US two generations behind Russian fighter jets

There was a rig that was made from a 3 lb. coffee can, it was vacuum powered, and it injected a water mist in a controllable rate into the carburetor, it was controlled by the throttle linkage, Hell I can't remember how it was made, I'll see if I can find the plans, but that was 30 years ago, may take a bit of time, if I can find them at all, but then you may just be able to engineer something your self.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can I get a turbonique drag axle with that?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hay Billy T check this out;

http://www.autospeed.com/A_2720/hDg34uLtp_1/cms/article.html

It uses a water pump from a cappuccino coffee machines.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But it’s the Aquamist pump that sent us off in the right direction. Rather than using rotating rollers (like a high pressure fuel pump) or diaphragms compressed one after the other (like a diaphragm pump), the Aquamist pump uses a pulsating piston. The piston, powered by an electro-magnet, slides back and forth, pushing ahead of it little bursts of water that soon add up to a very high pressure.

And guess what? Just the same design of pump is used in espresso and cappuccino coffee machines! Except instead of costing mega-bucks like the Aquamist pump, you can have your very own Italian-made Ulka vibrating pump for under AUD$106! (And if you live in Italy , probably for one-third of that.) So that it can be used in coffee machines around the world, the Ulka pump is made in 110V AC and 220V AC models. But hold on, what about using it in cars? Well, because of the technological advances made in recent years with mains power inverters, for just an extra sixty Australian bucks you can power it straight from the car battery!

Just AUD$166 for a durable pumping system capable of over 15 Bar (218 psi) – and actually designed to pump water?! You can see why we’re excited.

manufacturer’s performance specs for the Ulka E5EX pump.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Methanol/water injection's primary benefit comes from reduced charge temps due to its phase change while in the intake manifold. The 50/50 mix of meth/water is used due to water's higher specific heat capacity, which enables it to absorb more heat. With the reduced charge temps, more spark advance can be had, leading to a more powerful stroke beginning closer to the piston's top dead center (TDC).

There are more benefits however. In the case of boosted engines, more boost can be produced in the turbocharger (or supercharger) as the water/meth will function as a chemical intercooler, removing the adiabatic heat from compression. Methanol doubles as a high octane fuel (R+M/2 of 130+) and allowing for more boost and/or spark advance. Water turns to steam in the cylinders, and has a steam cleaning effect on dirty combustion chambers.

I use a methanol/water injection system on the car that I race at amateur weekend events, which has a twin turbo V8 running 14lbs of boost. It drops the IAT by about 35 degrees (F) which allows for ~4 degrees of ignition advance without detonation issues. This is the same logic behind WWII piston engined fighter aircraft. Some of them used nitrous, too.

 

To Echo3Romeo:

Spark advance no doubt helps get more power and some more efficiency, but many things allow this (ant-knocking addatives) and most of us can not tune up our cars. (I never have owned a timing light.)

As about 2/3 of the thermal energy is thrown away in the exhaust, I still like to think of the improved efficiency as due to reduction in that waste, but I had overlooked the internal cooling of the adiabatic compression stroke which allows the ignition temp to be avoided until TDC. (Knocking supressed.) thanks.

Do you or Buffalo know if the WWII fighters did advance the spark when injecting water? Or was it just the increased pressure on the piston, especially in the last stages of the power down stroke. To some extent in what part of the 4 stroke IC the water is doing its job will depend upon the size of the water drops injected. In my old clunker with lots of blow by the rings, perhas without the dew drops of fog, the presure was already near atmosphere as the down stroke finished and the exhaust valves opened.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

so it was helping then. Perhapse in a car with good rings one would not like large fog drops but a fine mist with spark advance.

PS My knowledge about IC motors is mainly theoritical, but in this fuel-injected computerized car age, I would think it easy to have one (only) cylinder always very slightly knocking and keep the spark advanced as much as possible dynamically. That unique cyliner could have slightly higher compression ration (flatter dome cover to top of combustion cylinder) or slightly more fuel injected. The extra cost would be a cheap microphone on the special "lightly knocking cylinder" and simple circuit. In mass production less than $3 I think.

Perhaps this is already done? Or have I just disclosed a multi-million dollar idea? (Fortunately few ever read to the end of my long boring posts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Not any more as the FA-22, the Raptor, is opperational now.

"In-flight (simulated) Combat Operations against the F-15, two F/A-22s were able to operate without detection while it went Head to Head against (8) F-15s. The F/A-22s scored Missile Hits (Kills) against all the F-15 Aircraft and the F/A-22s were never Detected by either the F-15s or Ground Based Radar. Maj. Gen. Rick Lewis said: ‘The Raptor Operated Against All Adversaries with Virtual Impunity; Ground Based Systems Couldn’t Engage and NO Adversary Aircraft Survived’

F/A-22– America’s Most Advanced Fighter Aircraft for the 21st Century. They’re a titanium and carbon fiber dagger. They’re so advanced that if their on-board locator is switched off even our own satellites can lose track of them.

They’re the first military aircraft ever built that is equipped with a ‘black-out button’. … The best conditioned fighter pilots are capable of maintaining consciousness up to in the vicinity of 15+ G. The Raptor is capable of making 22+ G turns. If some day an adversary builds a missile that is capable of catching up to one of these airplanes and a Raptor pilot sees that a strike is imminent, he hits the ‘b.o.b.’ and the airplane makes a virtual U-turn, {at 22+Gs} leaving the missile to pass right on by.

They know that in the process he’ll temporarily lose consciousness, so the Raptor then automatically comes back to straight and level flight until he wakes back up.

From: http://battleofearth.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/first-fa-22-fighters-delivered-to-langley-afb/

 

Is the article in the OP a joke?

 

No. Certainly not back in 2008 when posted, but the video link no longer works. (If click on it here is what you get: This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Konstantin Khmelik)

As described in the OP, that Russian jet was very maneuverable due to having both vectored thrust and canards, which can turn it so rapidly that stability is a problem as always with significant canards. (Small tilting wings at the front. Interestingly the first airplane to ever fly off from level ground had canards. In the 100 year anniversary celebration in Brazil, both of the reconstructed models went unstable and crashed, so the canards were removed before public celebrations .)
Photo did not show but I found a post flight post card:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look carefully and see wire from pilot to canard for control.

Santos-Dumont was an extremely skilled pilot, having flown for about 20 years in motorized, cigar-shaped balloons - more than once around the Eiffel Tower in Paris. He was the first to fly a heavier than air craft. Many had coasted down a hill with power less wings before 1900. The Wright Brother's motor was too heavy and weak to take off from level ground. It was only a weak motorized version of what many had done before - fall slowing down a hill. The first American to actually fly (not just glide down a hill) was Curtis - a motorcycle nut who knew how to make a much better HP/weight motor than the Wrights did. They later formed the Curtis-Wright company. The 100 year anniversary flight attempt at Kitty Hawk, NC could not even lift off the rails - it did not catch a lucky up hill wind gust as the Wrights did. Note also that although the motor was the same the fuel was much better. The Wright deserve a lot of credit for their scientific method approach* - even wind tunnel testing and recognition of the importance of control (wing warping was used) - but not for flying first.

Back to main thread:
The SU-30's vectored thrust allowed it to come to full stop in less than a second and accelerated downward tail first. It was thus inside its own hot exhaust cloud and that ionized gas made it invisible to radar to track** and only a lucky heat seeking missile could hit it. The trailing US fighter would in about a second over fly it so then the Russian jet would have the drop on the US plane firing at it from behind. As NASA evaluated the two jets, the Russian one was two generations more advanced.

-----------------
* I was the only visitor at the small Kitty Hawk museum one winter day. After 15 minutes of talking with the caretaker, he decided to let me read their lab note books. They were far ahead of their time as scientists. Not at all like "cut and try" Edison. They made many careful lift verse air foil shape and speed studies and even discovered some errors in the standard table of air compressibility, as I recall. They just did not have a motor that could lift their plane.

Santos was a great scientist too. He first "flew" the 14th bis by hanging it form his 14th cigar-shapped balloon, but the drag of the balloon made him switch to "donkey tow" Experiments. I.e. a long wire strung between two trees supported the 14 Bis (without motor) as donkey pulled it for Santos to learn control and to make minor mods. Later Santo hydro-planed down the Seine at more that 100 mph - the first to truly hydro-plane with only thin metal strips in the water. He had a special 12 cylinder motor built and a long thin boat. He was rich as his father owned large coffee plantation in Brazil. He also invented a set of stairs very steeply rising, but each step was for the alternate foot - sort of like a ladder with alternate halfs of each rung covered wider for sure footing. He was very concerned about his clothes - many think he was gay.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That wiki image does not print either. See hard working donkey pull plane here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:AS-Dumont-plane-towed.jpg


** Probably even if the radar waves were reflected from the plane's body, the fact that it had zero forward speed would make the computer process those return signals as stationary clutter. (Most radars have velocity filters that drop out any stationary wrt ground returns.)

After the "dead stop, tail first fall" the Russian plane could fire a heat seeking missile into the hot US jet's exhaust even if the plane's body had zero radar cross section, which its hot exhaust certainly does not have.

The US claim that the FA-22 has zero radar cross section is false if either:
(1) You are behind it not more than a few Km from its hot exhaust, OR
(2) You are using a bi-static radar system (Transmitter not where the receiver is). The old USSR had a lot of land based bi-static radars. They were used to vector defensive fighter to intercept invading bombers. I am not sure, but think pairs of some of their more advanced fighter- interceptors could also used radar pulses sent from another plane to be a bi-static system.

The "near zero" radar cross sections achieved by having all the surface of the plane flat only works for conventional radars. Those flat surfaces may act as mirrors for a bi-static system.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd0eV95ipQk

At the Paris Air show.

Arthur

 

Well for starters the F-22 has canards.

Secondly, the Russian military is a joke, a laughinsgtock, a pathetic shadow of what it once was.

It's most recently commissioned submarine was built in the 80's, the Pak Fa, their answer to the F-22 isn't due for another half a decade.

The Russians are not two generations ahead of the US.

Also, that maneuver, called Pugachev's cobra, the F-22 can do it too.

And the fact is it is very hard to pull off. To do it succesfully is even harder as well.

If you do it too when the F-22 is too close than the F-22 will pass you and pull up into a loop and by the time you level out a missile will be heading up your ass at Mach 3.

If you do it when the F-22 is too far than the F-22 will easily line up a missile and fire and if it can't lock (which is extremely unlikely) than it will simply fire that gattling gun.

The F-22 is also a lot faster than the SU-30.

The F-22 can not only do everything an SU-30 can, an F-22 can do even more. It has a rather high departure resistance. The F-22 has 30 antennas spread through the entire airframe called the AN/ALR-94 which is a passive reciever which can detect radar emissions through the environment and can accurately cue the active radar to focus on an area where the radar signal is coming from. Which means that it does not have to use active radar in all directions to find an enemy, it uses the passive system to tell the general direction of your Su-30 and than directs its active radar to only activate in that area, which means you cannot, literally, cannot detect it's radar emission until it has already spotted you. The radar can change it's frequency 1,000 times a second which minimizes your chance of detecting it, and it can focus it's beam to overload enemy sensors.

Also, the SU-30 part of the Su-27 family is a fourth generation aircraft.

 

Neither did Da Vinci, I don't see you giving him credit.

An engine is a big deal, so to say that the Russians deserve ANY credit because they invented a plane, just without an engine is silly.

No actually it does not work at all like that. First off, a ground scanning radar, and an air scanning radar are both two VERY different things. First, a ground scan radar does not just ignore anything that does not move. An air scan radar would not just ignore an aircraft that has zero velocity, that is idiotic. If they could than why can a missile track a helicopter with zero velocity?

All this is assuming that they for some reason engaged in a dogfight which implies that the Su-30 actually detected the F-22 before the F-22 could, which is incredibly unlikely. Actually, I can tell you as a fact that the F-22 could detect the Su-30 a lot sooner than the Su-30 could detect the F-22.

Actually it is entirely likely that the only indication an Su-30 will get of an F-22 is the sidewinder-X that is chasing after the Su-30.

Please don't make assumptions.

1.) Assuming you can get behind it, and assuming it is a moron, assuming it does not pull a U-turn, and assuming it doesn't have flares.

Too many assumptions.

2.) I fail to see how that helps AT ALL. First off, they are ground mounted, not air mounted. That's how a lot of radar guided missiles work.

Stealth works because it deflects radar and what is not deflected gets absorbed. A bi static radar would be absorbed just like any other form of radar. The fundamental problem with trying to detect an F-22 is that it absorbs the radar, so the radar signal and emmitter is the problem, not the receiver

The only type of bi static radar that can help is a forward scatter radar, they operate like fences detecting planes that go through them. Problem is, if the F-22 chooses to fly around it than the F22 wont be detected, and if it goes through the radar has a very poor ability to track targets. And this is assuming that you can position the radars so that F-22's will HAVE to fly through them. So it only works defensively, they do not work offenssively, and mounting them on planes is somewhat idiotic.

And we do not even know if forward scatter bi static radar is effective, we THINK it may be, but we don't know for sure.

 

Do you understand that they have to get close first? YOu seem to have missed the quote above in bold, the word "near". The US is far superior in targeting and missiles, typically they blow everyone out of the sky LONG before they get close enough for those maneuvers to count.

I'm sure someone already pointed that out but, theoretically if the US planes ran out of missiles and if they were facing a larger force making a kamikaze run at them.. then they might take some casualties. HOwever they train for those exact tactics, the luftwaffe deploys tactics that would be used to get close to american jets in training with our pilots.. and they are very very good probably far better than their soviet counterparts simply because they are up to speed on western tactics.

 

Yes & someone did point out many posts back that "dog fights" of WWII rarely happen now that long range super-sonic, dual guidance, missiles and much better tracking radars exist. It was my mistake in the OP to use that WWII term, but I am old enough to remember it in wide use so it just slipped out in instead of "evasion of attacking missile."

The fact that the SU-30 can dead stop and accelerate down tail first inside its own exhaust plume, which masks radar and give a heat seeker a much larger target than the SU-30 does impresses me, a physicist, not air-combat expert. It seems quite likely to me that one-on-one even the FA-22 would soon run out of missiles and need to turn tail and run to survive. Top speed of both is secrete so I don't know if the SU-30's missiles can catch a fleeing FA-22 or not. the FA-22 can pull 22 Gs in tight U turn, so the SU-30's first missile may miss* but the second surely would not as the FA-22 flies straight and level waiting for the blacked-out pilot ot regain consciousness.
-------------
* Most modern missiles has sophisticated forward projection trajectory computations for the intercept point. Perhaps the FA-22 has a random wobble in it 22G turn to help make that computation more likely bewrong?

 

No it doesn't, it DOES NOT MASK RADAR, END OF STORY.

Plus, you are deluding yourself into thinking that they can keep absolutely still whenever they want and for however long you like.

I think you are deluding yourself. First off, that maneuver, Pugachev's cobra, it only works in certain circumstances, as in, when a plane is very close on your tail and that plane cannot do post stall maneuvers.

Also, it does not mask the IR signature, it makes it tremendous, a missile focuses on the hottest part of that signature, that means the bubble would have to have the same temperature as the engine exhaust, which is impossible.

Also, remember that a jet moves forwards by pushing air backwards, your theory only works if the air is somehow moving forwards so that it envelopes the plane when it has zero velocity. It doesn't because the air is moving backwards.

And the fact is that the plane would be far too high for that heat stream to envelope it. Tell me as a physicist, if a plane going mach 1 to mach 2 suddenly pulls vertically, how far upwards will it go before it reaches zero velocity? Pretty damn high, much too high for your silly "exhaust" theory. In comparison to it's altitude total it is not that much, but compared to the size of the exhaust plume it is a lot.

And it's acceleration "tail first" is called gravity, something that any person with any amount of education considers to be common sense.

The SU-30 would be a ball of flames by the time it sees that raptor.

Your conclusions are all wrong.

You want to know what happens when you pull the Pugachev? Any experianced pilot, like those in an F-22, pulls a J-turn, or a Herbst maneuver where they pull up to gain altitude

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You want to know what happens after that? Your Su-30 is moving at a fraction of it's original speed, it can barely pull up, and the F-22 has the high ground and has a lineup such that only a dumbass could miss.

The F-22 wins.

The F-22 is more advanced in avionics IN EVERY WAY, it has more advanced missiles, weapons, and engines. It's radar is incredibly capable, it can actually overload your sensors.

The SU-30 would not EVER win a fight against a Raptor, it could not detect the F-22, thus, it would get shot down.

 

OK, lets just say it makes the range to (and hence the current change in trajectory) uncertain as the entire hot gas plume is returning echoes. When there is a few Km between planes that echo is much like from a point source (not angularly resolved) so the FA-22's missile is without any angular guidance from the plane's radar for the final 300 meters. Likewise the heat seeker guidance has some tendency to centroid, but the hottest spot is the biggest target; However read my third reply below about the effects of "IR opacity."

I have already admitted it was a mistake to use the WWII term "dog fight" as the engagement is by missile. That missile, as I noted in just made post, uses the radar returns to project ahead the intercept point - it would surely miss if it just flew at the target. If the attacking missile does not get discernable echo from the target plane but from both it and the plume that calculation (very sophisticated BTW)* will fail.

That would depend upon how "IR opaque" the plume is. To take a crude example, the seen temperature of the sun is only ~5000K despite the interior being more than 1,000,000K - Like the sun, the hot photons from the jet's tail plume are absorbved and not seen externally.

That is essentially totally wrong. The plane moves forward despite its air drag because the jet produces / is a rearward directed momentum. If the jet had its internal O2 supply it could fly much better in the total absence of air. Also note that it is in high, thin air that commercial jets fly best.

Unfortunately the original video is no longer available, but as I recal, it did not slow down by significantly turning up. It vectored its thrust forward to stop and did disappear in its own plume.

Certainly gravity helps, but it is my understanding based on the no longer available video (and my memory of it) part of the fall was due to the upward directed vectored thrust.

Probably true but not the basically level stopping maneuver the SU-30 did in the video.

when the planes are a few Km apart or more the SU-30 falling 100m down does not change their angular relation relationship significantly.

Yes if one of its missile hits the plume hiding SU-30. Note, even though the vertically falling SU-30 can not track the attacking missile (mainly from angular considerations, not the radar characteristics of the plumb. ) It already knows when the first missile will arrive and if there is a second so knows when it is "safe" to level out again. (I put safe in quotes, as many missiles will turn back to attack again is there is a "fly by miss.")

I tend to agree with first part and admit that the SU-30 "hid in plume" may not work as a defense against missiles, (The Russians seem to think it is a good defense and if as I suspect it will make the missile's computed intercept point false, I would agree.) If it does work, the FA-22 will soon be out of missiles and need to turn tail to survive. Forget about its low RCS, that hot tail exhaust is a easy target, if your missile can catch it and continuously update the intercept point while FA-22's pilot is blacked out in a 22G turn. If it fails to kill on first try, it will turn and kill him before he recovers consciousness in the automatic level flight.

--------------
* So sophisticated and accurate (when good radar returns are available) that many missile no longer even have any warhead - they are KE killers (KE =Kinetic Energy). The lack of warhead weight gives more range and better maneuverability.

 

That's a wingover or old style Immelmann.

 

I am not compromising to something that is just wrong. Explain to me how exactly a plume of heat from the jet which is probably at most 500-800 degrees would influence a radar. Especially a radar as sophisticated as the one on the F-22. I doubt that the scientists that built and designed radar throughout history have not already thought of the issue of heat and have not already corrected it.

Why would the entire gas plume be giving off echoes? The radar were talking about reflects off of SOLID surfaces. Air is not solid, neither is your magical plume.

No it doesn't. your assuming that there is some sort of command that tells the missile to always aim 50 feet ahead of the aircraft or something like that. It does not work that way. That calculation would not fail. Do you know how the detonation mechanism of that missile works?

Assuming you are right, the missile will aim for the plume, once it reaches the plume it will detonate. Do you know what the explosive? It is called annular fragmentation. What they do is they arrange long steel bars into a cylinder and weld the top of every other rod together and they do the same except in an opposite pattern for the bottem. When it detonates the rods are pushed outwards and expand, they retain a lot of momentum which means that they likely create a circle with a diameter that is probably close to the size of a plane, then they continue forwards using momentum and will plow and slice through anything they hit. While the missile may not have been guiding to your plane but rather the plume, it just so happens the plume will have a lot of steel bars flying through it that will shred your plane apart.

you just proved my point. An IR will ignore the plume because in terms of your example, they can see that even though there is an attractive 5000 degree plume (not the actual temperature I'm just using your numbers from your analogy) there is a beautiful 1,000,000 degree hotspot in the middle. Which do you think it would aim for?

Im sorry, but that is just plain stupid. The fans in the turbine spin really really fast, their angle and spin forces thrust backwards, thrust gets heated and expands, pushes against the engine and is trying to escape by going out the back, the exhaust thus is moving backwards.

It's because they have big wings and turbofan engines. Common sense.

Are you telling me that the thrust vectoring can actually vector 180 degrees and put the plane in reverse? That is completely idiotic.

Anyways, this whole plume idea is still completely and totally stupid and suicidal.

Do you know what happens when your in level flight in air that is SIGNIFICANTLY less dense because of it's heat and you have no air speed? You drop like a rock.

Your plane would have to drop a good 500-1000 feet before it's control surfaces could kick in. Your plane would drop out of it's plume (assuming your right in one of your previous statements) in less than 3 seconds. It would be free falling with no control for at least 30 seconds to a minute.

It would be a massive target, especially considering that now that you just heated the skin of the plane up by at least a hundred degrees due to the plume you are now the biggest IR target for 40 miles.

Also, ever heard of thermal imaging? Guess what missile has it. The sidewinder-X.

Firefighters use it to detect humans even through smoke and fire. The sidewinder could easily distinguish your plane from the plume in the exact same way using it's sensor.

Easy kill.

The Russians think that Obama is mobilizing 1 million troops to counter a civil war, we never landed on the moon, and that HAARP is a secret earthquake making machine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I wouldn't put much faith in what they think. First your argument is that the F-22's missiles cant shoot down because somehow an SU-30 can instantly stop on demand, hover in it's own plume for however long it likes, and than resume faster than the speed of sound flight like nothing ever happened.

Now your making the leap that somehow the SU-30 can even DETECT yet alone LOCK ONTO an F-22. Oh, this is gonna be good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's IR signature is not nearly as hot as most other jets. Don't say "hot" as if it is amazingly high compared to other jets. It's a "stealth" fighter for a reason.

your still making the stupid assumption that the SU-30 can suddenly stop moving at a moments notice, hover for as long as it likes, and than exit at the same velocity it entered every single time the F-22 fires a missile, or that the pilots in the F-22 are dumbasses and shoot all their missiles at once on one target.

The F-22 only engages a 22 g turn if the pilot tells it to, your assuming they regularly do this.

You make so many foolish assumption Billy T. It simply does not work that way.

 

Spare a thought for this chap. Do you think he will inject new ideas if added to the US club of eminent aerodynamics engineers?
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/14/semi-functional-home.html

 

:roflmao:

Not in a million years.
The structure isn't up to it. The pilot certainly isn't up to it. And the flight control software won't allow it.
22G??? Get real.

I'll come back and join in on the rest later.

 

Wrong. A Su-30 (or whichever variant) tail slide breaks a doppler lock.

Not true. Since the late '70s/ early '80s IR-homing missiles distinguish between exhaust plume, aerodynamically-heated airframe (leading edges, etc) and pick their own impact point, usually the cockpit.

Name one single air-air missile that doesn't have a warhead. The ONLY KE killer that comes to mind (as far as anti-aircraft duties go) is the British Starstreak, and that's a man-portable shoulder-fired AA weapon.
There are other missiles with a high reliability as far as directly impacting the target goes (e,g. Rapier, Seawolf) but they do carry a warhead.