Su-35 Range Estimate

[PeregrineFalcon]

what is that source? mkm should be similar weight to su-30sm, and that has operational empty weight of 19.7 tons and not 18.4

https://www.researchgate.net/public...oyal_Malaysian_Air_Force_RMAF_Sukhoi_Su-30MKM
MKM/MKI/SM are basically the same, with some minor changes regarding the weight, and even if the SM is 19,7 tones empty, taking into account everything I have said in my previous post, SU-35S should be less than 19 tons empty.
But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and the Russians have used some very heavy strengthening for some unknown reason?
But that still doesn't explain the significant performance difference between the Su-35S and the "much lighter" Su-27.

 

[Squirrel]

So the total empty weight of the MKM is 17886 kg, but if we include all the fluids, gun ammo, the pilot etc. we can assume that the operational empty weight is 18,4 tones.

To note friend, Russians measured empty weight of one fighter on the tarmac as unloaded with weapons and fuel , with fluids in the engine ( engine oil) ,w/o pilot of course and with full ammo box of the fighter's gun.

Su-35S ? No more than 17 t . Same story about Su-57 ( with about 70% of the skin made by very light composites and with 25% less structural details in comparison with the old Su-27S) ).No more than 16 t in fact,my opinion,suppose.

 

[paralay]

By the way, regarding composites, as far as I know, in the early MiG-29 engine hoods were composite, but later they were replaced with duralumin and these hoods were lying in a landfill.

 

[Ainen]

By the way, regarding composites, as far as I know, in the early MiG-29 engine hoods were composite, but later they were replaced with duralumin and these hoods were lying in a landfill.

One of the reasons 9-12 range problems(which program struggled to bite back right till mig-29m2) was the massive failure of composite development program. They didn't give up, and slowly added it back from 9-15 onwards.
Mikoyan was determined, and eventually got it right eventually (not the least with indian money, apparently), even earlier than Sukhoi.

Which is interesting, as both OKBs worked a lot on 1.44 and S-37 respectively. But Sukhoi never used it for their flankers, only Shenyang did. And overall, Mig got outright incredible amounts of flak over last two decades when compared to Sukhoi - but if you sit down and carefully compare point by point - ironically, it was exactly mig, who step by step produced a complete domestic russian MRF, despite the lack of gov support.

Not the world beater by any standards, but a complete package. Sukhoi - didn't. Still fighter interceptors, which also happen to launch PGMs and unguided bombs if needed.

 

[AGS-1787]

So the su-35 has two extra hard points on the wings, two front tires instead of one; the front landing gear might be heavier too, strengthening of the structure, removal of the airbrake and its actuator, more electronic equipment… it is really hard to get a figure; one thing for sure is that the su-35 seems to climb better than the older flankers; could it be the engine is producing more power down low than the su-27 engines??

 

[paralay]

One of the reasons 9-12 range problems(which program struggled to bite back right till mig-29m2) was the massive failure of composite development program.

The MiG-29 was created as ordered by the Ministry of Defense. After the "foreign market" dictated new conditions, RAC MiG removed the upper air intakes and filled fuel in their place.

 

[wile coyote]

The MiG-29 was created as ordered by the Ministry of Defense. After the "foreign market" dictated new conditions, RAC MiG removed the upper air intakes and filled fuel in their place.

Any idea about the ferry range and endurance before and after removal?

 

[Squirrel]

So the su-35 has two extra hard points on the wings, two front tires instead of one; the front landing gear might be heavier too, strengthening of the structure, removal of the airbrake and its actuator, more electronic equipment… it is really hard to get a figure; one thing for sure is that the su-35 seems to climb better than the older flankers; could it be the engine is producing more power down low than the su-27 engines??

14500kgf/AL-41F-1S vs 12500kgf/ AL-31F ( as max static thrust on the Full AB mode).

 

[Ainen]

The MiG-29 was created as ordered by the Ministry of Defense. After the "foreign market" dictated new conditions, RAC MiG removed the upper air intakes and filled fuel in their place.

9-15 already removed them?
Original goal was to get both range and superior austere field/STOL capability i assume.

 

[Squirrel]

Some notes for the Su-35S range estimate :

100% fuel before pre-flight check on tarmac.
Empty weight+full fuel load +pilot.
Fuel consumption during pre-flight check and taxiing.
Take off /climb on the MP mode.
Economic height for the long range cruise is 13km ,long term cruise speed is Mach 0.85 ( as for the Su-27S).
Fuel consumption during long term cruise ,maybe 0.7-0.8 kg/kgf/h ?
Navigation reserve, 7% I think.