Eurofighter Vs Sukhoi 27- Engines Position Concept USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST

DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT

Flagon From France, joined May 2007, 130 posts, RR: 0 Posted Wed Jun 23 2010 02:09:09 your local time (2 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7409 times: I dare starting this new topic, hoping that the question will generate some interest, and bring some interesting answers: the Eurofighter, Sukhoi 27 and Mig 29 are three examples of fighter design where the fuselage literally lies on top of the engines. I am just keen to understand what drives the design for having 2 engines separated by a significant distance (like for the Su-27) or the other way around 2 engines side by side like for the Eurofighter. Has the safety something to do with separating the engines (in case of engine fire)? Or is it more aerodynamic driven? Is it purely driven by space allocation (allowing for more internal fuel for example)? Basically, what are the pros and cons of each concept?

Stephane

More Sharing Services

11 replies: All unread, jump to last

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted Wed Jun 23 2010 05:45:03 your local time (2 years 6 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 7292 times:

UH60FtRucker

Quoting Flagon (Thread starter): the Eurofighter, Sukhoi 27 and Mig 29 are three examples of fighter design where the fuselage literally lies on top of the engines. Sorry, but you're wrong. The Eurofighter's two engines are incorporated within the main fuselage. Perhaps you are thinking about the air intake which is below the fuselage? However the air is ducted up into the fuselage, where the two engines sit. As for the Su-27 and the MiG-29, the design is more along the lines of nacelles which house the two engines, and the forward fuselage roots between and above the two nacelles. Quoting Flagon (Thread starter): I am just keen to understand what drives the design for having 2 engines separated by a significant distance (like for the Su-27) or the other way around 2 engines side by side like for the Eurofighter. As you probably all ready know, all designs are a balance benefits and drawbacks. The two engine nacelles offer the obvious benefit of protection against the other catching fire, or catastrophic failure. It also provides additional room for heavy weaponry/fuel tanks. Take the F-14, for example, which carried four AIM-54C missiles between the two engine nacelles. In the case of the SU-27, it allows you to put a rear-facing radar between the two engine exhaust nozzles. The "gap" between the two nacelles can be used to generate lift, and control stability. However, it does create some drag. Also, by separating the two engines further apart, in the even of an engine failure (especially at high power settings) you create a strong off-center thrust, which requires significant opposite rudder to correct. You also need to engineer a stronger fuselage, which equates to greater weight and more drag. So there's just a few. I'm sure there are far more qualified aeronautical engineers lurking about that can give better answers.

_
Also spacing between engines used to be a basic concept to reduce the exhaust heat signature (these days there are several way of doing this - the EJ200 is apparently testing new exhaust nozzle shapes that reduce heat exhaust signature by 40-60%)

Placing an engine within the fuselage and behind the cockpit a la eurofighter, gripen, f-35, f-22 also acts as a natural shield for the engines and with a little bit of cleverness can provide a natural s-duct block to radars this is not possible when the engine is under the main plane a la sukhoi and mig - which resort to "twisting" the intake tube slightly in an attempt to partially mask the engine. In the mig 29 the intake is on a straight level with the engine - both are more-or-less under the wing and the intakes instead of being straight squares are in fact slightly diamond shaped. The the Sukhoi the engines are aligned to the wing (ie half the engine is above the wing and half below) and the intakes while normal squares are at a plane considerably lower to the beginning of the actual engine. Here the intake does not lead in a straight line to the engine but is somewhat like two lines intersecting at 175 degrees.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1): The Eurofighter's two engines are incorporated within the main fuselage Yes Flagon - this is correct - you think its under the plane because of the way the landing gear pushes up the nose -and that is also the level flight stance of the plane. however if you see these pics below you can see the engines are lined up with the nose cone and the intake actually juts out . Notice how the back of the wing is in fact level with the bottom of the engine.

Vi veri universum vivus vici

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _

Flagon From France, joined May 2007, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted Thu Jun 24 2010 01:48:49 your local time (2 years 6 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6941 times: Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1): Quoting Flagon (Thread starter): the Eurofighter, Sukhoi 27 and Mig 29 are three examples of fighter design where the fuselage literally lies on top of the engines. Sorry, but you're wrong. The Eurofighter's two engines are incorporated within the main fuselage. Yes you are right, please ignore my first sentence which is a bit non-sense, I was actually more referring to the air intakes configuration. Thanks for all this information Nevertheless the Eurofighter air intakes configuration seems quite unusual, on the top of my head I cannot think of any other similar configuration regarding fighter design. Moreover I read somewhere that when the air intakes are side by side a compressor stall in supersonic in one of the engines is very likely to "propagate" to the other engine. No idea how that can be explained. Can anyone confirm / explain? Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1): The "gap" between the two nacelles can be used to generate lift, and control stability. However, it does create some drag. Yes it must create more drag, especially when there is a missile or fuel tank attached between the two nacelles, the airflow must be quite messy...

Stephane

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted Thu Jun 24 2010 03:11:21 your local time (2 years 6 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6895 times:

UH60FtRucker

Quoting Flagon (Reply 3): Nevertheless the Eurofighter air intakes configuration seems quite unusual, on the top of my head I cannot think of any other similar configuration regarding fighter design. Really? You can't think of any others? What about the most famous jet fighter to feature a ventral air intake?

...or perhaps the lesser known Chinese J-10 that is starting to show up in numbers.

Of course, the ventral air intake basically evolved from the older chin mounted air intakes, but was shortened to save weight.

or

or a more recent model:

View Large View Medium

Photo Douta Yamanaka

South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.

USER PROFILE ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _

Quoting Flagon (Reply 7): well, I believe all of these planes are single engine?. The Mig 1.42 was double engine

As is the Chinese J-XX though i dont know if its a real plane of a CGI

Vi veri universum vivus vici

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted Thu Jun 24 2010 23:05:28 your local time (2 years 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6579 times: Quoting Flagon (Reply 7): well, I believe all of these planes are single engine?.... (even the P51 ) Are you sure? What about the P-82?

Look, the point is that there really isn't anything unique or revolutionary about the air intake of the Eurofighter. Two engines are usually always better than one, and if you can fit two in there, then do it. The ventral air intake is simply an evolution of the the chin mounted air intake, which is an evolution of the nose air intake. So if we're going to add more aircraft - both single and dual engines - into this list, we ought to include those with nose intakes.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _
bikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1409 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted Thu Jun 24 2010 23:15:25 your local time (2 years 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6568 times: Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 9): What about the P-82? WOW!!! Didn't know they existed let alone were operational with kills to their credits! bikerthai

Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.

USER PROFILE SEND INSTANT MSG ADD TO RESP MEMBERS SUGGEST DELETION QUOTE SELECTED TEXT _
From France, joined May 2007, 130 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted Fri Jun 25 2010 18:54:23 your local time (2 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6364 times:

Flagon

You guys never run out of ideas...

I've found the link below: http://www.authorstream.com/Presenta...science-technology-ppt-powerpoint/

Stephane

More Sharing Services Top Of Page Forum Index

ply To This Topic Eurofighter Vs Sukhoi 27- Engines Position Concept