The only way the range demands could be reached, despite high-tech engines.
Vietnam operation Combat Lancer in 1968 did show, that the F-111A was in need of modification. The main cause came clear by the loss from dec 22 in 1969. The failure of the forged pivot fitting. The Air Force ordered all F-111s grounded, and the plane did not return to service until the following July.
There were still some problems left with the new-tech engine and some electronics including the terrain-following radar. But the F-111 was “over the hill of main problems” now and an excellent striker.
The starting problems of the F-111 were noted by the Russians and they were not eager to repeat that again or learn it the the hard-way, when it came to the related high-tech. Even than it was a long way for the Russians from the Su-24 to the later Su-24MK. Range capability became sacrificial.
The Russians did indeed want a better engine in the Su-24, they wanted to fit the AL-31 into the Su-24, however it meant a total redesign of its inlets, some Sukhoi designers even proposed a third inlet should had been fitted on top of the fuselage of the Su-24.
At the end it never happened but you overstimate the F-111, the Russians had the Tu-22M and niether Europe or the US designed an aircraft in its class, the Russians never wanted a FB-111 type of aircraft, just a more fuel efficient aircraft by fitting the Al-31, but later they realized the Su-34 was a far better proposition than the F-111 or F-15E type of fighter bomber.
One option never applied onto the Su-24 was applied on the Tu-22M3, the Tupolev bureau did modify the inlets of the original Tu-22M0, this made it a much much better aircraft than the FB-111 and allowed a cheaper more standarized version of Su-24s since the AL-21 was used by other Russian combat aircraft of that time
MiG-23MLD, I’m afraid you are once again mistaking the “notch” in the wings of Viggen or Tejas to be the crank. This notch is discernible in both the aircraft from the top-view only.
However, the crank is the lower-swept leading edge, that is “hammered down”. It is visible from the side-view. A hypothetical 90 degree “hammering” will make it perpendicular to the rest of the wing — however, in Tejas’ case it is done to the limit of 5 degrees only.
This is the portion of the wing, which generates the vortex above the wing. It is absent on the Viggen.
Reference :-
Sorry i could not open the webpage you recomended me.
Well in general since i have not the experimental results and i am not an aerodynamist i can not tell you how it affects the vortex, however the less sweep angle in the inner board section of the wing leading edge in the LCA, F-16XL and Viggen is to reduce vortex formation, since a less swept leading edge angle delays it and very spefically in the F-16XL and Viggen helps them to control pitch loads caused by vortex formation
If it has a 5 degrees wing gull like the Corsiar or Stuka
I guess it might also delay further the vortex formation and flow separation
MiG-23 MLD, the crank is seen from the side-view, but is indescernible from the top-view and front-view. This is because, it is a downward bend similar to the downward “droop” of the cockpit of Su-30. The angle of bend is 5 degrees.
Thus, this cranked feature of the leading edge (as highlighted in red colour in the photo posted earlier) provides a vortex above the wing — which is the same function as that of canards. The degree of this vortex may be a matter of debate, however it augments manoueverability at low-speeds at low altitudes.
Again, it must be noted that other than the Tejas, no 4th or 4.5 G fighter, in service or experimental has had a cranked wing.
In contrast, the Mirage-2000’s wing is a plain delta and is not “chiseled” enough in all 3 dimensions, to provide the measured air-flows as provided by the Tejas’ wing.
It must be noted that as per media reports, the Tejas’ test pilots have rated it higher than the Mirage-2000 in take-off, landing and also in general handling.In the schematic diagram of the Tejas posted by you, the anhedral of the wing that was referred by you earlier is not visible in the front-view. Your perception was because, as mentioned earlier, the Tejas’ rear wheels are at a lower level than the front wheel in order to assist the Tejas during take-off.
To be honest i do not see that, it might have it but from my point of view the wing is very similar to the one seen on the Viggen but with more fuselage and wing blending and some degree of anhedral since the front view picture does not show the sea gull style wing you claim, it has 100% sure a chiseled delta wing cut of less sweep angle but i can not see any sea gull wing, just more fuselage wing blending than in the Viggen.
In both aircraft, the LCA and AJ-37 Viggen the wing notch, its designed to reduce vortex formation to delay flow separation and Center of lift shifts, however the Indian design does not use canards to keep the LCA`s dimensions small and its weight light enough
Nevertheless the Mirage 2000 also has strakes on the inlet nacelle just ahead and above of the main delta wing to delay vortex formation and flow separation
Each design shows different parameters and solutions to the effects of vortex formation and flow separation at high Angles of attack
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_S-dOsNxwIIk/R7lDumTtbFI/AAAAAAAACks/Eid4lEOmHss/11.jpg
Sign In
