The world's most power fighter engine just got even more oomph

>>34186891
Also, I just realized that this would make the f-35 supercruise that much further, even though the F-35 was not designed to do so.

>bamp

>>34186891
>>10% increased thrust
>>6% fuel efficiency
To translate marketing mumbo jambo, either of one is possible, not both at once. Also did i miss it or did they actually never say what was changed specificly?

>>34187120
>either of one is possible, not both at once.

Wrong.

>Also did i miss it

Yes.

>>34187141
>Wrong.
Wrong
>Yes.
Sorry, but
>wapped out for a new one with a more efficient compressor and improved turbine
simply doesnt say jack shit.

The best part is existing engines should be able to be retrofit with the new power module.

>>34186891
I have a feeling the Lightning is going to be around for a long ass time at this rate.

>>34187120
>To translate marketing mumbo jambo, either of one is possible, not both at once

Jesus dipshit im not a jetfag but are you implying that we've never improved the thrust AND fuel economy of engines? Are we still running around with engines from the 60s? No we're not dipshit.

>>34187218
For its budget overages it had better damn well be.

>>34187218
A-10s are over 40 years old and still kicking ass. The F-35 is a baby in terms of advanced warplanes, we've got many decades left where it'll be the "standard" warplane like the F-16 was.

>>34187165
>the General Electric J31 is more efficient than the F-135

Nope.

>simply doesnt say jack shit.

Well you are a retard who believes you can't make a jet engine more powerful and efficient so I am not really surprised.

Brainlets, when will they learn.

>>34187266
>Well you are a retard who believes you can't make a jet engine more powerful and efficient so I am not really surprised.
Or you are just a retard who fell for the standard vague marketing talk others had heard too often already.
>Brainlets, when will they learn.
Yes, when will they learn.

>>34187289
>if you make an engine more efficient and more powerful its just marketing

You are now in pure damage control, brainlet. But of course the J-31 is more efficient than the F-135!

>>34187266
1/(96%^2) is about 112% so close to the 110%, my bet is its either 6% reduction or 10% more thrust. Those numbers are simply too good together to be an accident.

File: 05d.jpg (22KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 450x338px

>>34187346
Look at the numbers, they are technically to well fit to the one way or the other case. Also falling for standard vague talk sellers talk and calling other brainlets, why are the stupid ones always screaming the loudest? >>34187358 Already figured it out too.

>>34187386
>Look at the numbers, they are technically to well fit to the one way or the other case.

Wrong, they clearly fit both cases. Unless you think that you can't be more powerful and efficient.

Oh wait, you do!

J-31 confirmed most efficient engine.

>>34187289
>standard vague marketing talk

Neither vague, nor marketing talk to say an engine is X% more fuel efficient than the previous iteration.

Its about as non-vague as possible you stupid fuck

>>34187358
>close

Only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

>>34186891
>This would put the F-135 damn near 50,000 lbf of thrust, which is fucking insane.
Gee, lad. You almost achieved 70s NK-25 and 80s NK-32 thrust. Maybe after a decade or two you will even advance enough to turn F-35 into a full copy of Yak-43 instead of a demo version.

>>34187120
>>34187289
>>34187386
>NOOOOO THE F-35 CANNOT BECOME EVEN BETTER, MY NARRATIVE!

>>34187497
>comparing a bomber engine to a fighter engine

We are entering maximum damage control here.

>>34187497
How many fighters had those huge engines?

>>34187497
Except that its literally twice the weight of a f135

File: super_yak.jpg (196KB, 1000x626px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1000x626px

>>34187530
>It's a bomber engine because I say so
We are indeed seem to be entering maximum damage control here.
>>34187534
Yak-43 was supposed to be powered specifically by NK-32 due to its fantastic thrust that would have allowed to ditch lift engines.

>>34187576
Its a bomber engine because the only two aircraft it has ever powered have been 175ft long bombers.

>b-but muh projects

k

>>34187497

The F-135 has a better thrust/weight ratio without afterburner than the NK-32 has with afterburner. Leave this thread, and take your slavshit with you.

>>34187576
>muh unsourced ms paint drawings

Pure. Damage. Control.

>>34187604
It does not matter the engines weigh a ton!

>>34187556
Except that it's also literally over 34% higher thrust. Like 30 years before F135. That is not even taking into account AL-41.

File: excuse you.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>34187497
Shall we also note that those soviet engines guzzled fuel like you guzzle cum?

File: facepalm.gif (972KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

972KB, 300x300px

>>34187497
>>34187576

File: 1478284827280.jpg (24KB, 321x322px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 321x322px

>>34187638
Do you understand what thrust:weight is?

>>34187638
Except it's a huge, heavy bomber engine that has far less T/W.

>AL-41

Still less thrust than the vanilla F-135, not in service because they can't figure out how to make a fighter engine.

Top fucking kek

>>34187576
>B-BUT, MY PROTOTYPE PLANE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER!

>>34187604
>B-but muh t/w
80s AL-41 shits on F135 t/w, being a superior engine two decades before F135.
>>34187636
>All lies, Yak-43 project never existed! It's not like we basically bought F-35 from Yak
Lockmart shill on suicide watch.

File: laughing americans.jpg (65KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x600px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141#Cooperation_with_Lockheed
>Following the announcement by the CIS on September 1991 that it could no longer fund development of the Yak-41M, Yakovlev entered into discussions with several foreign partners who could help fund the program. Lockheed Corporation, which was in the process of developing the X-35 for the US Joint Strike Fighter program, stepped forward, and with their assistance 48-2 was displayed at the Farnborough Airshow in September 1992. Yakovlev announced that they had reached an agreement with Lockheed for funds of $385 to $400 million for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics. Planned modifications for the proposed Yak-41M included an increase in STOL weight to 21,500 kg (47,400 lb). One of the prototypes would have been a dual-control trainer. Though no longer flyable, both 48-2 and 48-3 were exhibited at the 1993 Moscow airshow. The partnership began in late 1991, though it was not publicly revealed by Yakovlev until 6 September 1992, and was not revealed by Lockheed until June 1994.[9]

The vatniks are just mad that Lockheed took their broken experimental testbed, added stealth and 20 years of technical advancements, and made it a usable fighter plane.

>>34187676
Yeah, you're right; we didn't buy the F-35 from Yak, because we actually made a plane that works.

File: 1435824615774.jpg (2MB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2400px

So the F-135 upgrade results in having 21.5 tons AB thrust instead of 19.545 tons of AB thrust.

Thats pretty neat.

File: 800px-Raptor_test_firing,_2015-09-25.jpg (30KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 800x450px

>>34187676
See this? Raptor rocket engine. 690,000 lbf.
Shits all over the AL-41.

>What do you mean its not suitable for the role the F135 fills, that doesn't matter

File: Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png (3KB, 300x158px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 300x158px

>>34187695
>tfw vatniks suck so much they have to ask the US to finish their project

god bless

>>34187676
>80s AL-41 shits on F135 t/w

Nope. F-135 has more.

File: hue.png (18KB, 1687x754px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1687x754px

>>34187576
Of course its a lot easier drawing a plane than actually building them...

I drew this one, it has 1000000 kN thrust, does mach 10 000 and runs on vatnik tears.

>>34187676
>Muh ms paint drawings!

No, the yak-43 never existed beyond ms paint drawings.

>>34187731
HOW WILL RUSSIA EVER RECOVER.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

>>34187739
did the soviets even have ms paint?

>>34187739
The only thing that came close was the YAK-141, and even for being a real plane it was a shit.

File: 1437943660110.jpg (463KB, 2609x1554px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 2609x1554px

>>34187676

>80s AL-41 shits on F135 t/w, being a superior engine two decades before F135.

The origianl AL-41 has a T/W ratio of 11:1 while the F-135 has a T/W of 11.467:1 and with the upgraded F-135; a T/W of 12.639:1.

>Lockmart shill on suicide watch.

See: >>34187695.

Stop shitting all over the friendship between Yakolev and Lockheed you idiot. Both parties benefitted from working together.

>>34187120
>either of one is possible, not both at once
dude what? You can absolutely do both. We're not at theoretical efficiency limits. Completely made up example: turbulence in the intake causes irregular flame propagation. Better design would fix the turbulence and improve both overall efficiency and max thrust.

>>34187120
stay angry, wang lee

>>34187796
Shhh, your facts have no bearing on his agenda.

>>34187141
>>34187232
>>34187266
cut him some slack, guys, engrish isn't his first ranguage

>>34187695
Setting aside the F-35's design existed before LM bought Yak's test data.

>>34187821
Neither is critical thinking, it seems. But yeah, lets not hold it against him

>>34186891
Will it receive supercruise capabilities like every decent 5th gen aircraft?

This tread is going about as well as can be expected. Never change, /k/

>>34187649
Guzzling cum sounds like a very amerishit thing to do.
>>34187658
30 years before F135 Soviet engines had more thrust. 20 years before F135 Soviet engines had better t/w. Nowadays lockmart shills are still on suicide watch.
>>34187661
The quote was about thrust.
>Still less thrust than the vanilla F-135
Still better t/w than the best americans could come up with 20 years later.
>Anyone else but americans can't figure out how to make a fighter engine
Top fucking kek indeed.
>>34187663
>B-b-but it DOESNT COUNT! LIES!
>>34187695
>25 years later fatniks are still upset they had to buy Russian
Never gets old.
>>34187698
>F-35
>Works
Keks were had.
>>34187708
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oeReCTu4jI
See this? RD-170 rocket engine. 1,631,000 lbf. Shits all over anything your country has ever created over the course of its existence.
>>34187729
No, it does not.
>>34187731
Except the engine for Yak-43 actually existed.
>>34187739
>Lies! LIES!
Yak-43 project existed long before F-35, and the engine for this project existed 30 years before F135.
>>34187775
AL-41: 40,000 lbf / 3,131 pound = 12.676.
F135: 43,000 lbf / 3,750 lb = 11.466
>and with the upgraded F-135; a T/W of 12.639:1
Oh my, almost a match for the late 80s AL-41! Almost.
>Stop shitting all over the friendship between Yakolev and Lockheed
Stealing projects has nothing to do with friendship. F-35 is a literal reworked Yak-43 project from the 80s.

File: 1490103358583.png (311KB, 409x500px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 409x500px

>>34187576
and how many deadly yaks with heir magical engines are the soviets producing these days?

>>34187872
This is either overdone bait or a teenage vatnik that got super triggered.

>>34187864
So like the F-22.

File: 12341329173_c8edb060a0_b.jpg (253KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1024x576px

>>34187747
From laughing our asses off at your futile attempts to compete? Who knows.

>>34187676
>lockmart shills on suicide watch

meanwhile at Yakolev they can't afford to update the furniture in their lobby or refill their Hewlett Packard printer cartridges

>>34187872
>Confusing the al-41f and the al-41

Kekekekekekek

>>34187893
I've seen a lot of butthurt, and thats definitely butthurt

>>34187908
Orian shits all over that engine.

>>34187943
>Confusing AL-41F and AL-41F1S/AL-41F1
Bitch, please.

>>34187908
The Russians had a NERVA equivalent? Sweet!
I assume it was open-cycle?

File: NERVA.jpg (18KB, 220x328px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x328px

>>34187908
NERVA did it first and produced 333Kn.

>>34187872
How about engine reliability, fuel efficiency? I thought western designs had higher reliability and fuel efficiency.

File: ss (2016-02-20 at 01.09.19).jpg (379KB, 1375x991px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1375x991px

>>34187988
>engine reliability
Soviets\Russians and US has absolutely different system of counting engine work hours.

>>34188001
Your right, one is shit the other is the best in the world.

>>34187961
>trapcard

You are implying the al-41f is the same engine as the fs/f1

>>34187872
>muh bomber engines

Kek, you vatniks never change.

>>34187872

Which AL-41 do you mean? The actual 80s one which never made it past the prototype stage, the AL-41F1 which is in fact just an upgraded AL-31 for the Su-35S & PAK FA program? Or you don't know because you are obviously just copy pasting an unsourced claim from Wikipedia because you are assblasted over everyone pointing out how mediocre Russian jet engines are?

>>34188001
>4,000 hours

Meanwhile, the f-35 goes over 12,000.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/107084/pratt%E2%80%99s-f135-engine-passes-12,000-test-hours.html

>>34187358
>112% is close to %110
HOLY SHIT! START THE PRESSES! CONSPIRACY THEORY!

Inb4 autistically long damage control post

>>34187893
His posting style and general autistic screeching tells me armatard has decided to grace us with his presence again.

>>34187455
>>34187472
>>34187474
>>34187502
>17% more efficiency with an no cost iteration, its good must be true then
>strawmaning
Sorry, but 17% more performance sounds like uttery horseshit, specially with no additional costs. What were they doing with the old one, that such an large plus is possible. If it sounds too good to be true, it simply aint.

>>34187970
I'm pretty sure it was.
>>34187980
Yeah, and it also was a 10,5x43,7 meters 178 tonne barn, while RD-0410 was just 1,6x3,5 meters and had better impulse.
>>34188017
No, I do not. Saying AL-41 is the same as saying AL-41F. You you want to talk about its modern derivatives you've got to specify you are talking about AL-41F1S/AL-41F1 and not AL-41 itself.
>>34188029
The actual AL-41, dumbass.
>>34188137
And costs way over thrice the price of the Russian engine to maintain it to that point.

File: 1479169738640.png (154KB, 299x299px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 299x299px

>>34188276
But the US has more than thrice the money of Russia.

>>34188276
>Saying AL-41 is the same as saying AL-41F.

Excellent. The AL-41F did not rate 40,000 flb. Your move.

>>34188266
>Sorry, but 17% more performance sounds like uttery horseshit,

Well, being that you are a brainlet this checks out.

I guess the F100-PW-229 is horseshit too. Because it did far more

>>34188137
12 000 of what? Life-hours before failure? Russians do not use that measure at all, that's what I'm trying to tell you, dumbfuck.

>>34188266
>OP brings sauce
>you go "that doesn't sound right"
>surprised when people side with the sauce over nosauce

>>34188292
Yes it did.

>>34188307
If you think that 17% performance with no additional costs sounds perfeclty fine to you, can i interest you in some of my magic beans? Best investment you ever going to make. Joking aside, what was all wrong with the engine before, that they were able to raise the performance so drasticly?

>>34188331
Nope.

>The MiG 1.42/1.44 was powered by a pair of thrust-vectoring Lyulka-Saturn AL-41F series afterburning turbofan engines delivering 39,680lbs of thrust each.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=724

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/mig142.htm

https://hushkit.net/2012/12/02/the-mikoyan-mig-37-a-brief-history-of-russian-stealth-fact-and-fiction/

http://su-27flanker.com/2015/08/08/the-mikoyan-project-mig-1-44-1-42-flatpack-details/

File: f-35, lockheed martin, lockheeb jews.png (39KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 300x100px

More promises from Lockheeb.

>>34188346
>historical example provided of more performance gain
>NAH I DON'T BELIVE IT

Lel, you can believe whatever you want brainlet.

>>34188357
I've been seeing this a lot lately.

The site will post the first sentence of your post, but for whatever reason, it'll chop off the argument

File: al-41f (1).jpg (546KB, 1305x695px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 1305x695px

>>34188356
What time is it? It is time for an amerishit to chew some shit.
Oгpoмный oбъeм paбoт пpoвeли cпeциaлиcты HПO «Caтypн» пoд pyкoвoдcтвoм Гeнepaльнoгo кoнcтpyктopa Bиктopa Чeпкинa, кoтopыe cyмeли в тeчeниe 1982- 1992 гг. paзpaбoтaть пpинципиaльнo нoвый выcoкoтeмпepaтypный двигaтeль пятoгo пoкoлeния AЛ -41Ф c бoльшoй тягoй нa бecфopcaжнoм и фopcaжнoм peжимaх paбoты (клacc тяги - 18 OOO кгc), ocнaщeнный нe имeвшeй aнaлoгoв элeктpoннoй cиcтeмoй yпpaвлeния c пoлнoй oтвeтcтвeннocтью (FADEC)
http://www.nnre.ru/transport_i_aviacija/vzlet_2010_03/p4.php

>>34188328
It sounds exactly like the standard marketing crap, that is thrown out so often and easily and when you actually ask back the person who said it, you will get the standard
>thats not what i ment, you must have misunderstood me
>distracting mumbo jumbo
crap back. On a trade fair you would make a fool out of yourself with that and you'll make orders that would get you fired. The seller will be pretty happy for a fool like you though.

>>34188381
no habla en ingles?
jajajajajajajaj

File: 1433270758052.jpg (974KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 2000x2000px

>>34187872

>mfw reading this triggered vatniks posts

>>34188367
>>34188307
>F100-PW-229
+20% weight
+Needs to have reconstructed air inlets on the plane

So this is the same? How about no.

>>34188266
It has happened in numerous industries and continues to do so you fucktard.

>>34188381
>muh random no name source

I have 4 all stating the same thing.

>>34188419
>+20% weight

Hahahahahahahahahahah

>>34188381
Chew some shit?

> The basic data of the experimental-airplane "1.44" (estimated)

>(estimated)

Get to chewing, vatty. The real world thrust is known.

>>34188425
Yes it has happened and it didnt happened a million times more. Seriously, if you look at a news of an engine performing 17% better with no additional costs without one eyebrow rising, you can consider yourself the free fuck of the selling deparment.

>>34188419
>ignoring the massive thrust increase
>its actually around 16%
>better t/w

>>34188460
>DUDE IT'S A CONSPIRACY

Fuck off. P/W has delivered more.

>>34188490
GE has delivered more too, with the 404 to the 414.

>>34188479
I am not ignoring it, but its quite the change in the turbine if you need so much more weight and there is no talk about this in the article.
>>34188490
>strawmaning so hard
>It sounds good! It must be true! S-top saying it aint true! I want to believe

>P/W has delivered more.
And if the article would say that the new engines would need a bit larger air inlet, it would weight noticeable more or it would affect another thing negatively i would believe it, but this...this is just sweet talking.

>>34188429
>Muh 4 random no name sources
>>34188451
In the real world the thrust is known to be 18000 kgf. Yes, chew some shit, amerishit.

>>34188531
No, it's 177 kgf. The T-50 is 180 kgf.

You are STILL confusing engines.

>Two Lyul'ka Saturn AL-41F afterburning turbofans produced 177 kN (39,020 lbf) of thrust,

The source for the wiki is for the T-50.

>>34188555
>Confusing kgf for kN
Amerishit "education".

>>34186891

How will PLAshills recover?

>>34188571
>confusing entirely two different engines

Vatniks education.

>>34188522
>something states x
>NO I DON'T BELIEVE IT, IT'S Y!

No, it's actually x. I'm sorry you don't think p/w can deliver when it has many times in the past.

So has ge. Hell, so has Honeywell.

>>34188594
>Eating the same shit twice
Amerishitposting.
Oгpoмный oбъeм paбoт пpoвeли cпeциaлиcты HПO «Caтypн» пoд pyкoвoдcтвoм Гeнepaльнoгo кoнcтpyктopa Bиктopa Чeпкинa, кoтopыe cyмeли в тeчeниe 1982- 1992 гг. paзpaбoтaть пpинципиaльнo нoвый выcoкoтeмпepaтypный двигaтeль пятoгo пoкoлeния AЛ -41Ф c бoльшoй тягoй нa бecфopcaжнoм и фopcaжнoм peжимaх paбoты (клacc тяги - 18 OOO кгc), ocнaщeнный нe имeвшeй aнaлoгoв элeктpoннoй cиcтeмoй yпpaвлeния c пoлнoй oтвeтcтвeннocтью (FADEC)
http://www.nnre.ru/transport_i_aviacija/vzlet_2010_03/p4.php

>>34188627
That is an estimation.

We have been over this, kid.

>>34188646
That's directly saying it has 18000 kgf of thrust. You've already eaten this shit, amerishit.

>>34188626
Want to buy New York from me? Just a few hundred pearls! It has been done before!

>>34188627
>>34188571
>Amerishit
Shut it, Armatard. You are not making anything beside showing everyone what an unlikeable idiot you are. Just get psychiatric help already.

File: tmp_17861-Screenshot_20170607-144239141449229.png (498KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 2560x1440px

>>34188657
It directly states its an estimation.

>>34188381
Please don't post quotes written in subhuman, no one except the shittiest of slavs speak subhuman.

>>34188662
It has happened recently.

Nobody says you have to believe it anon, you are entitled to be wrong

>>34188662
>Triggered amerishit whining
Amerishit, please. I'm here to feed amerishits with shit like their disgusting scum kind rightfully deserves, not to be likeable. Not my problem you dumb ineducable degenerates are mixing up kgf and kN. Al-41F has 18000 kgf of thrust. Deal with it, amerishit.

File: 1479698562693.jpg (201KB, 1065x635px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1065x635px

>>34188646
>>34188594
You are talking to the Armatard, in case you dont know him: go on desuarchive, search for Armatard and look out for the larger posts, you will find a pretty good descriptions of him. Discussions going in circles because he ignores stuff and him nitpicking on other peoples minor errors (or just stuff he intentionally misunderstands) are his especiality. Based on the current state of his posts, he will soon declare victory and repeat the same stuff over and over again.

>>34188672
And then it directly specifies 18000 kgf.
>>34188682
Why would I want to translate the beautiful Russian language into the subhuman gibberish bastardisation of English for ineducable amerishits that amerishits call language?

>>34188692
It does not, that is an estimation as proven here >>34188672

>>34186891
I dont give a damn if its the best fighter in the world, NOTHING SHOULD COST 1 TRILLION DOLLARS

>>34188708
Then tell your mom to stop going through the drive-through.

>>34188700
>Ignores the fact that AL-41F has 18000 kgf of thrust
>Mixes up kgf and kN
>Whines like an amerishit bitch that he really is
Oh look, it's that fatnik again.

>>34188708
You're right
That's why an F-35A now costs 91 million.
>costs for the entire existence of the airframe over 40 years are somehow relevant to anything
>implying the F-14 didn't cost nearly that much over its entire lifespan

>>34188707
It does, since it is specified to be 18000 kgf here:
Oгpoмный oбъeм paбoт пpoвeли cпeциaлиcты HПO «Caтypн» пoд pyкoвoдcтвoм Гeнepaльнoгo кoнcтpyктopa Bиктopa Чeпкинa, кoтopыe cyмeли в тeчeниe 1982- 1992 гг. paзpaбoтaть пpинципиaльнo нoвый выcoкoтeмпepaтypный двигaтeль пятoгo пoкoлeния AЛ -41Ф c бoльшoй тягoй нa бecфopcaжнoм и фopcaжнoм peжимaх paбoты (клacc тяги - 18 OOO кгc), ocнaщeнный нe имeвшeй aнaлoгoв элeктpoннoй cиcтeмoй yпpaвлeния c пoлнoй oтвeтcтвeннocтью (FADEC)
http://www.nnre.ru/transport_i_aviacija/vzlet_2010_03/p4.php
Deal with it, amerishit.

>>34188737
You ready to be blown the fuck out?

>>34188737
You know what the fun part is?
Even if it made -double- that amount of thrust, the T-50 will eat six of those engines before an F-35 eats even one.
>Russian """engineering"""

File: AchievmentArmatard.png (19KB, 771x120px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 771x120px

>>34188722
>Oh look, it's that fatnik again.
Thanks for calling me that, it is like getting a game achievment, after seeing you call so many others that.

Why are retards saying that the engine is 16% more efficient.

The engine burns 6% less fuel than the vanilla F-135 to produce the same thrust (although we don't know what throttle settings, presumably cruise since that's where fuel efficiency matters), that's what fuel efficiency metrics mean you fucking mongos; if it was 16% more fuel efficient they would have said so.

10% more thrust is referring to maximum thrust output (definitely mil thrust, possibly wet as well? that's where the real marketing BS here is desu).

>>34188756
You know what the fun part is? It will cost way over thrice the price of the Russian engine to maintain it to that point.
>>34188790
>He is so mad he keeps writing copy-pastes and make pictures about me
The eternal rectum annihulation of the amerishit fatnik mind.

>>34186975
>Also, I just realized that this would make the f-35 supercruise that much further,
It is F-135 not designed for supercruse not F-35. This engine has to high bypass ratio for supercruise

>>34188737
>>34188627

1 kgf = 9.807 newton's.

18000 kgf = 176,519.7 newtons

176.519 kN = 39,683.05 lbf.

AL-41F did not touch 40,000 lbf.

Your shit plate is ready.

>>34187749
yak-43 was drawn after USSR.

>>34188821
>6% more fuel efficient
>10% more max thrust

Who claimed otherwise?

>>34188849
AL-41F has 18000 kgf of thrust. The shit plate is yours.

>>34188381
>39,680lbs
>(клacc тяги - 18 OOO кгc)
18000 кгc is 39650lbs. What are you tried to do again?

>>34188867

18000 kgf is not 40,000 lbf.

Your statement here >>34188331 is wrong, and your statement here >>34188381

Proves me correct.

Get to eating.

>>34188827
>engine lasts longer meaning it will require more day to day maintenance
>maintenance cost per engine is therefore higher

Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Now that armatard has been proven mathematically wrong, expect nothing but shitposting.

File: 1491122116979.jpg (127KB, 724x678px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 724x678px

>>34186891
>>Hey look, they made this real life plane better.

NO LOOK AT MY DRAWING FROM BEFORE OUR ECONOMY GOT RAPED SHITS ALL OVER YOUR PLANE AHAHA MERISHIT.

Jesus christ life over there must be bleak.

>>34188889
I tried to explain you why eating the same shit again and again is pointless, since you have already eaten it, but you just keep spewing it out and eating it again.
>>34188897
>and your statement here >>34188381 (You)Proves me correct.
It's not my statement, it's the fact and it proves Al-41F has 12.676 t/w ratio. Your shit is waiting you.
>>34188914
Now that you have been proven to be _that_ fatnik, I expect nothing but amerishitposting from you.

>>34188978
>It's not my statement
>(You)

Uhhh... You just proved its your statement.

>>34188984
It's a post containing a quote, dumbass. I quote is not a statement, it's a quote.

>>34188978
>and it proves Al-41F has 12.676 t/w ratio.

That t/w ratio depends on a 40,000 flb thrust. It does not rate 40,000, this it's not 12

>>34188993
>a quote cannot be/is not a statement

Uhhh.... Yeah, it can.

>>34188999
No, it does not.

>>34188827
>>He is so mad he keeps writing copy-pastes and make pictures about me
>The eternal rectum annihulation of the amerishit fatnik mind.
>It is real in my head like so many other things

>>34189009
I can quote a statement, dumbass. It does not become my statement. It's a statement of the person I quoted.

>>34189023
>Fatnik denial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Deg7VrpHbM

>>34189012
The t/w (or even the weight), of the engine is not mentioned in that article, it only states the thrust rating, which though conversion is not 40,000 lbf.

How did you prove the t/w?

Being Russian must be depressing as fuck. I assume that America will end up collapsing too, but when we do I hope we have the good grace to not screech and fling shit at our betters.

>>34189026
You are still making a statement by quoting somebody.

>>34189033
This is one of your famous self reflections that rather fit onto yourself, then the person you are addressing?

>armatard is blown the fuck out, yet again.

Does it ever get boring getting wrekt every single time you post?

Holy shit, this thread is pure cancer

>>34189248
>OP makes a neat thread about engine upgrades.

>>NO ITS LIES
>>CONCEPT PLANES WERE BETTER
>>THIS BOMBER ENGINE IS BETTER
>>Armatard makes an apperence
>>gets destroyed via his own sources

This thread is comedy gold anon.

>>34186975
Actually the source does not state no weight increase, so this has yet to be seen.

Otherwise, seems like a no brainer

File: cf-105.jpg (22KB, 749x457px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 749x457px

>>34186891
>damn near 50,000 lbf of thrust

In one airplane? Wow. That's almost as much as the CF-105.

>>34189137
I'm pretty sure armatard is legit autistic. He's the barneyfag of /k/.

>>34189427
>twin engine to single engine

Wut.

The 105 also did 47k total. There are plenty of dual engine planes that beat this.

>>34189437
Bet he is a basketson as well, no chance he would survive every day life with his attitude and behaviour.

>>34189473
>basketson

What memery is this?

>>34189501
>What memery is this?
Russian one, son that lives at his (single) (grand)moms place and gets pampered, because he cant achieve anything in life and or fears the outside world. This lifestyle is not suprisingly considered to be pretty pathetic in Russia. To paint a picture: it is a tiny adult wearing a diaper living in the protective basket of a Babushka.

>>34189595
I like it.

>>34188845
>implying the F-135 is a plane
Look, I know translation issues from planefag to normie are a big issue, but it's common knowledge that there is no F-135 plane. The F-135 is the engine in the F-35.

>>34186891
>The reason p&w is offering this is to compete with any GE ADVENT/ f-136 offering. It would give the same thrust as above, just less fuel efficiency
B U L L S H I T
There's no fucking way archaic Prattshit can match the economy of a variable-cycle engine. CERTAINLY not at anything less than mil power.

>>34189746
Uhhh.... Reread?

>>34189595
So basically Russian tendie greentext

>>34189871
Basketsons are not so aggressive, they would rather cry for hours than throw a fit.

>>34186891
>no cost

How are they dealing with the production lines? Surely changing the engine already in the plane has to cost something. Besides there are also costs associated with retooling the production lines. For instance, Japan has just built their first one, how will they adjust? Stalling production until the new engine is set or refitting latter?

it also makes VTOL ops more feasible

it's nice knowing that we'll get a VTOL fighter jet either with the F-35 or with whatever replaces it

>>34190301

>every naval cruiser becomes a mini aircraft carrier

yes please

>>34190342
Now you too can have an aircraft carrier with fifth generation stealth fighters for the cost of a few F-35s and some old garbage barges!

>>34189402

even if there is a weight increase, it'd have to be decent to make this not worth it

>>34190263
Apperently it's the same exact components, just tweaked.

>>34190872
Kek
Now even the swiss can get a carrier.

>>34186891
So your saying it has more thrust per squeeze?

>>34189427
>leafs still butthurt they couldn't make an interceptor without the Russians infiltrating their program.

>>34191498
Nah I'm saying it's a more skookem choocher.

File: bilde4[1].jpg (2MB, 2120x1413px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2120x1413px

>>34186891
>The reason p&w is offering this is to compete with any GE ADVENT/ f-136 offering
Not quite; the F136 is just plain dead; this is P&W trying to demonstrate that their AETP technology is ahead or at least competitive with GE's AETP tech. If the F-35 gets a GE engine it'll be the A100 (the new adaptive cycle engines get an A prefix designation instead of F). The P&W competitor is the A101.

>>34188845
You want a lower bypass ratio for supercruise; if you keep increasing the bypass ratio you get an airliner engine.

>>34190263
It's a drop-in module for the existing jet and the engines are delivered whole to the production lines - maybe you'll need to use some different sized fuel lines when connecting it to the jet, but otherwise it's not going to be any larger or differently shaped, etc.

>>34190301
VTOL will never really be an operational thing - you'll always be able to carry more weapons and fuel with an STO. If your engine is ridiculously powerful, then you should be downscaling it to add more fuel, etc.

God damn there's a lot of buttblasted Americans and Russians ITT

>>34192199

>VTOL will never really be an operational thing - you'll always be able to carry more weapons and fuel with an STO. If your engine is ridiculously powerful, then you should be downscaling it to add more fuel, etc.

or just make a bigger plane, and make all carrier-based aircraft be small or large sized airliners

>>34186891
If P&W is pushing this unsolicited, then the data coming off the ADVENTs currently flying on the B-21 prototype must be REALLY promising to have them that scared.

>>34192199
How do you stay so up to date on these topics? I hadn't even realized that the arresting parachute had been built yet, much less actually tested.

>>34192439
P&W was already awarded the B-21 engine contract and the AETP (ADVENT was a precursor to AETD which was a precursor to AETP) program won't see an engine ready for use until the mid-2020s.

It's likely they also don't have a flying prototype yet; it'd take about 2 (maybe 3) years from receiving the contract to build the first jet - NG did win in Oct 2015, but I think funding was frozen until the Boeing / LM decision contest was resolved in Oct last year. That said, IOC is planned to be in 8 years, so they do have a tight schedule.

>>34192943
There have been rumblings that a pre-EMD bird is flying out of Palmdale with operational ADVENTs, and I trust the places the rumblings have come from.

I'm unsure whether it's a new airframe or the demonstrator from the fly-off with Lockheed/Boeing in 2014-15.

You're right about the tight schedule, though. I've heard they're very close to building the EMD bird, and once it flies things will move rapidly towards LRIP airframes because they've ironed out so many of the kinks on the bird that's already testing.

>>34187872
This is possibly the maddest slavpost ever on /k/, and that is a pretty damn high bar you cleared.

Kudos to you slavson.

F-35 Performing this Month at the Paris Airshow incase anyone didn't hear.

File: lollin.jpg (30KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x450px

>>34187872
>See this? RD-170 rocket engine. 1,631,000 lbf. Shits all over anything your country has ever created over the course of its existence.

>t/w ratio of 75

File: fucked lemon.jpg (222KB, 652x886px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 652x886px

I still think it's a lemon.

>>34192199
jeez. Oppenheimer yesterday, and Dragon today. Cant wait to see what the rest of the week will bring

>>34194373
OLD
L
D

>>34187676
>superior thrust = superior engine
I know you're being retarded on purpose, but why don't we just put F-1 rocket engines on everything?

>>34194780
I have no objections to this idea.

This would then translate to 20,000 lbs more thrust to any f22 should the U.S. ever reopen their assembly line for new production.

Thats like an entire extra engine.

>>34194965
Hnnnnng

>>34194780
Fund it.

File: engines.png (118KB, 623x469px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 623x469px

>>34188001

>>34188321
>up to 4000h ultimate life
Sounds like it is kaputt after that.

>>34188276
>And costs way over thrice the price of the Russian engine to maintain it to that point.

So basically, accounting for the difference in wealth and budget, the US engines are much cheaper to maintain (twice as cheap if not more).
>Russian shitposting roulette : 1/6 chances of shooting yourself in the foot

File: vatniktears.jpg (138KB, 1027x587px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1027x587px

>>34187893
>>34187947
>>34187988
>>34188028
>>34188199
>>34188232
>>34188262
CRAWWWWWWWLING IN MY SKIIIIIIIIIIN

>>34195765
Can someone explain the Linkin Park reference for me?

>All these Burgars and Russians arguing
>tfw just sitting here with already in service Rafale having gotten better plane anyway

Feels good having a combat plane using new active stealth rather than old body only stealth.

>>34198551
Une baguette et une tranche de camembert on été déposées sur ton compte.

>>34198551
>rafalefag
>muh Spectra is better than stealth
>5th gen is a meme!
>CdG is great Carrier

meanwhile irl 4.5gen aircraft are getting consistently BTFOd in exercises

>>34198551
Oui oui hon hon

>>34198651
Not him, but remember that last time when an F-22 kill-locked on a Rafale in an exercice?

Oh wait, it was the other way round

>>34199931

you mean when the f22 with an apparatus that intentionally inflated its RCS and was unrealistically positioned in knifefight range?

>>34198551

>Twice the cost for a fucking 4.5 gen

>>34198551
>Gripen can do almost anything the Rafale does and is much cheaper
>F-35 will do everything the Rafale can do better and cheaper when fully operational(i.e as soon as it gets Meteor).

>>34199371
When I went to France I was very much disappointed that I never heard anyone say hon hon.

>>34189720
He wasn't implying it was a plane you fucking autist.

>>34198551
Oh hey there, Rafalefag
Just back from losing another tender?

This still wont make it faster than an F-16.

>>34204358
In combat configuration?

Already very similar.

>>34204416
In transonic acceleration, actually.

File: F-16-transonic-accel-vs-F-35A-KPP[1].jpg (66KB, 1110x320px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1110x320px

>>34204416
Not even that; with the same payload that an F-35 carries internally to Mach 1.6, an F-16 won't reach Mach 1.4.

>>34204427
For transonic acceleration it's the same again: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic_22.html

>>34187218
It better still be around by 2080 with the fucking price tag.

>>34187872
Saltier than Mortons.

>>34204358
Nice bait

>>34187872
You actually spent time on this

>>34205042
Easy, he has nothing else and craves the attentions of (you)s, begging for them makes him that kind of stuff from time to time.

>>34187872
The problems is that gopniks are thick skulled meta-men.
Leave tinkering with science to us Europeans and focus on doing what you do best: dying in millions during wars

>>34187872
>RD-170

That's a pretty cool engine, how many men has it taken to the moon?