Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7905 times:
The MiG-29 and Su-27, like the F-14 have a wide spacing between the engines forming a lifting-surface known as a tunnel (or in the F-14's case, a pancake) which adds additional lifting area to the plane over just that of the wings.
How much extra lifting-area does the MiG-29 and Su-27's tunnels add in addition to the lifting area of the wings?
BTW: As an interesting note, the F-14's tunnel/pancake adds 443 extra square feet of wing-area (which is actually greater than the entire wing-area of the F-100, or F-8) which is almost that of the wings themselves, at 565 square-feet, which equate to a total lifting area of 1,008 square feet!
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 7491 times:
Dear Blackbird, wingspan is a much more efficient lift generator than area.
The reason for the quite widely spaced engines is to make room for a lot of internal fuel near the center of gravity of the plane. At a place which is already seriously obstructed by the landing gear wells.
The area between the engines does produce lift at high angle of attack. But not nearly as efficiently per square foot as the wing.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6210 posts, RR: 74 Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6820 times:
Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 3): The area between the engines does produce lift at high angle of attack. But not nearly as efficiently per square foot as the wing.
Let's not forget that it adds drag too to have a large surface area between the engines...
Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6800 times:
Prebennorholm,
Quote: Dear Blackbird, wingspan is a much more efficient lift generator than area.
The reason for the quite widely spaced engines is to make room for a lot of internal fuel near the center of gravity of the plane. At a place which is already seriously obstructed by the landing gear wells.
The area between the engines does produce lift at high angle of attack. But not nearly as efficiently per square foot as the wing.
I just wanted to know for statistical purposes what the area of the pancake/tunnel area was. As I said, I know what the pancake/tunnel area is for the F-14 (443 square feet) -- I, however, do not know the surface area of the MiG-29 and Su-27's tunnel/pancake
Ferrypilot From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6433 times:
Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 1): Blackbird, you're killing us with these detailed technical questions Smile . I will try to find out for you but it's a rather challenging task.
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6380 times:
Don't make the mistake of assuming that 1m2 between the engines gives the same lift as 1m2 on the wing area.
Back in 1988, when the MiG-29 made its Farnborough debut, Valery Menitsky estimated that the tunnel added "somewhere between 10 and 20%" to overall lift."
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6357 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6): I just wanted to know for statistical purposes what the area of the pancake/tunnel area was. As I said, I know what the pancake/tunnel area is for the F-14 (443 square feet) -- I, however, do not know the surface area of the MiG-29 and Su-27's tunnel/pancake
Yesterday you think Russia is going to launch a Tu-160 attack against the US from Venezuela, and today you think it is such an open society that the exact dimensions of the bottom parts of the MiG-29 and Su-27 are public information?
You ought to travel a bit.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Johns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 781 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6351 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 9): Yesterday you think Russia is going to launch a Tu-160 attack against the US from Venezuela, and today you think it is such an open society that the exact dimensions of the bottom parts of the MiG-29 and Su-27 are public information?
I don't understand how some people on this forum can be so interested in military aircarft while at the same time be so anti-military. This hardware was NOT produced to look cool or entertain you but to further its country's aims and goals and (get this) kill people and fight wars...
Johns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 781 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6340 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 11): And how does this relate to what I said?
I was agreeing with you that some members are living in their own little, happy world.
Blackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6273 times:
Johns624,
I know exactly what the purpose of a military aircraft is designed for -- shoot down opposing countries planes, and bomb the living snot out of a variety of ground targets (which can include boats, and ships).
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2342 posts, 
. I will try to find out for you but it's a rather challenging task.
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6039 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 448 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6210 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2006, 897 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3779 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
