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.)

Yes I know it, but maybe in the future, in the next Lock On, on the next generation of PCs...:)

And here is my favourite airshow fighter, the MiG-23. Sadly, but here in Hungary, I saw this plane in 1992 last time and the last flight with the Flogger was in 1997. But I saw MiG-23UB in Moscow, summer of 2005, on MAKS, without afterburner, but of course, this was very loud. Check the takeoff. At max dry thrust, the sound of the R-29BD-300 engine is same or louder than other fighterjet with reheat. And the forsazh produce a real boom!!! The americans like it, yes they like every noisy thing... ;)

http://www.voodoo.cz/tomcat/info.html the main differences between the two Tomcat-engine http://www.f-111.net/images/6sqntestcell.jpg it's an F-111's TF-30, with a little bit different construction, and smaller thrust. But in the F-14A the thrust was 93kN and in the F-111F was (or is, because now it's the C version in the australian AF) 112kN. http://www1.ezbbs.net/01/viperkbt/img/1151498973_1.jpg And the main problem with this model is the too many and too thin flaps around the nozzle.

Thank you for this link. Very interesting. As we see, the mach disk are the inner part of the flame, but the flame outer part is a limiter wave. So in our game, the best approach, the best way is the two ring flame version. If we look an afterburner takeoff, we see a vibration in the nozzle, we see a really fast vibration of the limiter wave in the outer part of flame, and the huge blur of heat. But the mach disk almost stabil, moveing only forward-backward little when the fuel injection are changed. (throttle positon are changed).

The RPM at 103-108% (smaller for low pressure shaft, higher for high pressure shaft) are not an override. This is a normal regime, as I said, this is for the stabil gas flown in the engine at max reheat.

"So how does altitude affect the thrust output quantity? Yes I know high altitude is refered to as "Density Altitude" but it doesnt change the amount of throttle the engines are running at." Thrust, altitude, flame lenght. What is the connection? The nozzle pressure ratio. At high altitude, the flame is longer than at low level. If the throttle at full reheat, the nozzle goes larger, but NEVER opening full diameter, because the hydraulic system is working allways again the nozzle pressure. If an engines stopped, the nozzle's hydraulic system lost the pressure, the nozzle is opening full diameter. When you starting an engine, for the better startup time and condition, the nozzle leave full open position until the RPM stabilized at 30-40%. Closeing to smallest diameter above this RPM and hold this position to 100%. If you use the afterburner, the RPM in lot of plane goes higher than 100% 103-108 percent for the stabil gas flow again the afterburner enormous pressure. If the plane goes higher, the nozzle perssure ratio goes higher, because the atmospheric pressure is going down. If the plane doesn't change the altitude, but goes faster, the dinamic compression in the air intake/tunnel goes higher, the whole engine pressure ratio goes higher, the airflow goes higher, the fuel pumps produce more fuel to the afterburner. The main thrust levels: -Static dry and afterburner thrust on break pod or test pod -Static dry and afterburner thrust on sea level zero speed in the plane -Dynamic dry and afterburner thrust low altitude at Mach 0.8-0.9 in the plane -Dynamic dry and afterburner thrust low altitude at ~ Mach 1.2 in the plane -Dynamic dry and afterburner thrust high altitude at Mach 0.8-0.9 and max speed, of course in the plane. and on your two F-14 pic, we can see two different types of Tomcat, the first is an F-14D with GE engine, higher thrust, F-100GE400, and the take off pictures show an F-14A with a lower thrust Pratt&Wittney TF-30P412, it's a total different engines, with total different parameters.

Nice work, I wait this since Flanker 1.5. When the plane starting a high AoA-high g turn, the first vortex born above the LERX. But at high speed (at high AoA-high g), especially in wet weather, the wing can produce vortex too. In the game, I think, the first vortex will be born at 15-25 degrees AoA, above the LERX, and the other born at higher AoA above the wings. And the wing-vortex have to vibrating, or pulsing until the AoA decrese under maybe 25 deg.

No. But it's a high altitude, longer flame. The flame lenght is 3/4 long as the plane. Check the point of view. And check this photos: http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=2888 http://forum.airforce.ru/download.php?id=2895 http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00892887&size=large http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00760772&size=large http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00655003&size=large http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00183757&size=large and F-14D: http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00149899&size=large http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00149898&size=large http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_search.php?id=00149622&size=large especially the last one. 9-10 rings, 3/4 plane long flame. On your picture, the altitude was high, the sky was dark.

Not this pictures. The F-14 and Su-27 pictures are unrealistic. Too long flames. Looks like an SR-71's flame...

I think your pictures are really good!!!