Flanker vs F-15

On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

"David E. Powell" wrote in message ws.com...
There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses, range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
least for ferry or long range ops?

Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.

Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ws.com...
There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses,
range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
least for ferry or long range ops?

Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.

Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

The magazine you quote must have been comparing a MiG-29 (which is short
legged) with the F-18 (which isn't exactly long-legged), but to state that
no Russian
fighter carries anything like the internal fuel of a US fighter is no longer
true.

The Su-27 was designed to patrol the vast skies over Russia - and has the
internal fuel to do so.

Indeed, the Su-27 flown by Anatoly Kvotchur of the 'Test Pilots' display
team, regularly flies non-stop Moscow-UK to attend our airshows - and then
does an aerobatic
display before landing !!!

Ken Duffey

Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
.. .
On 26 Mar 2004 06:46:06 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ews.com...
There are two really important questions:

1. What are the other odds? (AWACS, support aircraft, SAM defenses,
range to
bases, numbers on each side, etc.)

I wonder how long it would take a fuel-heavy Flanker to dump down to
ACM weight. Doesn't it carry a LOT more internally than an Eagle, at
least for ferry or long range ops?

Nope. So far as I know, no Russian fighter carries anything like the
internal fuel a US fighter does. That's because the aircraft weren't
expected to fly long distances because they use ground control.

Actually, it's true of European fighters, too, which is why Australia
and Canada buy US aircraft. Big countries, long legs.

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

The magazine you quote must have been comparing a MiG-29 (which is short
legged) with the F-18 (which isn't exactly long-legged), but to state that
no Russian
fighter carries anything like the internal fuel of a US fighter is no longer
true.

And while the Foxhound isn't exactly a "fighter" it carries a buttload
of fuel too.

Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.

Su-27 can carry LOTS of fuel.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

362436 (Ron) wrote:

Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C &
2,200 for the F-18.

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.

Su-27 can carry LOTS of fuel.


Ron

You don't really expect her to admit her error here do you
boys?...she doesn't 'do' admit error. Just like a couple of years
ago when she stated emphatically that there is no such thing as
'pilot error', there was only 'layout errors' (or some other
foolishness) that misled pilots into making wrong decisions.

I still think some hunk pilot whispered in her little pink shells
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
362436 (Ron) wrote:

Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

The internal fuel load of a Su-27 Flanker is 9,400kg, on the F-15C it s
5,950kg (or 6,103 depending on source), the F-18 is 4,900kg.

Range without drop tanks is 3,680km for the Su-27, 1,970km for the F-15C
&
2,200 for the F-18.

Yeah, I was about to say the same thing.

Su-27 can carry LOTS of fuel.


Ron

You don't really expect her to admit her error here do you
boys?...she doesn't 'do' admit error. Just like a couple of years
ago when she stated emphatically that there is no such thing as
'pilot error', there was only 'layout errors' (or some other
foolishness) that misled pilots into making wrong decisions.

Hey, the ignorance about transports and pitot tubes in these newsgroups is
the same reason a 757 splashed.

I still think some hunk pilot whispered in her little pink shells

It was "human factors" politics, back when they were trying to blame the
Cali 757 crash on "layout".

jt

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

Yes, but only because I believed a seemingly reliable source.

As I was typing the remark about big countries it did cross my mind
that the USSR wasn't exactly small. And that using ground controllers
might not work in the more remote areas.

Oh, well. There's half my quota for the year.

Yes, the Flanker has a lot of internal fuel, more than the F-18 or
F-15. Reports to the contrary are wrong.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

Yes, but only because I believed a seemingly reliable source.

Was it some kook troll posting over a fraudulent sig file?

As I was typing the remark about big countries it did cross my mind
that the USSR wasn't exactly small. And that using ground controllers
might not work in the more remote areas.

Really?

Oh, well. There's half my quota for the year.

LOL

De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

Yep...and sometimes a cigar *IS* just a cigar!...
--

-Gord.

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:04:59 -0000, "Ken Duffey"
wrote:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message

I read this in one of the British aircraft magazines a few years back,
in an article comparing the F-18 with the similar Russian airplane.
At least once and a half as much fuel internal to the Hornet and the
author made the comment that the US had, historically, always carried
more internal fuel in its fighters, citing WW II aircraft numbers as
well.

Mary, you are WAY out on this one.

Yes, but only because I believed a seemingly reliable source.

As I was typing the remark about big countries it did cross my mind
that the USSR wasn't exactly small. And that using ground controllers
might not work in the more remote areas.

Oh, well. There's half my quota for the year.

Yes, the Flanker has a lot of internal fuel, more than the F-18 or
F-15. Reports to the contrary are wrong.

Mary


The F15 has those conformal fastpacks on the sides of the intakes that
effectively raise the fuel level.