Su-27 size

[hughlb]

I didn't realize how large the Su-27 is until I 'stood' next to it in VR. Then I looked up it's dimensions and came to realize it's about the same size as an F-111, and larger than a MiG-25 - that's huge! I always thought great size came at a great cost, in terms of maneuverability and structural integrity - at least it's true with the F-111 and MiG-25, and to a lesser extent the F-14.

 

Firstly, why was the Su-27 so large? and why aren't more air superiority fighter aircraft developed at that size? It seems full of positives - better range, more payload, whilst still retaining excellent performance.

[bumfire]

Alot of fighter aircraft are Huge, its just that when you see them on tv or ingame etc they look deceptively small.

 

You should see the size of the f14, it looks big anyway but its only when you see people standing on the top of it near the rudders do you realise just how huge the thing is, its absolutely massive when shown with something you can compare it against for scale.

 

I just wonder how big the f105 thunderchief is in real life, that thing is meant to be massive for a single seat fighter.

 

As for why they are so large, I guess its for performance, distance and payload reasons, that would be my guess.

 

Also, it was maybe easier in the su27 design era to build them larger without the weight penalty that would typically be incurred due to new technologies like composites being available at that time ?

 

Lovely bird tho.

Edited July 18, 2017 by bumfire

[Andrei]

The biggest revelation for me was the size of the F-4. You're kinda used to the fact that normally fighters of that era weren't too big, especially on the Eastern side. But the Phantom doesn't really seem that big on photos until you actually come close to it and realize that's one Big son of a gun :)

[Exorcet]

I didn't realize how large the Su-27 is until I 'stood' next to it in VR. Then I looked up it's dimensions and came to realize it's about the same size as an F-111, and larger than a MiG-25 - that's huge! I always thought great size came at a great cost, in terms of maneuverability and structural integrity - at least it's true with the F-111 and MiG-25, and to a lesser extent the F-14.

Size won't directly translate to maneuverability. If you make your wings and control surfaces bigger, it will cancel out the larger weight. The F-111 and MiG-25 weren't meant to maneuver so they have lower g limits. They're also both very heavy.

 

Firstly, why was the Su-27 so large? and why aren't more air superiority fighter aircraft developed at that size? It seems full of positives - better range, more payload, whilst still retaining excellent performance.

Remember that the Flanker has the tailcone that pushes up it's length somewhat. The Su-33 with the shorter tail is already below 70 feet long. I don't know the exact reason for the Flanker's dimensions but it probably has to do with range and payload. A bigger plane is better able to carry a fixed weight (a given number of missiles, radar, etc) while keeping the fuel fraction high.

 

The Su-27 also has somewhat wide wings in span, which would necessitate putting them further back from the nose for supersonic aerodynamics.

 

Reasons against a large fighter could be cost (construction and fuel), weight, storage concerns (especially on a carrier).

[Joe Kurr]

The Su-27 is huge indeed, maybe it has to do with its role as air superiority fighter.

Larger airframe means more space for fuel, thus greater range.

 

Here's a picture for scale:

 

[mvsgas]

I didn't realize how large the Su-27 is until I 'stood' next to it in VR. Then I looked up it's dimensions and came to realize it's about the same size as an F-111, and larger than a MiG-25 - that's huge! I always thought great size came at a great cost, in terms of maneuverability and structural integrity - at least it's true with the F-111 and MiG-25, and to a lesser extent the F-14.

 

Firstly, why was the Su-27 so large? and why aren't more air superiority fighter aircraft developed at that size? It seems full of positives - better range, more payload, whilst still retaining excellent performance.

 

AFAIK, the -27 was built that size because the radar package, the range they want it to have and the amount of missiles. But there are a lot of aircraft, new aircraft that are massive. The only new ones I can think about that are small are the JAS-39 (which they are making bigger) and the HAL Tejas and maybe the KAI T/FA-50. The JF-17, is short, but not small. The F-22, Pak-Fa, J-15, J-20 huge. Even the F-35 is big for a single engine aircraft. It is heavier than a fully loaded trash truck.

[Guitrz]

Even the F-35 is big for a single engine aircraft. It is heavier than a fully loaded trash truck.

 

I refuse to believe this comparison was so unintentionally accurate on many aspects :megalol:

[Fri13]

I didn't realize how large the Su-27 is until I 'stood' next to it in VR. Then I looked up it's dimensions and came to realize it's about the same size as an F-111, and larger than a MiG-25 - that's huge! I always thought great size came at a great cost, in terms of maneuverability and structural integrity - at least it's true with the F-111 and MiG-25, and to a lesser extent the F-14.

 

F-14 wins F-15 in the maneuverability and many other things, for its size it is far better performer.

 

Firstly, why was the Su-27 so large? and why aren't more air superiority fighter aircraft developed at that size? It seems full of positives - better range, more payload, whilst still retaining excellent performance.

 

Su-27 is so huge because it was required to have a two engines, be a long range air superior fighter, meant to hold a lot of fuel and have great loiter time, carry lots of missiles and have a great maneuverability for close range.

 

The cost is too big for such aircrafts and then there is the requirement for the storage and many other feature anyways. And then spotting such size is easier. Compare that to example Mig-29 or F-16 and it is radical difference.

[some1]

If you want to compare sizes, check this:

 

 

Su-27 is not "that" maneuverable for a 4th gen fighter. Smaller airframes are more agile in general. With modern computers, the size requirements for avionics and radar are also not that big.

 

An aircraft should be big enough to fulfill its requirements, but not bigger. ;)

planes.miz

[hughlb]

That's a great photo some1. People have made some good points. It just seems like bigger, in this case, is better - cost being the main compromise. Is that correct?

 

As a follow up question, what then is the advantage of slightly smaller twin engine fighters like the F/A-18C, MiG-29, Eurofighter, Rafale?

 

It appears, at least on paper, that you either go small/single engine - Gripen/F-16, and keep the weight down, or you go a large twin engine, with excellent range and payload. In yet there are many fighters that fit somewhere in the middle.

[Teknetinium]

That's a great photo some1. People have made some good points. It just seems like bigger, in this case, is better - cost being the main compromise. Is that correct?

 

As a follow up question, what then is the advantage of slightly smaller twin engine fighters like the F/A-18C, MiG-29, Eurofighter, Rafale?

 

It appears, at least on paper, that you either go small/single engine - Gripen/F-16, and keep the weight down, or you go a large twin engine, with excellent range and payload. In yet there are many fighters that fit somewhere in the middle.

 

It all depend what area you defend or attack.

MIG-31 for Switzerland might be a bad idea, But for Russia you can not find better.

And yes size do matter, bigger radar dishes, stronger power output, stronger processor, more fuel and so on.

 

Thats why I find it funny when F-18C radar react on Chaff in one video but some believe aim-120 would not, those who believe that dont believe in Physics.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Teknetinium

[some1]

There are really no benefits in making an aircraft bigger, except for the range and payload. But with modern technology you don't need as much payload as 30 years ago to do the same job. As I said avionics are getting smaller and weapons are getting smarter and lighter. And more fuel capacity gives diminishing returns - the more fuel you take, you need more fuel and mass just to carry it around.

 

As for twin engine vs. single engine debate. Two engines give some redundancy in case of non-catasrophic engine failure. It's also the easiest way to add more thrust especially in case a single engine powerful enough is not available during design phase. But a single engine configuration is always more fuel efficient, lighter and much cheaper. Again, modern engines are much more reliable than they used to 30-40 years ago.

[Teknetinium]

Yes technology gets better but physics still apply. Bigger dish with same technology or bigger power output is still stronger then the smaller one.

 

If that was not the case F-22 would be smaller then F-35.

[Exorcet]

As a follow up question, what then is the advantage of slightly smaller twin engine fighters like the F/A-18C, MiG-29, Eurofighter, Rafale?

 

It appears, at least on paper, that you either go small/single engine - Gripen/F-16, and keep the weight down, or you go a large twin engine, with excellent range and payload. In yet there are many fighters that fit somewhere in the middle.

Along with some of the points already brought up (single engine cost/simplicity), twin engine designs give you more packaging options, although this is probably more important for bomber sized aircraft. You can arrange multiple smaller engines side by side, giving you a thin but wide enginer arrangement, which is generally a good lifting shape. A single engine of comparable thrust will have a larger fan diameter, which will impact the shape of the aircraft.

[hughlb]

Interesting. It seems like packaging is the biggest problem - cramming modern day avionics and other systems into an aircraft that is still able to call itself a fighter, and fall into that pricerange. Why not just cut out the middle man and produce weapons platforms, carrying weapons that handle the dogfighting? Would that be the end goal - a long range hypersonic sled with an airborne laser?

[some1]

Yes technology gets better but physics still apply. Bigger dish with same technology or bigger power output is still stronger then the smaller one.

 

If that was not the case F-22 would be smaller then F-35.

 

 

True, but you don't really need big aircraft to have big radar antenna, we're talking differences like 20-30 cm in diameter. Except MiG-31, which has a huuge radar if these numbers are correct:

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=106755&sid=162758c3efaadf85b5964765900f96b1#p106755

[Weta43]

Interesting that even the UAV in that screenshot - which I conceptualise as small, and compared to modern fighters are small) are larger than WW!! fighters

[Weta43]

As Teknetinium said - you've only got to look at a map* to see why the Su-27 family is so large & why despite some1's comments on advances in technology leading to 'downsizing' of modern fighters, the PAK-FA, while smaller than an Su-27, is still bigger than an F-15.

 

(*& if you find a map of the CCCP rather than just 'Mother Russia', it's even more obvious)

[probad]

specialization is great so long as the environment allows it. the modern battlefield is only getting more and more demanding as threat types become ever more closely integrated, and so there is a need for compromise in designs -- the issues of logistics and observability encourages large designs to get smaller, yet the age old requirements of range, warload, and avionics remain and incentivizes small aircraft to grow bigger. somewhat similar to the emergence of the medium tank in ww2, the medium sized combat aircraft in the 40klbf thrust class has emerged as a sweet spot form factor.

[Svend_Dellepude]

If you want to compare sizes, check this:

 

 

Su-27 is not "that" maneuverable for a 4th gen fighter. Smaller airframes are more agile in general. With modern computers, the size requirements for avionics and radar are also not that big.

 

An aircraft should be big enough to fulfill its requirements, but not bigger. ;)

 

Good one!

WW2 planes looks like toys compared to their jet cousins. :D

[some1]

And then you realize that MiG-15 is even smaller than WWII planes.

 

F-15 and Su-27 have higher MTOW than WWII bombers.

[HiJack]

Good one!

WW2 planes looks like toys compared to their jet cousins. :D

 

Yes, awesome. Looks like the Hawk is smaller than the Spitfire also :thumbup: