Watch "Zero Fuel Landing Su-27

[CHRISXTR3M3]

How efficient is the Flanker???

 

The answer: sufficient enough to fly 50km from a starting point of 5300m at a nose down 28 degrees for a maintained speed of 710kmph with 0% fuel and still land on a runway.

 

I think I might do a Flanker series. This and my cobra landing video are proving to show how fascinating the flanker can be!!!

 

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

[Frostie]

100km flameout landings are not uncommon in mp. :D

[CHRISXTR3M3]

I am very curious to find out what the slowest speed for efficient glide is on the Su-27 without losing to much altitude during glide to where it feels like a stall. Anyone know??

[Ironhand]

I am very curious to find out what the slowest speed for efficient glide is on the Su-27 without losing to much altitude during glide to where it feels like a stall. Anyone know??

It depends on weight and a few other factors but with no fuel and after jettisoning any weapons, I think the number you're looking for is around 420 km/hr.

[Stuge]

Quick googling gave a glide ratio of 13 to the Su-27.. sounds plausible :)

 

In that case 5300 m altitude should give 68,9 km glide distance.

[Jester Darrak]

Yeah, people tend to start managing fuel when they are at Fuel 500, including me. Just recently flew (or more like glided) 150NM with like 6,000 lbs in my Eagle at 85%RPM. Took me ages to go home!

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Space-Shuttle like :-)

[Jester Darrak]

Sorry for hijacking, but someone called an STS!

 

[CHRISXTR3M3]

Quick googling gave a glide ratio of 13 to the Su-27.. sounds plausible :)

 

In that case 5300 m altitude should give 68,9 km glide distance.

 

Thanks for looking that up for us Stuge!! That's a pretty damn good glide IMO.

[pr1malr8ge]

Yeah, people tend to start managing fuel when they are at Fuel 500, including me. Just recently flew (or more like glided) 150NM with like 6,000 lbs in my Eagle at 85%RPM. Took me ages to go home!

 

6,000lbs and you went to 85% rpm for 150nm? Where you flying at 2ft off the ground?

 

I can do that trip mostly in full AB and still have enough reserve for a go around.

[DarkFire]

Thanks for looking that up for us Stuge!! That's a pretty damn good glide IMO.

 

A glide ratio of 13 is surprisingly good! That must be for an Su-27 without weapons and with no fuel remaining.

[Jester Darrak]

6,000lbs and you went to 85% rpm for 150nm? Where you flying at 2ft off the ground?

 

I can do that trip mostly in full AB and still have enough reserve for a go around.

 

Forgot to mention I had an Eagle looking for me so I had to crawl through the mountains. So, basically, the answer is yes! ;P

[Ironhand]

A glide ratio of 13 is surprisingly good! That must be for an Su-27 without weapons and with no fuel remaining.

The best I can get is around 11.5 to 12 with no fuel and jettisoning weapons at flameout. But I suppose a lot depends on your airspeed when you start, too.

[DarkFire]

The best I can get is around 11.5 to 12 with no fuel and jettisoning weapons at flameout. But I suppose a lot depends on your airspeed when you start, too.

 

Yep. Taking it up to 13,500m on full burner and then running until your fuel reaches empty will start your glide at 13,500m at Mach 2.60. Under those conditions you can glide a loooooong way :D

[Ironhand]

Yep. Taking it up to 13,500m on full burner and then running until your fuel reaches empty will start your glide at 13,500m at Mach 2.60. Under those conditions you can glide a loooooong way :D

Starting from max speed for altitude, I got a glide ratio of around 19. :) So starting speed makes a world of difference which, of course, stands to reason.

[DarkFire]

I just took the Flanker up for a glide test. First time I've flown since mid-December and it showed :mad: Ah well, practice makes perfect & all that.

 

Started off at 14,550m ASL at 2.55M at which point the fuel ran out.

 

I glided a total distance of 208 Km for what was under the circumstances a fairly unimpressive glide ratio of 14.3. It appears that the sweet spot is indeed between 400 - 420 Km/h which gave me between 10 - 14 m/s sink rate.

 

I've attached a track for interested parties. I can't believe that I survived my landings... Both of them!!!! Shows how robust an airframe the Flanker can be as long as you don't smack it down at or near full weight. Didn't even burst any tyres :shocking:

 

A couple of other observations:

 

1. If you're doing a dead stick landing, try a road or better still a runway, not the top of a mountain.

 

2. If you have to go for the top of the mountain and bounce off, you'll be OK. Probably OK. :crazy:

 

3. Gliding at various speeds produced some really cool wind noise effects & turbine noises as the engines rotated with the air flow. The sound effects in DCS at the moment are really impressive :thumbup:

Edited January 19, 2016 by DarkFire

[Frostie]

Just speculating but is reaching m2.5 really optimal, you could maybe travel just as far on the fuel spent trying to achieve such speed and altitude.

 

What interests me is how far you can get at say for example a 1000kg at a starting altitude of 1000m.

[Ironhand]

Just speculating but is reaching m2.5 really optimal, you could maybe travel just as far on the fuel spent trying to achieve such speed and altitude.

 

What interests me is how far you can get at say for example a 1000kg at a starting altitude of 1000m.

Darkfire has a thread here on the optimal altitude/airspeed for distance. What we were trying to figure out was the glide once you were out of fuel. The OP had asked what the optimal glide speed was. I had remembered it as being around 420km/hr or so. This seems to confirm that.

[DarkFire]

Just speculating but is reaching m2.5 really optimal, you could maybe travel just as far on the fuel spent trying to achieve such speed and altitude.

 

What interests me is how far you can get at say for example a 1000kg at a starting altitude of 1000m.

 

It's an entirely daft thing to do :) I was seeing how far it would be possible to glide under maximum speed & high altitude conditions.

 

At 1,000m altitude, assuming a best cruise setting of 87% RPM, 1,000Kg of fuel will take you 97.2 Km.

 

See this thread for a load of range analysis: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147556

[Ironhand]

...

 

What interests me is how far you can get at say for example a 1000kg at a starting altitude of 1000m.

 

...

At 1,000m altitude, assuming a best cruise setting of 87% RPM, 1,000Kg of fuel will take you 97.2 Km...

 

And, then, after you flame out, you should be good for another 11.5-12 km or so based on my experiences. :)

[Frostie]

At 1,000m altitude, assuming a best cruise setting of 87% RPM, 1,000Kg of fuel will take you 97.2 Km.

 

 

I didn't mean flying back at 1000m altitude I just used that as an example of a bad position which you find yourself after trying to stay alive in combat, the fly out would mean gaining altitude for optimal performance.

 

Thanks for the link.

[DarkFire]

I didn't mean flying back at 1000m altitude I just used that as an example of a bad position which you find yourself after trying to stay alive in combat, the fly out would mean gaining altitude for optimal performance.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Ah right, understood. If you did find yourself down low, around 1,000 Kg of fuel might be enough to get you above 5,000m altitude, maybe more if you're careful. Should be enough for at least a 55 - 65 Km glide back to base. One of my favourite characteristics of the Flanker is definitely the huge fuel capacity :)

[Frostie]

Ah right, understood. If you did find yourself down low, around 1,000 Kg of fuel might be enough to get you above 5,000m altitude, maybe more if you're careful. Should be enough for at least a 55 - 65 Km glide back to base. One of my favourite characteristics of the Flanker is definitely the huge fuel capacity :)

 

I'm sure it's much more, the only reason I ask is that only the other night I was playing the usual silly bugger and messing around on the 104th tangling with a few bandits whilst winchester, I was down to 500kg in enemy territory, a slow climb and then long glide got me back to base which included diving from a chasing AMRAAM 20km from home plate. This sort of thing happens a lot and I regularly manage to pull it off without actually getting any figures or calculations, I guess it's just a familiarity with the usual mission ranges and when i'm at the limit. I should imagine if taken out of my comfort zone I wouldn't have a clue about this not that it is something i'd want to risk when the stakes are high. But getting some figures down for example, 1000kg would take me x amount whilst 500kg x amount could be quite useful if the need arose.

[DarkFire]

I'm sure it's much more, the only reason I ask is that only the other night I was playing the usual silly bugger and messing around on the 104th tangling with a few bandits whilst winchester, I was down to 500kg in enemy territory, a slow climb and then long glide got me back to base which included diving from a chasing AMRAAM 20km from home plate. This sort of thing happens a lot and I regularly manage to pull it off without actually getting any figures or calculations, I guess it's just a familiarity with the usual mission ranges and when i'm at the limit. I should imagine if taken out of my comfort zone I wouldn't have a clue about this not that it is something i'd want to risk when the stakes are high. But getting some figures down for example, 1000kg would take me x amount whilst 500kg x amount could be quite useful if the need arose.

 

Understood. This table might help you in that case, in particular the fuel consumption in Kg/Km at various altitudes. The table assumes cruise throttle setting which varies between 85% & 87% RPM: