Breaking News: SU-57 New Engine Success

Also consider speed as well.Russian engines have always been thirsty things at high speed...

a reply to: Blackfinger

Why do you say that?

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Also consider speed as well.Russian engines have always been thirsty things at high speed...

you forgot to mention the engines are never built the same alot of the time.

a reply to: C0bzz

google F-35 range and it says 1379 miles google fuel weight it says 8,390kg, SU-57 fuel capacity 10,300kg for a 3,500km range. Even if I was to add the fuel of the F-35 and F-22 to match the SU-57 fuel capacity their ranges would still not succeed the SU-57 this is just comparing its 117 engines alone. for example me not doing math 8,300 to 10,300kg sounds like a 20% increase so basically 1.2 times 1379 miles convert to km the SU-57 would still have a extended range hence with the same amount of fuel have a longer flight distance because of burning fuel less.......VTOL, I do know requires alot of thrust to get launched so I cant know for sure. Su-57 does not have a close thrust weight to the F-22, is passed the F-35, but not passed the F-35 with 50% fuel. Now using less fuel, more thrust, more range, less moving parts being in a underfunded program to begin with at the end of 2017 with a successful flight with a new engine is still not too shabby for their part.

"If they did have such good fuel consumption, then I would expect them to be marketing it a lot." Not to be a goofy smartass there are more 3rd world countries than there are 1st world countries. Sadly "most" of those 1st world countries are from NATO and NATO was formed because of Russia even though Russia wanted to join that organization a bunch of times and of course sanctions. India and China have bought these engines related to the sukhoi aircraft. Japan still has a island dispute or bad history with Russia, etc. Geopolitical reasons and lets not forget they sell the worst exports to other countries and keep the best for themselves. Like them selling Mig-35s to Egypt equipped with old passive radars. Not a lot of marketing indeed.

a reply to: wewuzkangz

Range is largely irrelevant. Maximum range is maximum ferry range, which usually means external fuel tanks, if they're certified for them. The only range that truly matters is combat radius.

The only thing they've said about the Su-57 combat radius is that it was designed for a "long" radius. The F-22 comes in at 460 nm (529 mi) with supercruise. The F-35 is at 590 mi, 450 mi, and 600 mi.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Alright the combat radius is 945nmi it would be the same results regardless if I did the math again. "which usually means external fuel tanks" Also I have not once mentioned ferry ranges with external or refuel ranges all of what I said was internal fuel ferry ranges. Than again combat radius's also involve what their missions are as well........Now I need deeper research.

a reply to: wewuzkangz

Range, is set using external fuel tanks, if they're certified to carry them, or the maximum fuel load possible, with no extra weight on the aircraft.

Even with the new engines the Su-57 will be hard pressed to get almost 1,000 miles of combat radius. As testing goes on combat radius tends to drop. It's already dropped from the almost 1100 they were planning on from the initial design. There is also the question of mission type. A Hi-Lo-Hi mission is going to have a lower combat radius than a Hi-Hi-Hi mission.

Russia very rarely releases combat radius for their aircraft, but when they do they usually release the best range possible, just as the US does. The true combat radius is not just half of the range however, which is basically what you did. Combat radius tends to be somewhere between a quarter and a third of maximum range.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I guess I absolutely suck at explaining things. So maybe sources with their explanation will help where I am aiming at than I will possibly be done talking about aircraft engines........www.deagel.com... -"
The AL-41F1 engine is a follow-on of the proven AL-31 which powers Su-27 family aircraft, actually, the AL-41F1 is an evolution of the 117S engine powering the Su-35 4+ generation fighter aircraft. Compared with the 117S the AL-41F features increased thrust, stealth and the ability to operate at 20,000 meters of altitude compared to only 19,000 meters with the Su-35. The AL-41F1 engine allows the PAK FA to fly over ranges of 3,500 kilometers, 1.5-1.6 Mach supercruise and an operational ceiling of 20,000 meters. The AL-41 engine family is targeted to power both single and twin engine aircraft."
Than supposedly the izdelie 30. www.deagel.com... "The new engine will enable the Su-50 to achieve super-cruise speed and fly at ranges over 5,000 kilometers with no air refueling or external fuel tanks. Compared with the AL-41F1 engine, Izdelie 30 is 30 percent lighter, offers 19,000 kg (42,000-lb) of thrust, and has better fuel efficiency and fewer moving parts resulting in 30 percent lower life cycle costs. The Izdelie 30 will also support high supercruise speed with outstanding fuel efficiency.

Every combat radius I have seen on most aircraft is basically half the ferry range which is why more or less the conclusions I have found ranging from every combat aircraft I have found.

Thanks for the information especially your last paragraph that half is not the answer.

a reply to: wewuzkangz

Combat radius depends entirely on the mission. An F-35 on a straight interdiction mission, carrying 4 AIM-120s, on a Hi-Hi-Hi profile can actually exceed the published combat radius, under the right conditions.

A good example is the F-18. The published combat radius for the F-18C/D is 400 nmi, in the air to air mission. That doesn't sound like much, but it's a lot more complicated than the numbers suggest. In a clean configuration, with two missiles, the Hornet can go 1,000 miles, but that isn't ever going to happen.

On a hi-lo-lo-hi interdiction mission, the combat radius drops to around 300 nmi. On strike missions, depending on loading, it can be up to 500 nmi.

This thread should be renamed
Breaking News!! Russian Jet Engine Actually Turns On And Sorta Works!!: russians engineers celebrate with rounds of Popov.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Don't underestimate the improvements they've made in recent years. They still aren't near the MTBF/MTBO times western engines see, but this new engine, if they even get close to design performance will out perform the F119 in some areas. It's not a true ADVENT, but it comes pretty close.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"It's not a true ADVENT, but it comes pretty close." I did 5000 divided by 3500 I got 1.42 or in other words a 42% increase in range where GE engine says Advent means 30% more range increase...... In other words I do not have enough information to convince you its ADVENT from just 1 spec alone?

a reply to: wewuzkangz

Increased range doesn't mean it's an ADVENT style engine. You can improve pressure ratios, and get better fuel burn, without it being an ADVENT engine. Engines have changed and increased range pretty drastically without being ADVENT engines.

ADVENT is a variable stream engine. That's partially where it gets the extra range from. The third stream can be used as a bypass flow to improve efficiency, or can be put through the engine to give extra power and performance. The extra range doesn't make it an ADVENT engine, it's the variable flow to the engine.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It just dawned on me that ADVENT is really the first jet engine equivalent of a variable pitch prop, and every other jet engine that has come before it is, operationally, no different from the carved wood two blade affair on your Piper Cub, operating at a variable RPM to modulate thrust.

I wonder what the odds are that ADVENT will be able to maintain a constant RPM and adjust thrust by varying it's ratio instead.

a reply to: Barnalby

ADVENT no, but once they fully mature AETD possibly. ADVENT was more or less "can we do it" that was supposed to just be a lead in to AETD that turned into a full up engine.

Im still waiting for a Veritech engine to arrive..