Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Both planes were designed for covering the vast airspace around the Soviet Union, so I wonder which one does a better job of it. Here's a few advantages of each aircraft I can think of.

MiG-31:
More fuel
Faster Top Speed
More powerfull radar
longer range missiles

Su-27:
More efficient engines(from what I can find they are the most efficent fighter engines ever)
more missiles
more maneuverable

What are your thoughts on the subject?

F-16.net Sponsor

I'd go with the Mig-31. Better weapons, sensors, and can react faster because of it's greater speed.

I'd take the 31 as an interceptor as this is what it was made to do. That said, I wouldn't mind any MiG for personal use, especially the 25 and the 29 Twisted Evil

MiG-31 was more of a purpose built interceptor with a huge range, huge radar, huge missiles... you get the idea. While they have similar ranges, I assume the MiG-31 has far better supersonic endurance. The MiG also has the R-33, from what I can tell, while the Su-27 doesn't. The MiG-31 is more akin to an F-14 for Siberia, an almost pure interceptor, while the Su-27 is more like an F-15 with better all-around performance.

Last edited by F16guy on Jan 05, 2009 - 01:56 AM; edited 1 time in total

As a fighter pilot....I'd take the Su-27. Its a way better airplane and carries better missiles.

Addition:
R-33.....hahhahhhaaa....It wouldn't even be close to the Phoenix.... which also sucked unless you were a bomber.

yeah, that M2.5 OPPERATIONAL speed is tough to match.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

Su-27:
More efficient engines(from what I can find they are the most efficient fighter engines ever)

What are your thoughts on the subject?

The AL-31s? What are you basing this on? (just curious)

From a maintenance standpoint the AL-31's Mean Time Between Overhaul (MTBO) is only 500-1000 hours. The engine's "life-span" or "throw away life" is only 1500-4000 hours. (Both depending on variant.) This hardly compares to US fighter engines. Most Russian designs don't have the maintenance lives of US/Western engines. The Chinese have been after US/Western metal/material technology for years; so they must not be getting it from the Russians and the AL-31!

Compared to Viper engines, F100/F110, the AL-31 has only 25%-30% the MTBO/Life. Viper engines can operate YEARS between overhauls/major maintenance if properly maintained. Even back in the 1970s, with the F100-PW-100, the turbines would last 1250 hours, today the PW-229 or GE-110 lives are "cycle" based, but it equates to at least twice that of the AL-31. Future improvements for both Viper motors are seeking to gain another 40-50% increase in TBO to further reduce operational cost.

Now I know someone is going to cite "on wing" times for the Viper/Flanker; both of which are highly subjective to maintenance/use practices. Viper "on wing" times vary from unit to unit based on experience, quality, and operational use. (Which is outside of my point here on the AL-31's efficiency...)

Seems hard to believe the Russian's claims that the AL-31 has a 0.666-0.705 'dry' SFC, only 23/1 OPR, and a mass flow of only 243lbs/sec? Shrug

I'd put my money on the F135 being the "most efficient fighter engine in the world" or even the F119. Wink

...but that information will remain closely guarded for years to come!

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

The Flanker would certainly be more practical in this type of scenario. The Foxhound was purpose-built as an interceptor. Get into a turning fight against an Eagle or Hornet, and it won't perform well.

However, the Flanker also has a powerful radar, and can carry medium and short range missiles. Plus, it has a cannon. In a turning fight, it can perform much better than the Foxhound. Plus, like the Eagle, it can disengage vertically, and can quickly reenter the fight, or bug out.

TEG, the TSFC is what I was getting at. All data I have found for it points at less than .7, which I agree is hard to swallow, but I dont know enough about engines to come up with a reason to say "BS". I certainly WASNT talking about the maintenance issue as even I do know that Russian engines are designed to be tossed, but I was comparing two Russian aircraft though.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

TEG, the TSFC is what I was getting at. All data I have found for it points at less than .7, which I agree is hard to swallow, but I dont know enough about engines to come up with a reason to say "BS". I certainly WASNT talking about the maintenance issue as even I do know that Russian engines are designed to be tossed, but I was comparing two Russian aircraft though.

No offense intended or taken; I just wondered about the "most efficient fighter engine" thing...

The AL-31's intake is only 35.6 inches, which is smaller than Viper motors; I find it highly curious that it has the performance cited... Rolling Eyes

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Again, engines are not my thing so I have to ask, is it even feasable for an engine with an intake 35.6 inches across, OPR of 23 and MFR of 243 to even make 27,000lbs thrust? Is it possible that they sacrifice longevity for sheer operational performance?

Forum: Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Flanker and Foxhound