SchorschYet still can’t land on a carrier (one of TFX’s requirements) nor could it carry Phoenix and the AWG-9 (another one). Add those features and now the F-15 is really no better (as was borne out by the F-15N study back in the day).
The TFX failed so epically because it was given impossible specifications.
In the end the F-15 is the better TFX: it is multirole yet doesn’t incorporate dead-end technologies or über-heavy avionics.
The AWG-9/AIM54 combo was only useful as naval defence, the USAF never really considered it a weapon system worth the expenditure (and the USN relied on AIM7 for CAP mostly).
Unfortunately, the TFX shows that setting the requirements high doesn’t necessarily result in a “winning” design, it might reault in a failure. Maybe a lesson for the F-35, which hasn’t yet proven anything except total cost and schedule failure.
The F-111 was a good aircraft, but the same technologies (turbofan engine, better materials, new avionics) in different aircraft would have produced better aircraft. As the F-14 did: it was F-111 minus the atomic bomber.
SchorschThat might be Schorsch, we are however posting in MMA. Military a/c especially fighters and bomb trucks have somewhat different requirements. Engine rpm is normally related to the hp compressor. I personally haven’t seen a mil cockpit with more than one rpm gauge per engine. If the Tornado had a gauge per spool there would be six in total, abit much to take in at a quick glance.
I know in civil aviation N1 is used as thrust indicator. What does the Tornado & RB199 use?
SchorschHow does one go about the need to pee strapped in that tiny cockpit ?
There are options …
The biggest issue for those transatlantic ferry flights is the failure of the air refuelling.
SchorschWhat is that OEW?
You have the manual, it should state the OEW or basic weight. I know only the Wikipedia-numbers, which are chronically in-accurate (normally too optimistic).
SchorschF-14D was probably closer as one of the TFX’s requirements was to operate off a carrier, which the F-15 can’t do.
The F-14 lacks the number of suitable pylons, and adding them would mean a substantial redesign of the aircraft. Also, the heavy and complex swing wing is more a burden than a bonus. The F-15E (if flying without CFTs) still outperfoms the F-14.
SchorschBecause the F-15A was the first fighter able to pull sustained 9gs, right? 😀
Is funny because id a test claiming F-15/A-B, while there are not weights given and no more detailed data over it.
1985 test, most likely a F-15C
The A is actually better in performance than the C, as the C has a higher OEW. While not much.
SchorschThrottle movement and rpm rise (N2 with fan engines) are not linear. Usable rpm begins around 80-85% to max. Therefore the throttle travel needed from idle to that rpm is normally fairly short giving better control in the area you use the most.
IDLE RPM N1 (not N2) can be as low as 35% for a civil turbofan (CFM56). N2 is much higher – as you say – but N2 has only a limited effect on actual thrust, again for civil engines with large bypass ratio.
SchorschLatest Russian bombers stand long-distance test
Jun 23, 2010 17:59 Moscow Time 😮 😮A wing of latest Russian Sukhoi-34 fighter bombers has successfully accomplished a non-stop 6-thousand-kilometre test flight from the region of Lipetsk south of Moscow to the region of Khabarovsk in the Russian Far East. The Sukhoi-34’s predecessor in the niche, the Sukhoi-24, cannot fly further than 3 thousand kilometres.
The Sukhoi-34 is a two-seater with a length of 22 metres and a wingspan of 14.7 metres. The maximum speed is 19 hundred kilometres an hour.
NATO aircraft do that regularly to get from Europe to USA and back. The only really challenging issue is the lack of a toilet.
SchorschLooking at US airframes of the period.. the B-66/A-3…well they were also mulit role but were replaced in time… where they obsolete? Or old and in need of replacement and that replacement was a more efficient concept?
A very efficient concept to combine high aspect ratio with low structural weight.
But supersonic aircraft need very stiff wings, and the wing height is limited by the airfoil requirements.
The Yak-28 has an aspect ratio of 4.2, the A-66 of 6.7, the B-52 had 8.6 (close to modern airliners). It was a pathetic subsonic cruiser (due to engines & aerodynamics).
SchorschThe Yak-25/27/28 series just like SNSACO S.O.4050 Vautour was successful configuration due to engine pods of closing CoL which leading to less trim drag for stable design and liberated from inlet and engine naselle which causing more capability of fuel.
However, seperated wing’s engine pods also was a configuration with more wet area and frontal area, that’s why you never saw such configuration breakthrough Mach 2 except special design and powerful engine used.
The Vautour was subsonic in operation, could dash transonic. I don’t doubt that engine nacelles are a useful option, but I wouldn’t consider them for supersonic aircraft.
The Yak-28 was based on a proven design, but the Russians pushed it too far to meet the specification. They didn’t have anything else.
The whole idea of taking a highly swept (the Yak had 45°, the Vautour had 35°) wing supersonic is flawed, there is no other design I know which used it.
By the way: Bill Gunston gives ~11t empty weight and a top Mach number of M1.37 at altitude for the Yak-28L. The hi-hi-hi range is given with 2500km, which would probably translate into a 1000km radius in hi-hi-hi in a purely subsonic mission.
SchorschThat’s hopeless…
Correct, don’t waste your time. But thank you for providing the charts of the F-15, I have never those before. The F-15 flight manual is still not de-classified for sale outside the USA.
I’ve marked it for you. Red circle means sea level. Green arrow means ~10 000ft. Both aircrafts clean – MiG with ~2000kg of fuel and F-15 with ~3400kg of fuel.
But be aware that the MiG-chart uses indicated airspeed. We could translate that into Mach number for each altitude, but I would be careful about comparing them directly.
For the question at hand: both aircraft are similar in performance, the details won’t be decisive for a potential engagement.
SchorschWhat’s the purpose of firing any AA missile at its max range? Effective range of any AA missile is when fired against small, maneuvering target is significantly smaller than it’s max range.
BTW: I’m not sure if the APG-63, APG-68(V)5 or APG-73 wouldn’t be able to track a Flanker sized target (RCS=20 m2) from a distance of >100 km.
The purpose is to force the opponent to turn away and by that ending the engagement, though not with a kill.
Any fighter able to launch the first missile will be in most cases the fighter that will not lose the engagement.
And the Suchoi 27 plus all derivatives are juicy targets for any radar.
Schorsch– Yes the Strike Eagle is built around a 1960`s design!
That is true, but that is no problem in itself. They built fabuluous aircraft back then. The engine got continuous upgrades, the avionics even more. As a fighter the F-15 isn’t first class anymore, but as fighter bomber it is a formidable design, taking advantage of the huge wing and the plenty of stations where various payloads can be placed.
P.S do not get me wrong. I think the Su-34 (and all Flanker`s for that matter are excellent, effective and powerful fighters – in many ways I am envious of the Russian`s/Soviet`s designers ability to surpass Western types in simplicity, power and ruggedness!) I even often go as far as say that the Soviet`s/Russian`s clearly achieved what the United States could not with its own philosophy and requirement in its 1960`s TFX (F-111) program – a common airframe/engine family which could carry out a myriad of combat tasks and missions, which would equate to financial and operational benefits!
Interesting comparison, but justified. Basically, for the USA, the F-15 is the true TFX. The F-111 was too much optimized for low-level and built in a time when Mach2+ performance was too much of a focus.
The only thing I miss on the F-15 is the lack of leading edge devices, which increase maneuver performance and field performance. McDD opted for more wing area, which made the F-15 a formidable strike platform later, but has some drawbacks.
SchorschYour basic statement was BVR missiles do not work because in the Ethiopian Erithrean war the R-27/AA-10 Alamo failed miserably and therefore it is a bad missile without considering the lack of mantainance Russian equipment suffered in the 1990s and the fact most Russian pilots did not fly as many our a year as their Soviet Counter parts did
The human-machine interface of the Russian designs were aimed at GCI-supported interception of aircraft. As soon as they operated outside their mutual support area, these designs performed miserably.
SARH-missiles are not intended for fighter to fighter combat.
In a many versus many situation, the lack of training and the bad equipment of the WP air forces would result in heavy losses. The WP-aircraft were not bad, but tailored to a specific mission. A good pilot in a MiG-23ML could do a difference, just they were so few of them.
Schorschmach 1.8 with 10 tons weight, 1200km radius
big deal, i had rather go with the lighter airframe.
14-13 tons was the weight equipped (with fuel)
You have noticed the fact that a MiG-21 pulled a miserable range out of its 3t internal fuel at 6t OEW and ONE engine, while the Yak had two and apparently only a bit more fuel?
If the 2500km max range figure is correct, we can assume a radius of about 500-700km, about half of the F-105’s radius (on a “special weapon” delivery mission).
Sign In
