komarov

And the Tu-144D with the Koliesov RD-36-51A engines could reach the Mach 2 without any afterburner, because this engine use a unique "turbocompressor" system after the turbine. Very interesting, but of course, very low life level solution. Compress the exhaust gas after the turbine again.

Hey guys! The bypass ratio is an important thing for the specific fuel consumtion, but if the bypass ratio goes higher, the exhaust gas speed goes smaller, and this thing is not so good for the fighters. The F-35's engine bypass ratio is one of the smallest in the world, because this engine came from the Raptor's F-119, the engine with the supercruise capability. Supercruise= fly supersonic without the afterburner. Why we use the afterburner? Because the higher heat produce higher nozzle pressure ratio, so it's produce the higher exhaust speed. The thrust is came from the mass of the gas and the speed of the gas. Look the swedish JA-37 Viggen. RM-8B engine eat 140kg air in every second at 100-104% rpm. The MiG-21bis R-25F-300 engine eat 68kg, the Gripen RM-12 too, the MiG-29's RD-33 eat 72kg, Su-27's Al-31F eat 112 kg... The Viggen's engine came from the commercial world, the RM-8A/B' father was the B-737-200/B-727... P&W JT-8D. In the 60's a 1,1-1,4 bypass ratio was very big. Now a normal commercial or transport bypass ratio is approx. 3-5. But in the military world the fuel consumption or the noise are not so important. The thrust at low altitude-low speed, high altitude-high speed, the high overall pressure ratio, the exhaust speed are much more important. So, the military aircraft's bypass ratio never grown up above 1,5. The B-1B's F-101GE100 engine b.rat. is 2. But this is a unique thing. F-15/16 (P&W F-100PW100/200/220E 0,65; F-100PW-229 0,33; GE F110GE100/129/132 0,76~0,8) Su-27 family (AL-31F 0,59) MiG-29 (RD-33 0,44~0,49) F-18 family and Gripen ( F-404/414, RM-12 0,3) F-22A (F-119PW100 0,15!) F-35 (F-135PW100 0,25) MiG-31 ( D-30F6 0,55) YF-22-YF-23 ( GE YF-120GE100 variable bypass ratio 0,25 - 0,7 higher for the lower spedd, lower for the higher speed, higher altitude)

The draw with the number "75" is not a MiG-21MF. This is the MiG-21bis 75AP. (this is an AP variant, because the RSBN-probe under the nose is the AP's own special, the base 75 not have the RSBN navigation system, because the "Lazur" sys from the MF variant was too big) The MiG-21MF's factorynumber is the "96". So if the base of the lockon's MiG-21 was this picture, the correct variant is the bis. Not the MF.

MiG-21bis or MF? The most important differences between the two model are: -the nose shape and diameter -nosering shape -the back's width and lenght

Nice modelling! I would like this clear, "airshow config" modell in the game.

And go back to the old discussion about the Tomcat real flame lenght. Here is the final evidence: :) But I think much more interesting the climb rate of this bird, especially after a tight turn! Yes, the D-Tomcat was a very good plane!

yes, but this flameout is not a usual thing...

but the real is allways better :) http://www1.airliners.net/open.file/1144351/L/ What do you think about this? This is not an australian F-111...

And what is the situation with the air intake moving? It doesn't work.

Of course, not this engine, but this effect.

Not a serious fighterjet simulator, but the BF2 has a good graphic, and I think the afterburner effect in this game looks very good. Why not use like this?

Improved afterburner, but more fuel consumption: The F-15E's F-100PW229 engine with longer flame than F-15C's F-100PW220. http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1023546/L/ Not interesting, but nice...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKbvTfpVH0M Good afterburner flame. :)

Check the films about the famous No.711 Su-37 or the Su-30MKI. Especially the Su-37 with the long aspect ratio vertical stab. When they do the "Kulbit" or any quick high alpha turn, the top of the vertical stab. shaking in the huge vortex from the LERX. Ten years ago in the US Navy, the F/A-18C Hornet fleet was went under a big investigation, because this controlled waves from the LERX produce small damages on the vertical fins. The indian Su-30MKI had a same problem in 2003. The USAF F-15 too, but the only accident's cause not from subsonic vortex, it was at supersonic speed, but the reason was the waves too. This vortex generate a low pressure waves on the top of the wings an the fuselage.

I found some variations of Su-27's vortexes: http://web.tiscali.it/ivancorso/img_fighters/SU-27/foto_su27g.jpg http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=1987 http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=1991 (wingtip vortex. like in LOMAC) http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=1992 http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=2239 (very good photo. Showing two main vortexes of Flankers, in sam time. The wing vortex above the LERX vortex) http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=2237 (the LERX generate the vortex, but not from leading part, just from the rear, closer to wing position.) http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=2243 (the vortexes are rotating to the inner side of vertical stabilisators, this is a really important thing, because the vortexes are able to shake (and destroy) the stabilisators. http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=2241 (the LERX working on own vortexes, but the wing started to generate another one above the surface.)