Two Su-27 Flankers sold and shipped to the U.S.A.

saintwarrior · by **saintwarrior** » 08 May 2009, 18:34

Pride Aircraft reported yesterday, May 5th 2009, that they have successfully imported the first two privately owned Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker fourth generation Russian-built fighters into the United States. The two aircraft, which are the direct Soviet equivalent of the United States Air Force F-15C Eagle fighter jet, were flown in onboard a Soviet-built An-124 transport a few months ago. The company, however, did not announce the arrival until yesterday. Over the next little while the two aircraft will be refurbished, modified, and certified to US standards before being handed over to their new owners- which is likely the Tactical Air Support company which provides Aggressor support to the US military. The aircraft were purchased from the Ukraine.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5411-Military ... ted-States

Pictures:

Pictures by Pride Aircraft

darkvarkguy · by **darkvarkguy** » 10 May 2009, 04:01

Ah "...direct Soviet equivalent of the F-15C...", I don't think so.

Kryptid · by **Kryptid** » 11 May 2009, 16:12

The Flanker is a beautiful aircraft and no one can tell me different.

Apparently back in the 1980s, some Kfir C.1s were leased to the United States for DACT. When they arrived, they were given their own F-designation of F-21A. You think that these Flankers will be given an F-designation, too? F-24, perhaps?

That_Engine_Guy · by **That_Engine_Guy** » 11 May 2009, 23:42

To the best of my reckoning...

If they're not in "official use" by the US DoD then they won't get an F- designation. The lease of the Kfirs put them into official US DoD use as Navy/Marine aircraft used for aggressor training.

If the Flankers are truly private aircraft, they will simply receive a civilian "N" number when registered with the FAA.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:

TEG

skyhigh · by **skyhigh** » 12 May 2009, 00:35

I wonder if the F100 could power the purchased Su-27s, because the Saturn-Lyulka AL-31F turbofan (Russian equivalent of PW F100) is made in Russia by NPO Saturn and I don't think they'll sell a handful of them to us.

That_Engine_Guy · by **That_Engine_Guy** » 12 May 2009, 02:28

skyhigh wrote:I wonder if the F100 could power the purchased Su-27s, because the Saturn-Lyulka AL-31F turbofan (Russian equivalent of PW F100) is made in Russia by NPO Saturn and I don't think they'll sell a handful of them to us.

Agreed, support for the F100-PW-229 would be much better than that of the AL-31F. Consider the age of the AL-31F, new build AL-31F engines are no longer produced for the Flanker, and I'm unsure how friendly the Russians will be providing "new" AL-31FNs for a "civil" US customer.

...Considering that company is providing training against their aircraft to anyone willing to pay the $$s? :shrug:

Now the bad news... :cry:

Look at the photos below, the AL-31F has a top mounted gearbox, where the F100 series engines have a bottom mounted gearbox. I figure a MAJOR redesign of the engine bays would be required to run an F100 in place of the AL-31. (Or a very expensive "custom" set of F100s...)

But for comparison sake... (to the best of my resources)

AL-31F (as installed in early SU-27s)
MAX Thrust: 27,557 lbs
MIL Thrust: 17,305 lbs
Length: 194.7"
Max Diameter: 48.82"
Inlet Diameter: 35.8"
Weight: 3,373 lbs
MAX SFC: 1.96 lb/h/lb st
MIL SFC: 0.666 lb/h/lb st

F100-PW-229 (As available today @ $5M each!)
MAX Thrust: 29,100 lbs
MIL Thrust: 17,800 lbs
Length: 191.2"
Max Diameter: 46.5"
Inlet Diameter: 34.8"
Weight: 3,795 lbs
MAX SFC: 2.060 lb/h/lb st
MIL SFC: 0.762 lb/h/lb st

So while a pair of shiny new F100-PW-229s would physically fit into the engine bays of the SU-27 (almost exactly) and the -229 makes about the same power; the differences in gearbox placement would make the procedure cost prohibitive.

Not to mention you'd need $20 Million AND US DoD approval to purchase said F100s from PW. (They can't just sell them on the street without governmental approval)

It was still a cool thought! :cool:

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:

TEG

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 12 May 2009, 02:49

According to what I've read they've got factory support and a good supply of spare parts :wink:

darkvarkguy · by **darkvarkguy** » 12 May 2009, 04:21

From what I understand ANYTHING can be bought from Russia for enough money.

skyhigh · by **skyhigh** » 12 May 2009, 13:08

darkvarkguy wrote:From what I understand ANYTHING can be bought from Russia for enough money.

Rosoboronexport is a well-oiled profit-driven arms export machine.

energo · by **energo** » 24 May 2009, 23:22

That_Engine_Guy wrote:F100-PW-229 (As available today @ $5M each!)

Sweet. I'll have mine medium-rare.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 28 Jul 2009, 20:13

darkvarkguy wrote:From what I understand ANYTHING can be bought from Russia for enough money.

Just for the greater good here, these two Su-27UBs where bought from Ukraine.
Not Russia or Rosbouro..

They where completly de-militariezed, but with complete set of AL-31F engines and batch of spare parts.

Oh, and they will feature new US avionics!
Not sure about radar though(if it will have any US installed at all?)..
Thanks

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 28 Jul 2009, 20:59

AL-31F (as installed in early SU-27s)
MAX SFC: 1.96 lb/h/lb st
MIL SFC: 0.666 lb/h/lb st

F100-PW-229 (As available today @ $5M each!)
MAX SFC: 2.060 lb/h/lb st
MIL SFC: 0.762 lb/h/lb st

TEG,

Could you confirm the data above from your May 12 post concerning SFC. It appears that the AL-31F uses less fuel per pound of thrust than does the -229. At least that's how I read it, as pounds per hour of fuel per pound of static thrust. If that's true, it is surprising.

Maybe BPR explains it. Do you have that comparison?

Thanks.

froe · by **froe** » 29 Jul 2009, 05:24

"...direct Soviet equivalent of the F-15C..." As good, no, but it is their equivalent.

haavarla · by **haavarla** » 29 Jul 2009, 14:58

[quote="johnwill"][b]AL-31F[/b] ([i]as installed in early SU-27s[/i])
MAX SFC: 1.96 lb/h/lb st
MIL SFC: 0.666 lb/h/lb st

[b]F100-PW-229[/b] ([i]As available today @ $5M each![/i])
MAX SFC: 2.060 lb/h/lb st
MIL SFC: 0.762 lb/h/lb st

TEG,

Could you confirm the data above from your May 12 post concerning SFC. It appears that the AL-31F uses less fuel per pound of thrust than does the -229. At least that's how I read it, as pounds per hour of fuel per pound of static thrust. If that's true, it is surprising.

Maybe BPR explains it. Do you have that comparison?

Thanks.[/quote]

The AL-31F has other specs now.
They are rated with more thrust than Mr TEG states here.
With that in mind, they probably gobbles more fuel too..

Thanks

That_Engine_Guy · by **That_Engine_Guy** » 30 Jul 2009, 04:30

johnwill wrote:TEG, Could you confirm the data above from your May 12 post concerning SFC. It appears that the AL-31F uses less fuel per pound of thrust than does the -229. At least that's how I read it, as pounds per hour of fuel per pound of static thrust. If that's true, it is surprising.

Maybe BPR explains it. Do you have that comparison? Thanks.

Yes, you're reading it right, if the public numbers are to be believed.

I do imagine the better MIL SFC has to do with the engines' respective BPR, one also has to consider the OPR. The PW-229 has LOTS more compression.

J@ne'$ has the MAX SFC of the PW-229 a little lower than that of the AL-31F, but still so close it would hardly matter. One has to take these figures with a grain of salt. They are taken from 'public' sources, (J@ne'$, OEM sites, Military FACT sheets, etc) and as such may be subject to propoganda, marketing ploys, or intentional mis-information.

J@ne'$ wrote:AL-31F Mass Flow 247lbs/s, BPR 0.571, OPR 23.5 MAX SFC 1.96lb/h/lb st

F100-PW-229 - Mass Flow 254lbs/s, BPR 0.36, OPR 32.4, MAX SFC1.94 lb/h/lb st

They don't cite the MIL SFC for the PW-229 at J@ne'$, other sources do show the AL-31 has a lower MIL SFC than the PW-229; and I'd have to agree.

haavarla wrote:The AL-31F has other specs now.

Yes, you're correct, but weren't we talking about the AL-31F? Specifically.

haavarla wrote:completly de-militariezed, but with complete set of AL-31F engines and batch of spare parts.

haavarla wrote:They are rated with more thrust than Mr TEG states here.
With that in mind, they probably gobbles more fuel too..

True, but they also have different 'Dash' numbers; -31FP, -31FN-M1, and -31F-M3...

J@Ne'$ wrote:MAX thrust: 27,557 lb st
(all production versions prior to AL-31FN-M1)
AL-31FN-M1: 29,760 lb st
AL-31F-M3: 31,970 lb st

Maximum dry:
AL-31F 17,305 lb st
Later versions 17,857 lb st

SFC MAX thrust 1.96 lb/h/lb st
Maximum dry:
AL-31F 0.666 lb/h/lb st
AL-31FP 0.67 lb/h/lb st
AL-31FN 0.705 lb/h/lb st

I was strictly talking the AL-31F model and not the more advanced AL-31's installed in NEWER Flanker types; I didn't feel they were worth mentioning as our discussion pertained to the old Flankers in question.

Guess I should mention the F100-PW-232 that was tested up to 37,000lb st? Or that at 32,500lb st it was to have an SFC of 1.91 lb/h/lb st at MAX but an even lower SFC at MIL due to the high-flow fan derived from the F119's technology and an OPR of 35/1!?! :cool:

But since we were only talking -31F and -229; never mind :poke:

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:

TEG