Fledgingwings
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 3,086
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
General Statistics or Basic Info about the jet plz!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am not an expert in aerodynamics or "any" generation fighter jets. My problem isn't that IRI is trying, but the fact that IRI mouth piece, IRIBC, is outright lying about what this plane is. If you saw the video, the "expert" (I am sure a paid retard expert) claims everything about this plane is domestic. That's just a lie, thus leading me to conclude this is just another propaganda stunt by a "alternate reality" regime. This is meant to fool Iranians that their elite are responsible and steadfast, a far cry from reality. Sad really.
I have little interest in the debate going on, on this thread, but I felt compelled to correct your post as it is VERY MISLEADING and INCORRECT. I don't want casual readers to get misinformed.
Please do not mislead people with equations and formulas when you have little or no appreciation for the subtleties involved. It's not the end of the world if the F313 isn't designed to go supersonic. Irani aerospace engineers are NOT idiots, that they will not know all that I've said above, and try to push the F313 through the sound barrier. When you insist that it will go supersonic you make your own country's engineers look stupid. They know they were doing, you don't.
- The formula you have listed is a semi-empirical approximation of the drag force.
- The coefficient of drag VARIES with Mach Number. Perhaps you have never seen curves like these:
What did you think the "sound barrier" was?- For an aircraft not designed with Whitcomb's rules for transonic and supersonic flight the bump in the above graph of CD is SO VERY LARGE that the aircraft never goes supersonic. Famous example is of YF-102 redesign with area rule to allow it to go supersonic:
View attachment 391245
Just look at how even the one on the right is sleek and has thin wings and yet it was limited to Mach 0.98 due to something you can barely see (pinching of fuselage near wing root).- Among other things airfoils have to be chosen to lower the "bump" of the Cd curve. Thick airfoils (like the one on F313) will have the bump at MUCH SMALLER Mach numbers (probably around 0.6) as the flow goes locally supersonic.
I am quite certain their engineers have designed a jet-powered ground effect vehicle to possible attack US Ships with but their media, government, and fanboys have started assigning characteristics to it for which it was never designed.
Yea morons like you used to say the same thing about Iran's version of the US RQ-170 when the 1st video came out!
They used to say it's nothing but a RC toy and Iran will NEVER be able to make a 1-1 copy of the RQ-170! And what happened? This happened:
If Iran was able to reverse engineer and produce an Iranian version of the RQ-170 airframe then building a fighter like the F-313 is child's play for them
Is the F-313 a 5th Generation Fighter? Clearly NOT! Is it a Supersonic fighter? Clearly NOT!
But it is still a fighter with a lower RCS than the F/A-18 with the same speed and probably greater range than the F/A-18 when armed for Air to Ground missions!
This is Iran's Close Air Support Aircraft NOT an Air Superiority fighter or an Interceptor and whether or NOT this Aircraft is successful or not in testing doesn't matter because sooner or later Iran will produce a low RCS Air Superiority Fighter
The U.S. Shredded all It's F-14's (Other than the museum peace's) because people like you thought Iran was somehow buying the spare parts while in reality Iran was producing them on it's own at home!
Then years later when U.S. annalist claimed Iran has no more than 5-6 Air Worthey F-14's left a few days later a formation of 25 F-14's took to they sky and purposely went on a mission to be spotted by US radars!
And Iran is so confident on the Air worthiness of it's F-14's that it has started the production of it's own version of the AiM-54 and has successfully tested them
What the hell is wrong with you? Why can't you respond in a "grown-up" manner?! This isn't personal, so don't make it so. Grow up.
Let's see this copy of RQ is not yet operational, but you would like to take credit for it being so.
What was shown is not flying hardware. Often taxing prototypes can become flying prototypes after some modifications, but not for this 08.
So what sense does 08 make? It is apparently powered by its jet engines and I haven't checked the videos but if that's the case its control surfaces must actuate to change direction and taxing. I haven't seen that to accept it as proof.
For a fake project electro-motors and a crude steering system could be integrated into the landing gear as well a heater at the nozzle location to create visual heat signature of a jet engine.
But for a real project its possible that a taxing prototype has been created to test the integration of the subsystems, the landing gear and a possible fly by wire system and its fine tuning at different taxing speeds. However I haven't seen the movement of the control surfaces nor high speed runs to test the ram air pressure on FBW actuated control surfaces and its behavior (with the RQ-170 FBW is no issue anymore).
If we see videos of such testing we can have hope of a fly quality air frame construction for the 09 and a real flight.
I believe so.It can be supersonic at high height .
Before starting to write and accuse someone of misleading others, spend a bit of time to read the post and it's background.I have little interest in the debate going on, on this thread, but I felt compelled to correct your post as it is VERY MISLEADING and INCORRECT. I don't want casual readers to get misinformed.
Please do not mislead people with equations and formulas when you have little or no appreciation for the subtleties involved. It's not the end of the world if the F313 isn't designed to go supersonic. Irani aerospace engineers are NOT idiots, that they will not know all that I've said above, and try to push the F313 through the sound barrier. When you insist that it will go supersonic you make your own country's engineers look stupid. They know they were doing, you don't.
- The formula you have listed is a semi-empirical approximation of the drag force.
- The coefficient of drag VARIES with Mach Number. Perhaps you have never seen curves like these:
What did you think the "sound barrier" was?- For an aircraft not designed with Whitcomb's rules for transonic and supersonic flight the bump in the above graph of CD is SO VERY LARGE that the aircraft never goes supersonic. Famous example is of YF-102 redesign with area rule to allow it to go supersonic:
View attachment 391245
Just look at how even the one on the right is sleek and has thin wings and yet it was limited to Mach 0.98 due to something you can barely see (pinching of fuselage near wing root).- Among other things airfoils have to be chosen to lower the "bump" of the Cd curve. Thick airfoils (like the one on F313) will have the bump at MUCH SMALLER Mach numbers (probably around 0.6) as the flow goes locally supersonic.
I am quite certain their engineers have designed a jet-powered ground effect vehicle to possible attack US Ships with but their media, government, and fanboys have started assigning characteristics to it for which it was never designed.
To what end? Iran had much more credible projects that could have been used for propaganda.What was shown is not flying hardware. Often taxing prototypes can become flying prototypes after some modifications, but not for this 08.
So what sense does 08 make? It is apparently powered by its jet engines and I haven't checked the videos but if that's the case its control surfaces must actuate to change direction and taxing. I haven't seen that to accept it as proof.
For a fake project electro-motors and a crude steering system could be integrated into the landing gear as well a heater at the nozzle location to create visual heat signature of a jet engine.
But for a real project its possible that a taxing prototype has been created to test the integration of the subsystems, the landing gear and a possible fly by wire system and its fine tuning at different taxing speeds. However I haven't seen the movement of the control surfaces nor high speed runs to test the ram air pressure on FBW actuated control surfaces and its behavior (with the RQ-170 FBW is no issue anymore).
If we see videos of such testing we can have hope of a fly quality air frame construction for the 09 and a real flight.
And you can tell just from looking ?Is the F-313 a 5th Generation Fighter? Clearly NOT! Is it a Supersonic fighter? Clearly NOT!
But it is still a fighter with a lower RCS than the F/A-18 with the same speed and probably greater range than the F/A-18 when armed for Air to Ground missions!
I did read it. What you wrote was still as incorrect.Before starting to write and accuse someone of misleading others, spend a bit of time to read the post and it's background.
At what altitude? And as for your calculations if you're using the zero-lift drag coefficient you better be talking about speeds less than Mach 0.3. I hope you know Cd doesn't just jump up at some magic Mach number but gets larger and larger over a region. And especially for a body that doesn't have a SearsHack distribution and has thick airfoils (F313) the Cd starts to rise MUCH sooner (read Mach 0.5).@500 claimed that Q-313 can at most fly around 500 km/hr. I showed that with the current two engines, Q-313 can easily fly at speed above 1000 km/hr. My calculations were for subsonic speed and the drag coefficient that I used is for subsonic speed.
Actually for a poorly designed body it actually CAN increase ten fold. That is why they used to think that the sound barrier could not be crossed. Do remember F-4 is a jet designed to go supersonic and obeys the area rule.And it is not like the drag coefficient increases 10 folds at supersonic speed.
That is not it's subsonic drag coefficient or supersonic drag coefficient because THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Cd is a CURVE (read my original post). You will get 0.021 at below Mach 0.3, I hope that is not your definition of "subsonic". Also if you see the plot the peak is in the middle (transonic), and the lowest supersonic and subsonic Cd is always lower than the transonic peak. So the numbers you give are BEST CASE for a jet DESIGNED TO GO SUPERSONIC. Also, the peak in the transonic regime gets FATTER for bodies NOT DESIGNED to cross the barrier.F-4 subsonic drag coefficient is 0.021 and it's supersonic is 0.044.
No. Even if you have a hypothetical engine with infinite thrust, the only thing it will do is break apart the airframe from shock interactions. It won't overcome anything.Something that can easily be overcome by adding after burner to current engines.
What can I say I have ADD, forgive me.Finally, if you paid more attention to what I had written, you could see that I said that speed is more than enough for a ground attack jet.
Did I claim that? No.Q-313 doesn't need to be supersonic for its intended use but it's not also be slower than WWII aircrafts as some like to claim here.
No drag is not a fixed number. It changes with speed. However when a single drag coefficient is announced, it is announced for its max speed. For example when they say the drag coefficient of a Boeing 747 is 0.031 it is calculated for its max speed of 920 km/hr at its service altitude.I did read it. What you wrote was still as incorrect.
At what altitude? And as for your calculations if you're using the zero-lift drag coefficient you better be talking about speeds less than Mach 0.3. I hope you know Cd doesn't just jump up at some magic Mach number but gets larger and larger over a region. And especially for a body that doesn't have a SearsHack distribution and has thick airfoils (F313) the Cd starts to rise MUCH sooner (read Mach 0.5).
Actually for a poorly designed body it actually CAN increase ten fold. That is why they used to think that the sound barrier could not be crossed. Do remember F-4 is a jet designed to go supersonic and obeys the area rule.
That is not it's subsonic drag coefficient or supersonic drag coefficient because THERE IS NO SUCH THING. Cd is a CURVE (read my original post). You will get 0.021 at below Mach 0.3, I hope that is not your definition of "subsonic". Also if you see the plot the peak is in the middle (transonic), and the lowest supersonic and subsonic Cd is always lower than the transonic peak. So the numbers you give are BEST CASE for a jet DESIGNED TO GO SUPERSONIC. Also, the peak in the transonic regime gets FATTER for bodies NOT DESIGNED to cross the barrier.
No. Even if you have a hypothetical engine with infinite thrust, the only thing it will do is break apart the airframe from shock interactions. It won't overcome anything.
What can I say I have ADD, forgive me.
Did I claim that? No.