the low time F-22 pilots have found themselves in a similar situation, that's why we fly Red Flags and other fun fighter activities. So that these younger less experienced pilots can see what really does happen in a combat situation, against adversaries who "know how to pull you, into THEIR game", then you are dead???

I will for the record point out that the Flanker and the Raptor are both "world class" when equipped with OVT, in the "hairball", or dogfight, IMHO the Raptor remains the "best" in class, followed closely by the Su-35, as well as other OVT equipped Flankers. Argue that all you want??? you are certainly entitled to your opinion??? You and I might find ourselves compadres if you take this "correction" in the spirit it is given?? as I noted Fighter Philosophy is changing, I was merely pointing out that the OVT of the Raptor gives it a very substantial advantage, and NO that advantage is most definetly NOT limited to Post Stall, as no one worth their salt will be drawn into that regime??? it is a definite loser??? LOL

 

[Pmichael]

It doesn't really make sense to put aircraft in not defined classes/tier groups.

It's not realistic to expect that theoretical AoA values in subsonic regime will decide the quality of an aircraft design in WVR fights.
The European canard aircraft are designed to engage other aircraft in transonic or supersonic regime, which would give them the edge against any aircraft without the same capacities.

And talking about Red Flag. Eurofighters were beaten Indian SU-30 (with TVC) aircraft quite easily.

 

[latenlazy]

Well, calling somebody an internet fanboy is quite childish and even pointless and even stupid. All nations have non-TVC aircraft in service or in developement so what's the deal?

Second, the only thing you can only archive with TVC and not with aerodynamic solutions are improvement in the post-stall area. Something you don't really need because you don't want to turn your aircraft into a brick but maintain a high level of energy.

And the sustainable AoA is general limited by the output of the engine - on paper you could archive high AoA with TVC but you will run into the same problem of losing too much energy - though the F-35 is also capable of archiving stunning AoA values even without TVC.

I have heard TVC also provides significant benefits to maneuvering at high altitudes and supersonic regimes, where control surfaces lose some effectiveness.

 

[b787]

As master delft correctly reminded us, much of the negative press given to OVT stems from the Indians first debut at Red Flag in the Su-30 MK1s, as OVT must be used judiciously, and if in fact you are over-enthusiastic in your application, you will find yourself slow, heavy, and totally defensive, in short "DEAD". The Indians have in fact upped their game, in fact some of the low time F-22 pilots have found themselves in a similar situation, that's why we fly Red Flags and other fun fighter activities.

, and NO that advantage is most definetly NOT limited to Post Stall, as no one worth their salt will be drawn into that regime??? it is a definite loser??? LOL

i totally agree with you, the F-22 has been trashing F-15s and F-16s even with HMS, the F-22 has flown with obsolete AIM-9Ls and no HMS and still the extra off bored capability the AIM-9L got was thanks to the extremely high agility it has.

PAKFA has HMS and missiles like AIM-9xs, but OVT is not only for post-stall basically it allows lower drag and higher control at the entire flight regime plus a bit of stealth, both F-22 and PAKFA use it.

Su-30MKI/Su-30SM or Su-35S are a bit heavy aircraft, they can not be expected to be as good as F-22 or PAKFA because they have higher drag due to external weapons and in the case of the Su-30 the canards add more drag.

Su-34 is an example of an aircraft with canards that even it will dogfight better than a Su-24 or F-111 even Tornados, and will be able to hold its own against F-16s, is not a super agile aircraft its weight and added drag (big nose and canards) make it a fighter bomber not an air supremacy like PAKFA or even the SU-35S

That added drag on Su-35S or Su-30 won`t allow then to turn as tight as the F-22 or PAKFA

 

[b787]

It doesn't really make sense to put aircraft in not defined classes/tier groups.

It's not realistic to expect that theoretical AoA values in subsonic regime will decide the quality of an aircraft design in WVR fights.
The European canard aircraft are designed to engage other aircraft in transonic or supersonic regime, which would give them the edge against any aircraft without the same capacities.

And talking about Red Flag. Eurofighters were beaten Indian SU-30 (with TVC) aircraft quite easily.

The Eurocanards are excellent aircraft, but consider the F-22 flew with no HMS and no AIM-9Xs but obsolete AIM-9Ls, the F-22 can point the nose very well.

The Su-30MKI is a heavy fighter, its wing loading is high, that explains the uses of canards and thrust vectoring, the heavy weight limits the turn rates it can achieve, post stall only can be used under some conditions, so a Su-30MKI has to be flown wisely, but the Eurofighter did not trash the Su-30MKI, the fighters were very even, the Su-35S is a better counterpart, it has supercruising capability and lower drag than the Su-30SM/MKI.

Tactics also play a part and weaponry and flight rules played a part in the Eurofighter/Rafale encounters versus with the F-22 and Su-30MKI.

But the Russians have been built aircraft with canards, they simply deleted them on PAKFA and Su-35 and never built Typhoonsky MiG1.44, but still use the Thrust vectoring