You are not afraid to cheat the people!

Data from Sukhoi: [conserative 0,78 kg density per litre]
14230 l intern + 8000 l extern = 22230 l for 3000 km or 7,41 l per km
Your data for the F-111A
28281 l total (intern+extern)for 5000 km or 5,66 l per km

When the lower value of 5,66 is the basic 100%, 7,41 is 130,9 % of that.
By the way, a number I did quote before.
All that high up, when the Tj is at its best.
But we discussed about the low-level range, where the Tf is at its best.

Even under best conditions high up the Su-24 is over 30% worse for every litre burned.
At low level the Su-24 is up to 100% worse.

The example does show for everyone to see. High up the Su-24 generates over 30% less range from every litre of fuel and when down on the deck it is even more worse.

For the other, it is not my intention to bash the producer of the Su-24, which were limited to that Tj-engine at hand. One of the best available Tj than, but still the wrong engine for a low level striker, which is in need of a Tf.
Just to bust that cloud of disinformation, by rising different numbers to proof nothing by that.

You are correct the Sukhoi webpage gives a higher internal fuel capacity for the Su-24Mk than the one AIRWAR ru uses, so my calculations did not consider that fact, i have been corrected.

Any way we have settled the issue, the Su-24MK carries more fuel that the one i quoted since airwar ru gives 9000kg and a total of 19000liters, however Sukhoi gives a higher internal fuel capability of 11100kg.

MiG has no idea and continues to quote over and over the same figues again. If you stick to it, do so, it will leave you with all the other laymen guessing around and assuming things that constitute this thread, but are ultimately wrong.

I earn my money with correct comprehension and application of L/D.
You may take a sheet of paper and try to re-enact the calculations I did with simple numbers.
You may Google the Breguet Range Equation.
Otherwise, stop simulating you have any understanding of basic aircraft performance figures.

I see you are not willing to understand.

Schorsch

You are an engineer no one denies that, i am not denying you might be a very good engineer, some one with experience and knowledge, however your data does not show the F-111 has a very big advantage in range due to SFC and lift/drag ratio.

you act even childish, i am open to learn as probably the vast majority of members are, but when i see the F-111 carries more than 28000 liters of fuel and the Su-24 only 19000 liters and i see a difference in range of 3165 miles (5000km) versus the 3050km of range the Su-24 has i do not see any miracle of aerodynamics as you claim.

All the data you claim does not prove at all the F-111 has a big advantage, see that only on internal fuel the F-111 carries the same fuel capacity the Su-24 has with three fuel tanks at ferry range.

you are not ignoring me, you are simply not facing those facts, you are ignoring and not even acknowledging a reality, the Su-24 carries less fuel than the F-111A in fact 8000 liters of fuel less when they fly their ferry range.

while you do not tackle those figures and acknowledge a reality that the F-111 carries more fuel at any configuration you are just barking but not biting.

therefore independently if you are a good engineer or not i think you are just boasting and not proving your facts with data taken from Sukhoi or the RAAF, since already at 51000kg the F-111 will be carring all its internal fuel and 11000kg or more of fuel tanks or weapons, around 30000kg rested from the empty weight of the F-111

also consider the F-111 has several variants and the Australian variant which is claimed to have a range of 5777km of range is the heaviest comparable only to the FB-111, the F-111A was lighter and has a shorter ferry range of 5093km

Maximum internal fuel, kg 11,100 + [6000 litre *0,78 (specific weight)] 4680 kg =
15780 kg fuel in total = 2775 km, but we assume that the Su-24 is not flown till empty after 2775 km and two tons are left as reserve, when landing.
Practical use for 2775 km will be ~13780 kg or 5 kg per km including the fuel-consuming start and climb-out leg to be on the safe side. (AB usage!)
We keep in mind the air-refuel will be at medium height at least, so the fuel-consuming start and climb-out phase can be ignored here. The Su-24 is hooked to the tanker for ~15 minutes [In-flight refuelling system
Maximum flow rate (at entry pressure of 3.5 kg/cm 2), l/min 1,100]
, the last leg will be ~2000 km left to reach 5000 km in total. So you are in need of less than 10000 kg to top your internal fuel only. When the PTs are not dropped it can be over 14 tons in total, but Sukhoi claims, that the PTs are dropped to free the Su-24 from the drag, when dropped to the end of the first hour into the ferry flight of >6 hours in total or 5000 km.

You are wrong the Su-24 achieves the range of 2775km with two tanks not three, see Sukhoi`s webpage it says two fuel tanks that is not 15000kgs but much less, with three fuel tanks it will achieve 3000km, the F-111 when it flies more than 5000km (3165miles) is carrying six fuel tanks twice the number of the Su-24 can carry and more internal fuel, see the max take off given by the Royal Australian air force is 51000kg see this fact

Why the White Paper paradigm is centred upon the F-111 is simple – it carries 34,000 lb of internal fuel, thus making it a frugal consumer of aerial refuelling resources inside a 1,000 NMI radius of Australian continental runways.

http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-F-111-Update-Feb-03.html

already the internal fuel of the F-111 surpasses the fuel capacity of the Su-24 and 1000mn is well within the range of 2775km ferry range for the Su-24

in fact the F-111 carries 19112 liters of internal fuel alone

Combat radius was 1330 miles, with ferry range being 3165 miles with maximum external fuel being carried. Internal fuel capacity was 5043 US gallons. With underwing fuel tanks, a maximum of 7443 US gallons of fuel could be carried

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f111_1.html

while the Su-224 carries that amount with three fuel tanks
Общая эксплуатационная емкость внутренних баков составляет 11860 литров (у самолетов до N 8-11 с неувеличенным 1-м баком – 11200 литров). Запас топлива может быть увеличен с помощью двух подкрыльевых подвесных баков емкостью по 3000 литров (ПТБ-3000) и одного подфюзеляжного подвесного бака емкостью 2000 литров (ПТБ-2000). При подвеске трех баков суммарный запас топлива доводится до 19860 л.
The overall operational fuel capacity is 11860 litres with internal fuel tanks ( the planes before 8-11 series aircraft with no Enlarged 1 – m tank – had a mx internal fuel capacity of 11200 litres). Fuel can be increased by means of two external fuel tanks with capacity of 3000 litres (PTB-3000) and one ventral suspended tank capacity of 2000 litres (PTB-2000). In total suspension of three fuel tanks brought to 19860 litres.

so if the Su-24 carries 19860 liters and the relation fuel kg is 0.75:1 you get a total fuel capacity of only 14895 kg since Топливо
внутренние топливо, кг 9800
внутренние топливо, л 13000
where in kg the total internal fuel is 9800kg and in liters is 13000

sourcehttp://www.airwar.ru/enc/bomber/su24.html

In fact at max fuel the F-111A carries a max of 28281 liters in internal and external tanks or almost more than 8000 liters that the 19860 liters carried by the Su-24 in internal and external fuel tanks or slightly more than 1/3 of extra fuel, in fact if you calculate the relation fuel range the relation is like this 5000km/3000km=1.6 and 28000liters/19000liters= 1.4, you find the SFC of the AL-21 is just slightly higher than that of the TF-30

In the economic sphere was signed six agreements. Including the construction of a factory in China for the enrichment of uranium for a billion dollars (including the supply of raw materials for 10 years) and the establishment of a Chinese forestry Tomsk region. However, the protection of Russian intellectual rights in China to discuss not have to post a high-ranking Kremlin source eve of the visit. Members of the Russian delegation to pretend that this problem does not exist. Industry and Trade Minister Viktor Khristenko spoke on the transfer of technology, which allows “itself to develop more new technologies, rather than sit in a glass bank”. A гендиректор concern “Sukhoi” Mikhail Pogosyan, unlike the journalists saw no similarities between the new Chinese fighter J11B and Russian Su-27, acknowledging only that “production of Russian aircraft under license influenced the development of Chinese aviation industry”. Meanwhile, after the start of production J11B licensing Su-27 has ceased to produce China

В экономической сфере было подписано шесть соглашений. В том числе о строительстве в Китае завода по обогащению урана за миллиард долларов (включая поставки сырья на 10 лет) и о создании в Томской области китайского лесхоза. Однако охрану российских интеллектуальных прав в Китае обсуждать не стали вопреки сообщению высокопоставленного кремлевского источника накануне визита. Члены российской делегации делали вид, что такой проблемы не существует. Министр промышленности и торговли Виктор Христенко рассуждал о передаче технологий, которая позволяет «самому разрабатывать более новые технологии, а не сидеть в стеклянной банке». А гендиректор концерна «Сухой» Михаил Погосян, в отличие от журналистов, не усматривал сходства между новым китайским истребителем J11B и российским Су-27, признавая лишь, что «производство российских самолетов по лицензии оказало влияние на развитие китайской авиационной промышленности». Между тем после начала производства J11B лицензионные Су-27 Китай выпускать перестал

http://www.newizv.ru/news/2008-05-26/90664/

I economic issues forced Russia to abandon the claims but also perhaps because the Su-27 already is old and perhaps because russia has something better already than the Su-27

http://www.newizv.ru/news/2008-05-26/90664/

“Operational radius of action at sea level in mixed mode (Vcr in the 200-km area, V=900 km/h in other areas) with PTB external fuel tanks and 6x FAB -500M-62 bombs, km 615”

615 km is 332 nm with 3 tons or 6600 lb of bomb and two 3000 litre PTB.
The same value is how many km or nm with 3 tons or 6600 lb of bomb on internal fuel only?
Just two pivoting wing-stations filled to around 60% capacity each.

It will be less of course but the F-111 will have something like 680km range but you forget it carries more internal fuel, the SFC matters true but not to say the difference is as you claimed 30%, the FB-111 with fuel tanks and weapons will have a range of 1580km and the Su-24 of around 1230km, the difference reflects more internal fuel and a slight 10% more economical SFC.

yes, “see the data shows the F-111 is not very different it might have a better radius but not a big difference” you finally admitted what I have pointed out.
At last…….

I do agree with you but i would be little bit careful about over stating the difference. 650km is in a Su-24 like this

while the F-111 will fly like this when has 700km radius

the real difference should be like 1230km range for the Su-24 with fuel tanks and bombs and 1550km with fuel tanks and bombs for the FB-111

Schorsch understands the difference between different engine types, the influence of external loads on overall performance and the dependence on mission profile.
Schorsch also knows how a seemingly small difference can add up and become a huge difference in the end. Guess why GE and Boeing sell their GrandMa if necessary to get 3% less drag, 4% less OEW or 5% better SFC. It adds up to 20% better economics in the end.
Schorsch is an engineer. You are obviously not.

But schorsch also avoids the fact the Su-24 also weighs similar to the F-111 at normal take off and both aircraft weights have a difference of 8000kg at max take off and he continues avoiding that that difference explains the F-111`s FERRY range with six fuel tanks of more than 5000km, that difference of 2500km extra simply implies that a Su-24 with 3 fuel tanks and less fuel will have a shorter range because with an inflight refueling can achieve also 5000km, the inflight refueling makes for the difference in max take off weight Schorsch avoids to see