Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Share
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 811
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  nemrod on Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:59 pm

    Iam not a specialist, I just want to understand how manoeuvrable are fighters in a likely dogfight. F-16C has wing loading of 392 kg/m2, F-22 has wing loading of 313,5 kg/m2, Mig-21 bis Wing loading: 379 kg/m² but Thrust/weight: 0.82, and could reach 1.11. In a dogfight with a good pilot a mig-21 could overcome F-16C, however as the F-16A with  wing loading of 349,5 kg/m2 and thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,29 the Mig-21 could hardly match it. It was the case during the battle of the Bekaa, where syrian air force downed several F-16 A. The F-15C has 358 kg/m² wing loading, and Thrust/weight: 1.07. Nevertheless because of its weight, its weapons, Israel -refused to acknowledge the losses- lost several F-15 due to Mig-21, and Mig-23. Moreover the thrust to weight is variable, it depend obviously the load, the weight of radars, missiles, censors. But the myth of the super manoeuvrable F-22 is hardly tenable. As you can see, the SU-35, beside the Mig-35 -Mig seems to be the best- are the best manoeuvrable fighters. Now, it lacks the wing loading figures for each aircraft. You can see that the Mig-21 is still a very good fighter ultra manoeuvrable, and still a threat for many western fighters.

    http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html
    PS: I could not guarantee that these figures are correct, if you have more reliable figures please post them. Moreover, if a such topic exists please move the thread in appropriate area, and inform me where in PM. Iam very interrested by your answers.



    Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes



    TWR or T/W ratio = (Max Thrust of Engine[s] / (Empty Weight + (3.505 Tonnes of Fuel & Weapons, or only Internal Fuel)))

    1.30 - Su-35S
    1.29 - F-15K
    1.26 - Su-27S
    1.25 - Eurofighter
    1.24 - Mig-35 (T/W = 1.45 during Emergency Thrust*)
    1.23 - Su-27SK & J-11A
    1.19 - Mig-29M/M2 (T/W = 1.39 during Emergency Thrust*)
    1.19 - F-15C
    1.18 - F-22A (T/W = 1.37 with Round nozzles?)
    1.16 - Su-30MKK

    1.16 - Rafale C
    1.16 - F-35A
    1.15 - Mig-29B (9-12)
    1.14 - Su-30MKI (T/W = 1.21 during Emergency Thrust@)
    1.13 - Mig-29 (9-13), S, SD, SE & SM
    1.11 - F/A-18E (F/A-18F: 1.09)
    1.10 - Rafale M
    1.10 - Mig-29 BM & SMT (T/W = 1.15 during Emergency Thrust*)
    1.09 - F-16E Block 60
    1.09 - Mig-29K (T/W = 1.28 during Emergency Thrust*)

    1.09 - F-18C
    1.09 - J-8III(or J-8C)
    1.08 - F-35B
    1.08 - F-14 B & D
    1.06 - F-16C Block 52 (Block 50: T/W = 1.055)
    1.05 - J-8IIm
    1.04 - AV-8B+ Harrier II
    1.03 - F-2A (F-2B: 1.02)
    1.03 - JH-7
    1.02 - F-16A Block 10

    1.01 - F-35C
    1.01 - J-8II & J-8IIb & J-8IId
    1.00 - J-10A
    1.00 - Harrier GR7A
    0.99 - Su-34 & Su-32FN & Su-27IB
    0.99 - Sea Harrier FA2 & FRS51
    0.99 - F-16A Block 20
    0.97 - Su-15T
    0.95 - MiG-23 P, ML, MLA & MLD
    0.94 - Gripen NG

    0.94 - F-4E
    0.94 - J-8
    0.93 - Mirage 2000-5
    0.93 - Su-15TM
    0.93 - F-101B
    0.92 - Harrier GR7
    0.92 - E E Lightning F6
    0.91 - F-16C Block 25
    0.91 - Yak-28 I & P
    0.91 - F-111F

    0.91 - Su-24
    0.90 - Su-15
    0.88 - Mirage-2000 C & H
    0.87 - F-14A
    0.87 - Mig-23 MF & MS
    0.87 - Su-24 M, MK & M2
    0.86 - F-CK-1
    0.86 - LCA (T/W = 0.91 during Emergency Thrust****)
    0.86 - Su-9
    0.84 - Su-11

    0.84 - Su-17M
    0.83 - Tornado F3 Air Defence Variant
    0.83 - Tornado GR1
    0.83 - Su-20
    0.82 - JF-17 (T/W = 0.86 during Emergency Thrust*)
    0.82 - Su-22
    0.81 - Gripen A
    0.81 - Su-7B
    0.81 - F-20
    0.80 - Gripen C

    0.80 - Mig-27K
    0.80 - Su-7BM
    0.79 - Mig-21 Bis (T/W = 1.11 in Emergency Thrust mode**)
    0.79 - JA-37 Viggen
    0.79 - Mig-27
    0.79 - Su-17M2
    0.78 - Mig-23BN
    0.78 - Su-7 BKL & BMK
    0.78 - Javelin FAW MK9
    0.77 - Mig-23S

    0.77 - J-7IIIa
    0.76 - Mig-27 D & ML
    0.76 - Mig-23M(E)
    0.76 - F-106A
    0.76 - F-7MG & F-7BG & F-7PG & J-7E & J-7G (WP-7N: T/W = 0.69)
    0.76 - Q-5D
    0.75 - Kfir C.7
    0.75 - Kfir C.2
    0.75 - AJ-37 Viggen
    0.75 - J-7III

    0.74 - Mig-21SM
    0.73 - Su-17
    0.73 - Mig-21MF
    0.73 - Su-17M3
    0.73 - Mig-19S*** (MTOW T/W = 0.86)
    0.72 - Yak-27K
    0.72 - Su-17M4
    0.72 - F-104G
    0.71 - Mig-19P*** (MTOW T/W = 0.84)
    0.71 - Mig-21PF

    0.71 - Supermarine Scimitar F.1
    0.71 - Cheetah C
    0.70 - Mig-21M
    0.70 - Su-25SM
    0.69 - Jaguar GR1
    0.69 - J-35F Draken
    0.69 - Mig-21F
    0.69 - Mig-21 F-13
    0.69 - J-7II
    0.69 - Su-25 or Su-25T

    0.68 - F-105F/G
    0.68 - Mirage 50
    0.68 - F-7M(or F-7MP or F-7MB) & F-7P
    0.67 - F-1
    0.67 - F4D-1/F-6 Skyray
    0.66 - Mirage F-1
    0.66 - F-8P
    0.64 - F-102A
    0.63 - Sea Vixen FAW.2
    0.63 - Su-25TM or Su-39

    0.62 - Yak-27
    0.61 - Yak-38M (TWR during STOVL/VTOL takeoff: 1.20)
    0.61 - Mirage-5A
    0.61 - J-32B Lansen
    0.60 - A-4S1
    0.59 - Mirage-III E & D
    0.58 - Yak-38 (T/W during STOVL/VTOL takeoff: 1.16)
    0.58 - IAI Nesher
    0.58 - F-5E Tiger-II
    0.56 - F-100D

    0.56 - A-6E
    0.55 - A-7E
    0.51 - Super Étendard
    0.50 - F3H-2 Demon
    0.49 - A-10A
    0.49 - F-11A
    0.49 - AMX
    0.47 - Étendard-IV M
    0.46 - F-89D
    0.46 - Super Mystère B.2

    0.46 - Hunter F 6
    0.45 - Marut Mk.1
    0.43 - Yak-25
    0.43 - F-94C/F-97A
    0.43 - F9F-8/F-9J Cougar
    0.41 - A-37B
    0.37 - Mystère IVA
    0.37 - FJ-4 Fury
    0.36 - F7U-3M
    0.34 - F-84F

    0.33 - J-29F Tunnan
    0.33 - P-80C
    0.32 - Supermarine Attacker F.1
    0.31 - F2H-3 Banshee
    0.30 - Ouragan M.D.450B
    0.30 - F3D-2 Sky Night
    0.29 - Venom FB.1
    0.29 - F-84G


    Pure Interceptors
    1.30 - Mig-31M
    1.30 - Mig-31BM
    1.28 - Mig-31B
    1.27 - Mig-31FE
    1.27 - Mig-31E
    1.22 - Mig-31

    1.21 - Mig-25M
    1.00 - Mig-25 P & PD
    0.93 - Mig-25BM
    0.74 - Tu-128




    Empty Weight - Thrust - Aircraft

    41,447 - 31,967 X 2 - Su-35S
    37,500 - 29,160 X 2 - F-15K
    36,111 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-27S
    24,251 - 20,000 X 2 - Eurofighter
    24,251 - 19,841 X 2 - Mig-35 (23,148lbf - Emergency Thrust*)
    37,192 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-27SK & J-11A
    25,573 - 19,841 X 2 - Mig-29M/M2 (23,148lbf - Emergency Thrust*)
    31,700 - 23,450 X 2 - F-15C
    43,340 - 30,100 X 2 - F-22A(35,000lbf - Thrust with round nozzle)
    39,903 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-30MKK

    20,948 - 16,620 X 2 - Rafale C
    29,300 - 43,000 X 1 - F-35A
    24,030 - 18,300 X 2 - Mig-29B (9-12)
    40,565 - 27,557 X 2 - Su-30MKI (29,321lbf - Emergency Thrust@)
    24,692 - 18,300 X 2 - Mig-29 (9-13), S, SD, SE & SM
    32,082 - 22,000 X 2 - F/A-18E (F/A-18F: 32,795lb)
    22,478 - 16,620 X 2 - Rafale M
    25,573 - 18,300 X 2 - Mig-29 BM & SMT (19,180lbf - Emergency Thrust*)
    22,000 - 32,500 X 1 - F-16E Block 60
    28,550 - 19,841 X 2 - Mig-29K (23,148lbf - Emergency Thrust*)

    24,700 - 17,700 X 2 - F-18C
    22,509 - 16,535 X 2 - J-8III(or J-8C)
    32,000 - 43,000 X 1 - F-35B
    43,600 - 27,800 X 2 - F-14 B & D
    19,700 - 29,160 X 1 - F-16C Block 52 (Block 50: 420lb & 240lbf more)
    21,671 - 15,422 X 2 - J-8IIm
    14,865 - 23,400 X 1 - AV-8B+ Harrier II
    21,000 - 29,600 X 1 - F-2A (F-2B: 21,235lb)
    31,967 - 20,515 X 2 - JH-7
    15,600 - 23,830 X 1 - F-16A Block 10

    34,800 - 43,000 X 1 - F-35C
    21,671 - 14,815 X 2 - J-8II & J-8IIb & J-8IId
    20,394 - 28,000 X 1 - J-10A
    15,708 - 23,400 X 1 - Harrier GR7A
    49,163 - 28,219 X 2 - Su-34 & Su-32FN & Su-27IB
    14,052 - 21,450 X 1 - Sea Harrier FA2 & FRS51
    16,285 - 23,830 X 1 - F-16A Block 20
    22,818 - 14,770 X 2 - Su-15T
    22,553 - 28,660 X 1 - MiG-23 P, ML, MLA & MLD
    15,653 - 22,000 X 1 - Gripen NG

    30,328 - 17,845 X 2 - F-4E
    20,470 - 13,219 X 2 - J-8
    16,000 - 22,045 X 1 - Mirage 2000-5
    23,970 - 14,770 X 2 - Su-15TM
    28,495 - 16,900 X 2 - F-101B
    15,708 - 21,450 X 1 - Harrier GR7
    28,042 - 16,360 X 2 - E E Lightning F6
    18,238 - 23,770 X 1 - F-16C Block 25
    21,980 - 13,448 X 2 - Yak-28 I & P
    47,481 - 25,100 X 2 - F-111F

    46,738 - 24,692 X 2 - Su-24
    22,531 - 13,669 X 2 - Su-15
    16,538 - 21,384 X 1 - Mirage 2000 C & H
    40,104 - 20,900 X 2 - F-14A
    24,008 - 27,558 X 1 - Mig-23 MF & MS
    49,163 - 24,801 X 2 - Su-24 M, MK & M2
    14,300 - 09,500 X 2 - F-CK-1
    14,462 - 19,100 X 1 - LCA (20,200lbf - Emergency Thrust****)
    16,920 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-9
    18,876 - 22,267 X 1 - Su-11

    21,605 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M
    31,970 - 16,410 X 2 - Tornado F3 Air Defence Variant
    31,065 - 16,005 X 2 - Tornado GR1
    21,936 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-20
    14,520 - 18,300 X 1 - JF-17 (19,180lbf - Emergency Thrust*)
    23,027 - 25,353 X 1 - Su-22
    14,595 - 18,097 X 1 - Gripen A
    18,453 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-7B
    13,150 - 17,000 X 1 - F-20
    14,991 - 18,097 X 1 - Gripen C

    26,252 - 27,558 X 1 - Mig-27K
    18,629 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-7BM
    12,037 - 15,654 X 1 - Mig-21 Bis (21,829lbf - Emergency Thrust**)
    27,866 - 28,100 X 1 - JA-37 Viggen
    24,317 - 25,336 X 1 - Mig-27
    23,369 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M2
    24,692 - 25,336 X 1 - Mig-23BN
    19,599 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-7 BKL & BMK
    23,955 - 12,300 X 2 - Javelin FAW MK9
    21,583 - 22,487 X 1 - Mig-23S

    11,629 - 14,815 X 1 - J-7IIIa
    25,573 - 25,336 X 1 - Mig-27 D & ML
    22,046 - 22,487 X 1 - Mig-23M(E)
    24,420 - 24,500 X 1 - F-106A
    11,667 - 14,650 X 1 - F-7MG & F-7BG & F-7PG & J-7E & J-7G (WP-7N: 13,450lbf)
    14,054 - 08,269 X 2 - Q-5D
    17,130 - 18,750 X 1 - Kfir C.7
    16,061 - 17,901 X 1 - Kfir C.2
    27,006 - 25,970 X 1 - AJ-37 Viggen
    11,861 - 14,650 X 1 - J-7III

    11,574 - 14,308 X 1 - Mig-21SM
    21,164 - 21,164 X 1 - Su-17
    11,795 - 14,308 X 1 - Mig-21MF
    26,014 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M3
    12,009 - 07,165 X 2 - Mig-19S*** (MTOW: 16,667lb)
    15,443 - 08,318 X 2 - Yak-27K
    26,810 - 24,692 X 1 - Su-17M4
    14,082 - 15,600 X 1 - F-104G
    12,507 - 07,165 X 2 - Mig-19P*** (MTOW: 17,042lb)
    11,354 - 13,492 X 1 - Mig-21PF

    23,962 - 11,250 X 2 - Supermarine Scimitar F.1
    14,550 - 15,900 X 1 - Cheetah C
    11,795 - 13,613 X 1 - Mig-21M
    20,723 - 09,921 X 2 - Su-25SM
    15,432 - 08,040 X 2 - Jaguar GR1
    17,339 - 17,262 X 1 - J-35F Draken
    10,624 - 12,654 X 1 - Mig-21F
    10,739 - 12,654 X 1 - Mig-21 F-13
    11,850 - 13,219 X 1 - J-7II
    20,944 - 09,921 X 2 - Su-25 or Su-25T

    28,393 - 24,500 X 1 - F-105F/G
    15,763 - 15,870 X 1 - Mirage 50
    11,629 - 13,219 X 1 - F-7M(or F-7MP or F-7MB) & F-7P
    14,017 - 07,305 X 2 - F-1
    16,024 - 16,000 X 1 - F4D-1/F-6 Skyray
    16,314 - 15,873 X 1 - Mirage F-1
    19,700 - 18,000 X 1 - F-8P
    19,350 - 17,200 X 1 - F-102A
    27,954 - 11,240 X 2 - Sea Vixen FAW.2
    23,677 - 09,921 X 2 - Su-25TM or Su-39

    15,395 - 07,165 X 2 - Yak-27
    16,535 - 14,770 X 1 - Yak-38M (Lift Engines: 07,165lbf X 2)
    14,550 - 13,669 X 1 - Mirage-5A
    16,535 - 14,680 X 1 - J-32B Lansen
    10,250 - 10,800 X 1 - A-4S1
    15,540 - 13,669 X 1 - Mirage-III E & D
    15,476 - 13,448 X 1 - Yak-38 (Lift Engines: 06,724lbf X 2)
    16,061 - 13,669 X 1 - IAI Nesher
    09,558 - 05,000 X 2 - F-5E Tiger-II
    20,638 - 16,000 X 1 - F-100D

    25,630 - 09,300 X 2 - A-6E
    19,781 - 15,000 X 1 - A-7E
    14,220 - 11,265 X 1 - Super Étendard
    21,287 - 14,400 X 1 - F3H-2 Demon
    29,000 - 09,065 X 2 - A-10A
    13,810 - 10,500 X 1 - F-11A
    14,837 - 11,030 X 1 - AMX
    13,007 - 09,703 X 1 - Étendard-IV M
    24,200 - 07,400 X 2 - F-89D
    14,087 - 09,920 X 1 - Super Mystère B.2

    14,121 - 10,146 X 1 - Hunter F 6
    13,658 - 04,856 X 2 - Marut Mk.1
    12,610 - 04,409 X 2 - Yak-25
    12,708 - 08,750 X 1 - F-94C/F-97A
    11,866 - 08,500 X 1 - F9F-8/F-9J Cougar
    06,211 - 02,850 X 2 - A-37B
    12,941 - 07,734 X 1 - Mystère IVA
    13,210 - 07,700 X 1 - FJ-4 Fury
    18,210 - 04,600 X 2 - F7U-3M
    13,830 - 07,220 X 1 - F-84F

    10,681 - 06,070 X 1 - J-29F Tunnan
    08,420 - 05,400 X 1 - P-80C
    08,426 - 05,100 X 1 - Supermarine Attacker F.1
    13,183 - 03,250 X 2 - F2H-3 Banshee
    09,132 - 04,991 X 1 - Ouragan M.D.450B
    14,989 - 03,400 X 2 - F3D-2 Sky Night
    09,200 - 04,856 X 1 - Venom FB.1
    11,470 - 05,560 X 1 - F-84G


    Pure Interceptors
    48,281 - 36,376 X 2 - Mig-31M
    48,115 - 36,376 X 2 - Mig-31BM
    45,569 - 34,171 X 2 - Mig-31B
    49,383 - 36,376 X 2 - Mig-31FE
    46,297 - 34,171 X 2 - Mig-31E
    48,104 - 34,171 X 2 - Mig-31
    41,667 - 29,762 X 2 - Mig-25M
    41,447 - 24,684 X 2 - Mig-25 P & PD
    45,415 - 24,684 X 2 - Mig-25BM
    54,013 - 22,706 X 2 - Tu-128


    # Data from Official Company & Military sites, Aerospaceweb.org, Airwar.ru, Globalsecurity.org, Fas.org, Warfare.ru, Wikipedia.org & its References, and Other Sources.
    # Weight in lb, and Thrust in lbf.
    # 3505 kg = 7727 lb
    # Not all of them are Fighter Planes.
    # Some of the Fighters' data couldn't be obtained, and hence could not be included in the above list.
    # Individual engines' SFC(Specific Fuel Consumption) & Individual aircrafts' standard Air-Air payload weight, based TWR cannot be determined due to unavaliability of SFC data for Older Engines. Even in the case of some Newer Engines, SFC data is not avaliable.
    # It's unclear whether the 35,000lbf thrust for F119(F-22's engine) is the actual thrust output. It's known that a Flat nozzle reduces the thrust of an engine anywhere between 14% to 17%. Further it's mentioned in official sources that the engine is of 35,000lbf Class, meaning the 35,000lbf number is not the precise engine output, and the actual output is somewhere around it. Generally, in official publications, when an engine output is mentioned in the form of 'Class', the actual output is less than the number given. It could be that the engine can very well produce 35,000lbf with normal nozzles during testing, but the mating of Flat Nozzle(instead of the normal Round one) reduces the thrust, hence the 'Class' designation for the engine's output. For an engine thrust decrease of 14%, F-22's TWR would drop down to 1.18. Given the fact that the F-35's engine, which is a derivative of the F-22's engine, but newer & bigger than the F119 engine, has a thrust of 39,900lbf with round nozzles, it's likely the 35,000lbf fig for F119 is also for round nozzles. F-35's engine F-135, just recently got its thrust upgraded to 43,000lbf. To further illustrate the data sheet's/brochure's failure of mentioning the loss of thrust for Flat Nozzles, the F-117's F404-GE-F1D2 engine which is a non-afterburning, flat nozzle engine[1], is mentioned as having the same 10,600lbf[2] non-afterburning thrust as the F404-GE-400 engine[3]. F404-GE-F1D2 is basically a non-afterburning F404-GE-400 engine with a flat nozzle.[4]

    * Klimov States that Thrust as "Take-off emergency mode"
    ** The conditions for 21,829lbf Emergency Thrust are limited to 3 Minutes and Altitude less than 4000m.
    *** Empty weight + 7727 lb exceeds max takeoff weight. Except Mig-19 all other less MTOW(Maximum Take-Off Weight) fighter planes are omitted.
    **** Official tejas.gov.in Website claims the Thrust of F404-GE-IN20 as 20,200lbf which contradicts with the manufacturers' claim of 19,100lbf. Most likely the 20,200lbf figure is for Emergency Thrust. Also Tejas has gotten heavier by about 60kgs thus bringing its TWR to 0.86 from 0.87 .
    @ Normally, Emergency Thrust is carried out at Take-off near the sea level where the air is denser. It is normally employed for scramble missions, OR/and to reduce the Take-off distance if the Aircraft is heavily loaded with fuel and munitions, OR/and if the runway is shorter. It may or may not be employed during dog-fighting, but it heavily depends upon the altitude and is time constrained(for example see **).
    ______________________________

    Comparison of TWRs using variable weights(Full Fuel) Updated 11 Feb 2010: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust-to-weight_ratio#Fighter_Aircraft
    Old Data: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/images/articles/thrustweightratio.jpg


    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  Guest on Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:39 pm

    Very interesting Nemrod. Thanks for posting this.
    avatar
    Godric

    Posts : 467
    Points : 487
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  Godric on Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:11 pm

    going by the stats the Mig35 is comparable to the Eurofighter

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  Guest on Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:27 pm

    Godric wrote:going by the stats the Mig35 is comparable to the Eurofighter
    Eurofighter was originally meant to dogfight with the MiG-29, so the MiG-35 and the Eurofighter are very comparable aircraft.
    avatar
    Godric

    Posts : 467
    Points : 487
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  Godric on Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:52 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Godric wrote:going by the stats the Mig35 is comparable to the Eurofighter
    Eurofighter was originally meant to dogfight with the MiG-29, so the MiG-35 and the Eurofighter are very comparable aircraft.

    I know the Mig 29 was cheap to buy and expensive to operate and maintain .... will the Mig 35 be easier to maintain and cheaper to operate ?? if the answer is no then the best option is either the SU-35 or SU-30

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  Guest on Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:15 pm

    Godric wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Godric wrote:going by the stats the Mig35 is comparable to the Eurofighter
    Eurofighter was originally meant to dogfight with the MiG-29, so the MiG-35 and the Eurofighter are very comparable aircraft.

    I know the Mig 29 was cheap to buy and expensive to operate and maintain .... will the Mig 35 be easier to maintain and cheaper to operate ?? if the answer is no then the best option is either the SU-35 or SU-30
    No, because of the advanced tech in the MiG-35, it is harder to maintain and not as cheap to operate than the MiG-29, all modern fighters are more expensive to operate and I would imagine that the MiG-35 is on the less expensive end. However, it is an extremely potent fighter and it has a huge upgrade capability. The VVS is planning to acquire some MiG-35s under the Rearmament Plan.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:40 am

    The original MiG-29 was designed to be a combat aircraft... lots of minor easy to perform front line maintainence that replaced parts based on conservative short periods to minimise inspection time... in other words after 200 hours of flight replace this this and this so no inspections are needed.

    Lots of parts would be replaced well before they needed to be, but the plane didn't need lots of inspections and could be used hard like in real combat.

    The SMT models introduced internal diagnostic systems and inspections so parts are only replaced when they need it... operational costs are reported to be 40% less than previous models.

    The MiG-29M would have the same systems and procedures as well as more modern more modular computer systems that would be cheaper to maintain than older analog systems used in the early MiGs.

    The MiG-35 is reportedly even cheaper to operate than the MiG-29M because its components were designed with maintainence in mind.

    The sales pitch for the MiG-35 includes reduced purchase and operating costs compared with the larger Flankers.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 811
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  nemrod on Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:24 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:Very interesting Nemrod. Thanks for posting this.

    I fact initially I wanted to post the text in italic and greeen, but Iam completly wrong, because the concepts between soviet -russian- engineers and their western counterparts are completly different. See this wikipedia link. The Mig-29 and SU-27's famillies were designed with a total different approach, as Simonov and Mig's engineers emphasis on close-range slow-speed supermaneuverability opposed to western 's Energy–maneuverability theory. Hence the settings above and below are all useless. The Migs as Sukhoi are design to dogfights, western designed their fighters as electronic platform-except France, and Swede-.



    Thx.
    Nevertheless it is not complete, lack of critical data. In order to judge we need per each aircraft :



     1 Wing loading
     2 Thrust weight
     1 Roll onset rate at angle of attack
     2  Instantaneous turn rate
     3  Pitch onset rate / pitch rate
     4  Acceleration
     5  Sustained turn rate
    I need these data for all fighters, from Mig-19 to Mig 1.44 -this project seems to re start-, from SU-7 to PAK-FA
    Well take a look at these data



    F-22  
    combat weight of 24.883 kg,
    wing loading of 317,4 kg/m2,
    thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,18
    span loading of 1.835 kg/m.
    Wing sweep  42,
    engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of 26,82 N/cm2. thrust vectoring to improve high-speed high-altitude performance.
    fuel fraction of 0,29

    SU-35
    Combat Weight of 25,300 kg
    Wing loading 408 kg/m²
    thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,30



    F-35A
    combat weight of 18.270 kg,
    wing loading of 427,9 kg/m2,
    thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,07
    span loading of 1.707,5 kg/m
    Wing sweep is 34,
    and engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of 17,86 N/cm2.
    fuel fraction of 0,38.

    T-50 has a typical combat weight of 21.500 kg,
    wing loading of 272,8 kg/m2,
    thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,39
    span loading of 1.541 kg/m
    At heavy combat weight (50% maximum internal fuel capacity) of 23.150 kg,
    wing loading of 294 kg/m2,
    thrust-to-weight ratio of 1,3
    span loading of 1.659 kg/m.
    Wing sweep 46,5,
    engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of 22,85 N/cm2.
    It seems that T-50 will have excellent instantaneous turn rate as well as very good sustained turn rates and acceleration, but its weight harms transient performance (though it will still be better than the F-22s).
    fuel fraction of 0,36,
    Overall it adheres very closely to Boyd’s energy-maneuverability requirements.

    J-20 has an estimated combat weight of 26.422 kg,
    wing loading of 339 kg/m2,
    thrust-to-weight ratio of ??? (possibly 1,1, but lower value is more likely as J-20 uses Russian AL-31F and will continue to do for forseeable future, until Chinese manage to copy it)
    span loading of 2.032 kg/m.
    Wing sweep is 43*
    engine has a power-to-frontal area ratio of ???.
    Fuel fraction is very good at 0,35.
    avatar
    nemrod

    Posts : 811
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  nemrod on Sun Aug 16, 2015 5:18 pm

    This is my assertion :


    We judge from western standards, and russian norms are not the same. The yardsticks are different, then the conclusions wil be necessary different. I judge from wind loadings, and thrust/weight, it is wrong. The F-22 was designed as stealth fighter, a mini super calculator, a kind of embedded "Cray" that rely on its BVR weaponeries. We've seen together that neither the stealth work, nor the BVR. Soviet Union -as Russia- yesterday, and Russia nowadays rely on WVR, hence manoeuvrability. It is the right path. The SU-35, and Mig-35 are above all US fighters, in all areas, except "stealthy". But we fed up with stealth. I ignored this new "Pancake" manoeuvre. It is incredible! New engines enable Su-35 to perform all kinds of stunts, including Pugachev's Cobra, the Frolov Chakra, the Dead Leaf, and the unprecedented "Pancake", which is an horizontal 360-degree made turn without losing speed.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Aug 16, 2015 6:45 pm

    Soviet Union never relied just on WVR neither did or does Russia. They pay to both great importance and are not seeing any off those two WVR/BVR as obsolete concept of aviation warfare, but pay great attention to enhance both catagories.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Fighters Comparison: Thrust to Weight Ratios of all Fighter Planes

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:36 pm