Search results

Are you sure? Can you please substantiate?

I think the relationship remains linear but the slope of the graph changes. I assume at lower altitude or sub-optimal speed, the graph get steeper, making the range shorter. Similarly, in the Dubai presentations, they even give you the assumed flight profiles.

I have posted a Boeing graph as given by Boeing themselves. If you Google for "Aircraft Range vs payload", and select images you will get dozens graphs of graphs AND THEY ARE LINEAR.

The decrease in load is 23%. The decrease in range would be the same percentage if the graph was at 45 degrees. The 23% decrease in payload, I calculated to give 30% increase in range.

I have gone back to this discussion and researched a bit more on the weight differences and made an attempt to factor in the 848kg weight difference. I have looked around and the aircraft ranges are linear dependent on weight and/or fuel. That makes estimating somewhat easier. Example here: I...

Including the PL-5s

From the Dubai 2011 presentations below: Internal fuel = (2,300/0.84) = 2,738l. External fuel = 3,000l. Total fuel = 5,738l. Now, this will give 1,000km range in an A2G configuration. If you loose both the 1,100l tanks, you get rid of 1,848kg, and add 1,600kg from the two missiles. You end...

Are we not missing the fact that the final solution will have in-flight refuelling?

Seriously?

Interesting what you say about Russian ranges being against bombers. I had always assumed fighters. In fact I default to think the missile range to be the same regardless of target type. There is a good article on the ACIG (Tom Cooper) forum discussing US vs Russian vs Chinese MRAAMs, giving...

Not saying it is a problem. I am commending how they have indicated different targets instead of just using the "max 80km " and hope to subconsciously lead people to think the 80km is against a fighter.

Was going through the Russian export weapons catalogue here: RosOboronExport and can across this below page. For the first time I have seen the marketing guys separate missile performance by target type. We see it a lot for the radar but not the missile. I am assuming here that beyond 50km the...

Jiangsu A-Star offerings

Thanks ... ... but then you somehow need to be able to determine the direction of the plane at that instant. Like in the photo where the approx nose pitch of 85 degrees from the horizontal, the trajectory of the plane at that instant might actually be 40 degrees from the horizontal, giving an...

Concerning the take off demonstrated at Paris, as the plane pitches it's nose up quickly, doesn't the AoA exceed the 26 degrees we believe it is limited to? Sorry for the language barrier. Can someone please be kind enough to translate more of that video? Are they saying the Block 3 and the B...

In the Jf-17's target markets and likely wars, what percentage of planes will be 5th Gen? It is competing with Gripen, F-16, Mig-29, Teas and KIA FA-50. It will largely be competing with these anyway. Should it find itself against higher order fighters, the military planners involved will...

Looking at where/how the like of the Mig-29 to Mig-35, F-16 Block 10 To Block 60, the Flankers, the F-15s and the F-18s have evolved over the years, it is impossible to say where the JF-17 will be in 15 or 20 years . Radar for Block is said to be derived from J-10B. That was announced at...

I believe this is the closest the fighter is to having a DAS analogue. I think this will continue to evolve and it just a matter of time. There is also the claim by the Spanish that they Jf17 uses their Indra 400 (something 400) system.

A bit of homework for those keen on detail and curiosity. From here http://www.pac.org.pk/assets/files/it_for_0226_p-3_open_tender.doc are some pylon designations for the baby. We have the Gdj-ii19 as the twin rack for 250kg class. Let's detail the rest

Thanks "Trying to be honest" The article is from here:Bjorn’s Corner: What Paris Air Show taught us about East and West. - Leeham News and Comment This is part of the writer's resume