MiG-23MLD, I now agree that there may be uncertainties over the constitution of the ‘crank’ on the wing of an aeroplane.
As per a diagram shown in a page of Aerospaceweb.org, the crank is defined to be the upward curvature of the wing away from the dihedral, i.e. going upwards. It is exactly the same as described as a “notch” by you, on the photo of the green coloured WW2 plane posted by you previously.
However, in a research paper on the “Cranked arrow wing” of the F-16 XL, the crank on it is defined (as seen from top-view) as the junction between the lower-swept component and the higher-swept components of the wing’s leading edge : in this case, the lower-swept portion is away from the fuselage and the higher-swept wing is joint to the fuselage — opposite of the Tejas.
The diagram from the webpage of Aerospaceweb’ that labels the crank, is shown below :-
The diagram below is that of the F-16 XL, which was the subject of NASA’s research project titled, “Cranked-Arrow Wing Aerodynamics Project” :-
Link of schematic of the F-16XL from NASA’s website :-
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Graphics/F-16XL1/Medium/EG-0035-01.gifAs per the above mentioned technical research paper of NASA, “Cranked-Arrow Wing Aerodynamics project”, or CAWAP, the crank is that part of the blue portion of the wing, where the wing abruptly changes angle. In addition to this, a declassified NASA research paper dated to October 1959, has also specifically investigated the “Effects of wing-crank, leading edge cord extensions, and horizontal tail-height”. It concludes that such a design leads to improved statical longitudinal stability.
Hence, from the above as yet incompletely comprehended technical papers, the conclusion is the same i.e. cranked-wings provide for superior wing-stability, superior lift and better lateral directional stability (the last one from Aerospaceweb, investigating these on hypersonic vehicles).
References :-
2) NASA Langley Research Center Review of Cranked Arrow wing project
I do understand that, and i agree with you, the leading edge crank you are talking is in anhedral, the notch i am talking about is the leading edge sweep angle.
The F-16XL as you have noticed is from the outer wing panel, the AJ-37 is in the inner wing panels.
The F-16XL has a leading edge notch at the root of the wing and an outboard less swept angle leading edge.
The Viggen and LCA have a inner wing pannel less swept leading edge angle.
The Viggen has canards and if you are right the LCA a crank in anhedral.
The question will be if the LCA can have an instantaneous turn rate better than the J-10 and better AoA handling, personally i think the LCA is more or less as good as the Mirage 2000 but if it is armed with Python Vs and Derbys it can defeat the J-10, but i do not think it is more agile in terms of turn rate
No no no. A jet is rarely in ballistic flight, and never in cruise.
:rolleyes:
This is a mass of irrelevancy. Thrust to weight ratio and acceleration have nothing to do with range or fuel consumption in cruise. A jet is not an ICBM. Sens knows more about the issues here than I do, so I’m not going to wade into this fencing match, but you are clearly lost in the dark.No, it gets lift from its body. But I very much doubt it reaches any equilibrium between thrust and drag before burnout, so it doesn’t cruise either.
The Saturn V does not fly. A glider flies. A Saturn V is ballistic.
hehehe or shall i say hahahaha, all of us are in a parabolic trajectory, why? because the the planet is round and spining in its own axis even wabbling, if the earth was flat you can say all airplanes fly and rockets have parabolic trajectories, however if you know the concept of limit taken from calculus, you know when X is close to 0 the Gradient seem to be a point but when X is X>0 or bigger than zero it seems to be a slope, however for our planet a plane is flying a parabolic trajectory due to gravity, in fact if you do not follow a parabolic trajectory you will get out of the earth`s gravity and go into orbit or out of earth`s gravity pull
Since you can not see thet kilo newtons is a measure to see force and to see the acceleration a mass can reach then you can not see a lighter mass will get higher acceleration, the Su-24 is lighter and has a higher thrust at military power therefore it needs less kilo newtons to achieve the same speed an F-111
W = mg
W = (1 kg)(9.807 m/s²)
W = 9.807
This proves you that gravity exerts to a mass of one kilo 9.8 newtons, a higher thrust to weight ratio exerts then higher acceleration and therefore the Al-21 is not using its max SFC it has when it has the same thrust the TF-30 has its max SFC at military power
rocky are you still in the middle ages when people thought the world was flat?
or is this you idea of the world 
http://links999.net/cartography/cartography_history.html
Please read carefully and do sleep a night about that.
Even the simple math you left aside.The engine has nothing to do with the weight of a flying aircraft at first.
The counterforce of weight is the lift.
That lift is generated by lifting areas and speed. (The single exception are VTOL aircraft).
The more weight you will bring into the air the more lift you are in need of.
A Su-24 or F-111 are in need of lifting areas to do so and some related controls for stability.
But that lift is not for free. In a similar way you rise lift by that, you have to counter the related rise in drag, when doing so.
To counter that drag, you are in need of a propulsion-system. One central part of that is the engine to accelerate to lift-off speed and overcome the flying drag.
The trick is to get the most lift for the least drag. (One of the main advantages of the VG-design).
When doing so you do reduce the need of thrust to overcome the related drag.
Related to your minimum demand in lift you will choose the least draggy speed to do so, which is subsonic in general. The best engine for that is an engine, which does operate close to its optimum cycle, when doing so.
A TF has two cycles to benefit from, when the Tj has a single cycle, which can not adjusted in a similar way to the related power-demands.In the meanwhile it is common knowledge, that the drag-thrust ratio is the most important yardstick. For the lack of published data about that, some got the idea to use the installed thrust to have a rough yardstick.
When assuming, that in the 50s all jets did have a similar drag, a similar jet-engine, that may have worked some way, just to give the public an idea about that.
That was never true as it its with different designs and technology.
You theory is only part true and over simplistic, why? let us start by simple physics
The newton (symbol: N) is the SI unit of force. It is named after Sir Isaac Newton in recognition of his work on classical mechanics.A newton is the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second squared. In addition
http://www.convertworld.com/en/weight/Kilonewton.html
A jet engine measures thrust in Kilo newtons, the Russians usually do it, SFC only reflects the amount of fuel to accelerate kilo newtons.
In a jet engine, air is compressed by a turbine. Fuel is added to this air and is exhausted out the other end. This gas exerts an equal reaction force, providing forward thrust as it exits the engine. This thrust is transmitted from the engine to an airframe and engine mountings to propel the aircraft. Thrust is measured in pounds (lb), kilogram force (kgf), or the international unit, newtons (N).
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/KennethKwan.shtml
Now an aircraft fights gravity by two simple forces, centrifugal force and lift
Fc = mv2/r, where Fc = centrifugal force, m = mass, v = speed, and r = radius
and we can say that despite for us the F-111 or Su-24 are flying straight, in reality they are traveling in a gravitational parabolic path in the same way a cannon ball flies however they constantly burn fuel and fly straight in our reference point of view
parabolic trajectory. The downward force of gravity would act upon the cannonball to cause the same vertical motion as before – a downward acceleration.
now since we are not in the vaccum the F-111 and Su-24 will experience drag, however by simple physics we know An object in motion would continue in motion at a constant speed in the same direction if there is no unbalanced force so our F-111 or Su-24 will slow down due to air drag or in other words friction.
Know if the Su-24 and F-111 have different masses, the same amount of kilo newton force will accelerate them differently since they have a difference in weight.
If the Max military power of the TF-30 is lower then the SFC of the AL-21 at the same thrust will be lower and therefore more efficient than you really expect, now if the Su-24 is lighter and has higher thrust to weight ratio at full military power you can not expect the aircraft to be less fuel efficient as you claim, however in aboslute numbers the F-111 has a longer range and higher payload, in that sense the F-111 is a more efficient aircraft by packing a higher density at a given volume
Now the SRAAM AIM-132 shows you an AAM can fly by just thrust alone
The Saturn V also is wingless and flies
When someone is unable or at best unwilling to understand some basic, there is no problem to accept that. But it becomes worse, when someone tries to distract from that shortcomings through further ridiculous claims.
For the benefit of the others.
The flow of air does behave different with different speeds.
There is the true subsonic range below Mach 0,7 – the transonic range – the true supersonic range and the high supersonic range.
For take-off and climb most aircraft do operate in the true subsonic range, when for cruise they stay in the lower transonic-range at around Mach 0,8.
The best suited engine is the high bypass TF with 4:1 up to 10+:1 or the TP
of 100:1 sticking to the true subsonic range only.
Military TFs are at 1,5:1 or lower, related to the wider speed range.
Military Tj are at best at true supersonic or behind Mach 1,2. The best possible military engine will one with a variable cycle. That was the promise with the first GE F120 engine, which was too futuristic for the USAF.
The low by-path PW F119 does offer the best available compromise between lower fuel consumption of a TF and still good enough at supersonic.
The best compromise for fighters was 0,5:1 in the 80s or lower. Below of 0,5:1 such engines are called “leaky Tj”.
Possible through the gains in pressure-ratio and TET.But for someone I have to push the basics to the limits, despite little hope about that.
The V10 engine of a F1 Ferrari did deliver 925 hp at 19.800 U/min.
The V12 engine of a T-72 MBT did deliver 780 hp at ~2000 U/min.Nominal the Ferrari engine has a higher output in hp, but none will get the idea to put that into the T-72 MBT?!
Can it be, that hp or kp are not the single yardstick about force?!The bypath-ratio of the TF30 did differ between 1,1:1 to 17,1 pressure ratio or 0,7:1 to 22 pressure ratio.
Every variant of that was on the higher side of bypath-ratio for military engines (up to 1,5:1)
I never got the idea, that someone may try to compare that to present airliner-engines and their limited flying envelope to operate.
To save my time, I will not explain how an AB does work. (As the related AB-ratios and the related sfc) That does not make sense about the lack of understanding about the basics and the limited use in striker-missions.Even the math is limited. Please try it again.
0,69 = 100
0,76 = XThe next fancy “highlight” is about MTOW.
The ferry-range is related to the amount of fuel at take-off, whatever you prefer, be it kg or liter. (conversion-rate is ~0,77 kg per liter).
The yardstick is, how far can you go in km for every kg or liter?!
Filling the same amount of fuel into into a Su-24 and the F-111 does bring a remarkable difference in range from that, well behind the difference in SFC.
Why you forget simple details you that always claim to know details?
You clearly know by simple physics an aircraft needs a force to achieve a speed when it weighs a specific mass and in an aircraft you have to consider gravity and air drag.
you know perfectly the F-111 at full military power has a lower Thrust to weight ratio than the Su-24 at full military power, perhaps at subsonic cruise speeds the F-111 is more economical but carrying a heavy load it won`t fly too fast either due to weight
The inlet was designed to disaccelerate the supersonic flow to subsonic speeds, a true ramjet has not such limitations since already air preasure and compression is achieved by the speed the airplane flies, so no need for compressor or blades, however the turbofan and you know it very well can not work with a supersonic flow, it compresses the air but not due to speed since the ramp and duct slow down the supersonic flow to subsonic speeds, and for such a reason you have a ramp or even an variable geometry ramp that generates multishock waves.
A scram jet even can work at supersonic speeds of air flow.
With engines like the TF-30 and AL-21, you have a very similar yield of 11000kg thrust, however one engine compresses air more and needs therefore less fuel to produce thrust however it has lower thrust at military power ask your self at the same max military thrust of the TF-30 the AL-21 does not have its max military power and does not spend the same amount of fuel at a SFC of 0.86, but has a lower fuel consumption .
In a high by pass engine like the Trent 900 you do not need a ramp simply because air is not traveling supersonic so there is no need for a ramp to slow down the supersonic flow however with the olympus fitted to the Concord you need a ramp and the same happens with the F-101 that powers the B-1A and B-1B
I tried it in easy words.
You claim things, that none did post in that way.
The claim about the wider cross section is from yourself.
Your way to explain, where the higher internal fuel load of the F-111 comes from.
In the meanwhile you have learned, that a lot of fuel is housed in the wings of the F-111, when not so in the Su-24.
The F-111 undercarriage is different to the Su-24, which does free further volume for internal fuel.
The links about the pics were related to that. See the height difference of related cockpits to bottom
All that has nothing to do with logic, but to stick to data and material at hand.The force to propel the F-111/Su-24 does come from the airflow of the engine.
The TF30 has an airflow of 118 kg/sec each
The AL-21F has an airflow of 105 kg/sec eachTo generate that the TF30 has ~5500 kp dry each
To generate that the AF-21F has ~8000 kp dry eachTo generate flying thrust you are in need of three main elements.
The most import one is the inlet-system, the second important one is the out-let-system and then the engine. The higher the speed the more in that ranking. At a given speed you do not need even an engine, see the RAM-Jet-system.
The kp output-value has something to do with the temperature. But with a TF you have a bypath-ratio. A hot stream through the engine and a colder one around that, both do produce thrust up to the transonic range.
To have some way to compare effective thrust-levels, you can no longer look at the installed max dry at ground-level and zero-speed.
Comparing Tj or comparing Tf with the same bypath ratio, such comparison can work, but it does not work, when comparing a Tj with a Tf.
I hope you got it, but I fear too much details from my side again for easy understanding.
The higher installed nominal thrust does not mean, that you have the higher force from that too. kN – kg/sec you remember.
The AL-21F has a higher fuel consumption of 10% at least for every kN.
To reach similar flight-performances to a more powerful TF30 the AL-21F is in need of more kN to feed. = double penalty, which does rise the difference to ~30% really.When you give the F-111 and the Su-24 the same internal fuel of 4 tons for example, what result in range will you get from that.
Will it be none as you claim, or will it be ~10% more for the F-111 or will it be ~30% more for the F-111?
So now we have the mistery thrust, the mystery thrust!:eek: Sens is the TF-30 a ramjet? ramjets only work at speeds of Mach 3 or more, the F-111 is no more than a Mach 2.5 speed aircraft, its inlet only reduces the amount of fuel needed but still it has a specific thrust, using a fan the turbofan reduces the amount of fuel spent, but still a turbofan can not work beyond a specific subsonic flow, besides big turbofans with high by pass ratios are for subsonic speeds and commercial aircraft and beyond that ramjets and turbofans with very low by pass ratios are more practical, these low by pass ratios are not very different from a turbojet in reality. So the AL-21 will spend more fuel to produce the same thrust because it sucks less air, however its thrust is higher at military power, the TF-30 is a low by pass ratio engine not a high by pass ratio like a Trent 900
This Trent 900 high by pass turbofan has a simple inlet nacelle cowling with no ramp or even VG ramp
So Sens this explains you why the TF-30 is not more different than the AL-21 at full afterburner, simply because the by pass ratio is still low.
When you fly at speeds beyond Mach 3 the ramjet can start working.
Now you have to see a reality, the TF-30 has lower yield and has to power a heavier aircraft, but of course you are in one way belittling the Al-21F3 used by the Su-24, this engine might be more fuel thirsty in SFC and this is not by 10% but only 8% at full military power, this engine however will power a lighter aircraft and has a higher thrust at military power.
Sukhoi claims the MTOW for the Su-24MK is slightly more than 43000kg and the RAAF claims the F-111 has a MTWO of almost 52000kg, see that the difference in absolute ferry range at max fuel weight, has a difference in fuel weight of almost 11000kg between both aircraft, that ratio is almost the same in range and in max fuel capacity
Sign In
