Flanker vs F-15

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.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer" wrote:

yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's the
only
way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.

Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.

That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.

Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer"
wrote:

yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's
the
only
way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.

Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.

That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.

Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.

I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18 (AV6) had a
swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.

excellent point about the LEF I hadent thought of that.
Does anyone know if these devices help more at high or low altitude?

--



Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
.. .
Boomer wrote:

I'm no aerodynamicist but I've been running some numbers and noticed
some
interesting things.
The SU-27 is credited with being more manueverable than F-15 and yet
F-15
has a higher TTW number (except at gross) and a lower wing loading by a
large margin (again except at gross). The SU should develope more body
lift
than Eagle, but at best it looks like a wash at low altitudes, with
Eagle
turning better than SU at altitude.
Any thoughts? Am I missing something large here? The Su's lerx's and
higher
aspect wing should make a positive differance at low level and low
speeds
but I dont think it would make up for the other numbers. Eagle should
have a
20% better wing loading and about a 14% better TTW number.

My guess would be that in addition to the LERX it's the auto LEF, vs. a
fixed
LE, high-camber wing. The latter is lighter, but you'll note that every
maneuverable fighter designed after the F-15 has gone with LEF. McAir's
designers considered LEF, but decided against them on cost/weight grounds,
and
maybe on performance grounds in a certain part of the envelope. I've
always
wanted to ask whoever made the decision if, given the benefit of
hindsight,
they'd have gone the other way.

Guy

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer"
wrote:

yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits, that's
the
only
way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.

Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.

That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.

Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.

I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18 (AV6) had a
swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.

move the stick for what?

"monkey" wrote in message
m...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Steve" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:44:04 -0600, "Boomer"
wrote:

yes Flankers have a switch which over rides the FBW limits,
that's
the
only
way they can do the "Cobra" manuever.

Or you can simply apply an extra 33lb of stick force.

That is a lot, the F/A-18 breaks out at 20 lbs.

Not true - you are confusing this with aoa feedback in the stick above
20 alpha -to get more g than the programmed limiter (usually 7.5) you
must engage the paddle switch, which will then give you 33% more g.

I am refering to the force required to move the stick. My F-18 (AV6)
had a
swich on the left panel to cut out the FCS much like the MiG.

move the stick for what?

The stick moves to operate the cable actuated system control system.

Do you know the airplane at all, monkey sock?