Mig-29K's fuel load is 4.5T. You are talking about the older Mig-29A which has a fuel load of 3.4T.
Mig-29K's fuel load is 4.5T. You are talking about the older Mig-29A which has a fuel load of 3.4T.
This is one of the two reasons why I think the Mig-29K is plenty for now. The other being the ridiculously high price of the Rafale-M and SH.
RD-33MKM engine has SFC of 0.77 compared to 0.80 of M88 engine. This makes Mig-29K engines more fuel efficient so for same fuel and take off weight, Mig-29K will fly a longer distance compared to rafale-M. One more thing, some unconfirmed reports have put Mig-29K internal fuel as 5.3 tons as the large LERX have been converted to fuel tanks in Mig-29Ks.
The english version is not very accurate on the French aircraft the official data from French Marine Nationale is 10196 kg
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/equipements/aeronefs/rafale-marine#eztoc491930_0_3
Delta wing is inferior to swept wing in terms of take-off speed requirements, but delta wing with close coupled canard is superior to swept wing in terms of take-off speed requirements.
The Mig-29K already came with fuel in LERX. The old Mig-29A had auxiliary intakes in the LERX, so they removed that and replaced it with fuel tanks in both Mig-29M and K.
The only way Mig-29K can have more fuel is if they add a CFT like they did on the UPG and SMT.
Klimov RD-33MK Engine is more efficient because the bypass ratio is 0.49:1 compare to 0.3:1 for the M-88 but this mean more air at the intake and so more Drag. The result is 3000 km ferry range for Mig 29 K with 3 drop tanks and 3700 km for Rafale with 3 drop tanks.
The french Wiki say 10196 kg !
Be carefull about Delta performance.
The Mirage 3 needs a high speed to take off and land.
Mirage 2000, thanks to FBW, reduces these speeds. (FBW allow the trailling edge to help the vertical sustentation, when those of the Mirage 3 can't)
Rafale add close coupled canards that don't act as a front empennage, but as a lift augmentator on the main wings.
The agility and the ability to fly slowly was improve at every step.
Last edited:
Manufacturer Empty weight (EW) and Operating Empty weight (OWE) are two very different things. The first one is bare weight of the aircraft while the second one includes weight of Pilot, unusable fuel, oil, hyd fluids and other such items. In case of rafale-M it is 10.7 tons.
Pure delta wing or tailless delta has poor take off performance but delta-tail designs with high lift devices have far superior take off performance compared to swept wings. Swept wings are normal straight wings swept backwards like those in HF-24. Moderately swept delta wings like that of rafele-M offer far superior take off performance compared to swept wings.
?
In this case the tail is masked by the main delta wings. Its effectivity is lower than the same with a classical swept wings.
Impossible to compare only that. A Delta is a special beast.
Even Rafale has a (very) small LERX. And watch the cheeks (where the canards are fixed) : they also has a small role in the wing efficency.
The fuel tanks on Mig-29K are smaller though. A typical configuration with 3 fuel tanks is 2x1150L and 1x1500L tanks. For standard use, the Mig-29K typically carries only 1x1500L tank in the centerline in order to free up the underwing hardpoints for weapons. So the configurations are not the same. Rafale needs 3x2000L tanks in order to reach 3700Km.
But the overall range can be increased with CFT, then the total internal fuel of the Mig-29K can rise to 5600Kg. This CFT does not negatively affect aerodynamics with the exception of extra weight, but it's way better than carrying 2 1150L tanks for the same amount of range.
With CFT and 1500L tank, the range of the aircraft will be 3000Km. And this should easily match MRCBF RFP once it's released. And Rafale's extra range may not really be an advantage in this case since take off performance will be more important once the RFP points for range is met. Any extra range required can be achieved using mid air refueling.
You should also consider that fuel carried by carriers is limited and fuel efficiency will be as important as the range of the aircraft as well. So it's not worth carrying so much extra fuel (as much as 2.5T extra) in Rafale's external tanks for a few hundred extra Kms versus mid air refueling with dedicated tankers.
A more typical configuration for comparison with Mig-29K would be 2x1250L tanks on Rafale. The Mig-29K will have 6.8T of fuel and Rafale will have 6.7T of fuel, both aircraft should have very similar range. And both aircraft can comfortably carry 2 AShMs in this configuration.
If the Russians offer 10T engines, then Rafale won't be able to keep up.
@Bon Plan does not have privileged information, it's just his opinion. Rafale doesn't need 10 t engine.
French wiki is more accurate than English wiki because if there is a false information inside there is a lot of French pilot and French engineer to correct the data and it said 10196 too. Nobody said that it was the EW instead of OWE.
No, I meant if the Russians offer a 10T engine in the MRCBF for the Mig-29K, then Dassault will find the Russians very troublesome unless the French bring in the 83KN Rafale engine because a lot of the Mig-29's problems will be solved with 100KN engines.
Whats the size and capacity of those D/Ts?
Will you want to go against what DA has given in writing to IN as part of RFI?
Russians are not giving up. They are willing to change the engines with I-30 engines in entire Mig-29K fleet of IN. Do you know what that engine is about?