Why Did Soviet Aircraft Use Variable Ventral Air Intakes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sorter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Air Aircraft
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the differences in air intake design between Soviet and American fifth-generation fighters, emphasizing the Soviet preference for variable ventral intakes to enhance performance during high-G maneuvers and high angles of attack. In contrast, American designs like the F-22 and YF-23 feature non-adjustable intakes optimized for supersonic cruise, reflecting differing design priorities. The conversation also touches on the implications of these design choices for operations in austere environments, where upper inlets are advantageous. Additionally, the discussion raises concerns about trademark issues related to the term "5th generation fighter" in the context of a Canadian lawsuit over F-35 procurement. Overall, the varying approaches to air intake design illustrate the distinct operational philosophies of Russian and American fighter aircraft development.
sorter
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Air Intakes??

At an early stage of the fighter's development
it became obvious that the MFI was a
lot different from the American fifth-generation
fighters. For instance, the Mikoyan fighter
had a variable ventral air intake from the
start, whereas the F-22 had non-adjustable
two-shock lateral intakes optimised for supersonic
cruise and the rival Northrop/General
Dynamics YF-23 had non-adjustable dorsal
intakes. Soviet aerodynamicists believed a
ventrally located intake offered certain
advantages during vigorous manoeuvres,
minimising the danger of an intake stall during
high-G turns and high-alpha flight. Also,
the tail-first layout maximised lift and the
canards performed a pitch damping function
at critical AoAs. By comparison, the F-22 and
YF-23 utilised a more conventional layout
with trapezoidal wings and stabilators.

Source:
Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter
Technology Demonstrators
Yefim Gordon
Original translation by Dmitriy Komissarov

Question is simple; is Soviet thinking while choosing from 3 given air intakes is correct & why US think otherwise??
 
Physics news on Phys.org


It just sounds like the two sets of designers had different priorities in mind when designing the intakes. Each is correct for the priority it optimizes to.
 


Can anybody given me images of these 3 types of air intakes; I am fed up googling it
 


sorter said:
Russian Fifth-Generation Fighter
Technology Demonstrators
Yefim Gordon

This could mean war - '5th generation fighter' is a registered trademark of Lockheed (makers of the F35).
This just came up in a lawsuit in Canada over their decision to buy the F35, apparently the air force specification required a '5th generation fighter'.
The specifications were written with the aid of consultants supplied by an unnamed US aircraft maker.
 


In addition to the excessive angles of attack envisioned by Soviet aeronautical engineers, they also had to contend with operations from austere (grass) fields which required upper inlets.
 


mugaliens said:
In addition to the excessive angles of attack envisioned by Soviet aeronautical engineers, they also had to contend with operations from austere (grass) fields which required upper inlets.

What does this bold part means. The placement of air intakes with respect to cockpit is fairly equal that of Su-25/30/35 & F-15/35/22

With the exception of F-16/J-10(a copycat of F-16) all modern aircraft had 2 side air intakes. including the newbaby JF-17
 


Most russian aircraft have moveable covers over the inlets which can be partly closed to stop FOD when operating from rough strips.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top