SchorschThats not what the Swiss AF found at when they evaluated the Hornet. If pylons didnt make a difference, there would have been no need to develop a dedicated A/A pylon. Which improved performance considerably (I posted that data sometime ago).
The Hornets pylons are probably the draggiest ones around, and theyre canted out on the SH.
And probably rated for heavy loads Switzerland doesn’t need. That happens when you buy aircraft optimized for other missions. How mauch can the pylon of the F-14 carry (I mean the wing-root pylon)?
One advantage the F-14 has thanks to its swing wings is the good range/endurance at slow speeds i.e. with wings swept forward.
Members of the Tomcat mafia usually point out the F-14s superior speed and range, when in fact it has either superior speed or range. (Note: compared to the SH it wins anyway. :D) At higher speeds, the fuel flow of the F-14 is pretty high iirc.
Regarding operational use, theres the often citated example of an F-14D with 4 MK84 vs a similar loaded F-18E. In that configuration, the F-14 has more range and higher ingress/egress speed – what more do you want.
Though the F-14 is probably lurking from the base to the combat area at ~500-600km/h.
I have this feeling that many in the US Navy still cry for the Tomcat and now start firing misleading figures at the public, and as the F-14 is very famous, get lots of attention. You can reason that a Starfighter is better than a Tornado, or reason advantages of the F-4F against the EF2000 (OK, is tricky 😀 ), but normally you have to focus on a very tiny bit of the complete mission envelope.
I guess with 6 MK84 the Tomcat is worse. Oh forgot, it can’t carry so much. 😮
Not that I like the SuperHornet or the Hornet particularly much. Actually, I give a $hi1 which aircraft the Navy flies. It won’t buy in Germany, anyways.
SchorschAs much as I hate to defend the Super Hornet (:D), I think its safe to say this myth is
IIRC, there are pilots accounts saying so.
The F-18E is limited to Mach 1.1 at sea level by structure. I wouldn’t say it can really reach its speed. With any tactically useful configuration it will not.
The F-18C actually can. Given graph is for aircraft with two AIM-7 and two AIM-9.
[ATTACH]157448[/ATTACH]
Fuel flow is excessive. The y-axis is nautical miles per lb of fuel. At 10000ft and max Mach (~1.2) it is about 0.01, so for a 20nm run you need 2000lb of fuel. 20nm would be (with ~750kts TAS) equal to a little bit less than 2 minutes. Remember: that is without acceleration.
SchorschWhat earlier comments?
The one where I posted the mathematical proof about drag increases linearly with Mach number for a swept wing aircraft? [whereas it increases with Mach number squared for fixed wings]
:confused:
If it is that one, the formulae (and proof) did not come from wikipedia. 😉
I think it is not on Wikipedia as Wikipedia has improved quite a bit since I first saw it. Such calculations wouldn’t survive one hour.
I provided the link for convenience. Your forgot about transonic drag rise and some non-linear effects on wing sweep. Your calculation is true until M0.8. Above one could still prove advantages of the swing-wing, but not with your kind of reasoning.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1082334&postcount=69
At 10,000ft the F-14 can beat M1.6 (flight journal).
The maximum indicated airspeed of an F-14 is 1440 km/h, or 777kts IAS. At 10000ft that allows a maximum Mach number of 1.42, corresponding of a true airspeed of 905kts TAS.
With any weapons load that will be lower.
Like the full operational envelope with attachments is going to be kicking about publicly. 😉
Yes, for example. Like I do for you here:
F-14D Mach/Airspeed limitations from flight manual:
[ATTACH]157446[/ATTACH]
F-18E Mach/Airspeed limitations from flight manual:
[ATTACH]157447[/ATTACH]
The frontal area CANNOT be the same if the F-14 carries 2 weapons in tandem while the F-18 carries them side-by-side.
For the very rare occurance of the F-14 carrying 4 Phoenix under fuselage. You would wonder how much drag that produces in transonic regime. Airpeed limitation for such a configuration is Mach 1.1 for the F-14D, by the way.
The F-18 is better at extreme AoA, indeed, its better than anything bar the F-22 (maybe even including it). Going to extreme AoA does make it a bit of a sitting duck though.
The F-18A-F has adaptive wing camber. For most maneuvers within normal maneuvering AOA (which is normally below 15°) it will have lower drag than an F-14.
Yeap – for ground based aircraft, the onus can be on high-lift devices for take-off and then design the wing for transonic maneuvering.
For carried based aircraft, the slow landing & take-off speeds raise different questions. Hence why the F-18 uses a relatively unswept wing.
Thrust is less costly these days. So you can install more thrust and save the extreme weight of the swing wing. A swing wing designed for maneuvering (high G) is a classical paradoxon. The F-18E has at all weights at least one G more available by its structure, the F-14D is limited to 6.5G until 50klb, then decreasing to below 5 at 65klb.
The OEW of the F-14D is given with 44klb, so with anything more than minimum fuel and some weapons you run into serious limitations. With max internal fuel the F-14D is limited to 5.5g.
I actually forgot that the F-14 is a pretty crappy aircraft. the flying limitation. Now I know why they needed two pilots and still crashed so often.
SchorschI disagree.
Considering your earlier comments (different thread) on swing wing aircraft (which were by the way mostly wrong), I see that you stick to your limited knowledge and not really see the real picture. That may be due to limited access to data and unwillingness to really challenge the mostly wrong information flooding through the internet.
You can outrun a modern AAM – or rather, run away fast enough that it can’t catch you before running out of fuel.
With a clean “super” hornet unable to break Mach 1 beneath 10,000ft you aren’t gonna be able to extend the intercept for too long.
Sure you can. But neither aircraft in a tactically useful configuration will have sufficient speed to do so. The F-14 may be able to break the sound barrier below 10000ft, but will creep along with M1.2 to M1.4 after lengthy acceleration phase. From 100 scenarios maybe it will outrun a missile which might get an F-18. Most of the time the opponent will launch the missile in a way that no outrunning is possible.
The F-14 will mince the F-18 (any variant) in any speed or speed/endurance comparison.
I asked for real life data and you are coming with assumptions.
The gap will only increase when loaded as the F-14 can carry ordinance in-line along the fuselage tunnel. The F-18 is forced to carry its loadout along the wing span, and this increases its frontal cross-sectional area by a greater proportion than the F-14.
That doesn’t even bring in the bigger frontal area of the F-14 to begin with (thus missile A will have less of a proportional increase on the F-14 than the F-18) – or bring in the optimisation of the swing wings for different speeds, or the lifting fuselage design [all in favour of the F-14].
The frontal area is the same. If you refer to the pylons, they don’t really make a difference as long as no MER/TER are carried (which the F-14 cannot do anyways). The speed with a2g payload is limited to subsonic, and no aircraft can afford to get much beyond M0.9 due to excessive fuel flow. You would know if you had some idea on real life flight performance. If the Tomcat goes M0.03 faster in this configuration is – honestly – quite secondary.
Your lifting fuselage is interesting at high AOA, which won’t be flown with a2g loads. The F-18 is better at this regimes anyways and will have lower drag for most lift coefficients.
Your swing wings garantue some advantage in some regions, so much is granted. The fact that nobody has produced one since the highly specialized Tornado should actually indicate how experts are thinking about swing-wings nowadays.
Although the F-14 versus F-18 discussion seems to be the burner of the next decade in the internet, most arguments are flawed. The F-14 looks cooler, that is granted. 😉
SchorschF-22 is 20 year old technology. The next revolution in air dominance will be the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of brilliant weapons at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles in less than two hours. (Google “Darpa” & “Falcon”) Targets will never know when its coming due to speed, altitude and stealth. Even if you have spies at the base when it takes off, you’ll never know where its going to strike because if its 9,000 mile strike radius.
Sounds like a very incapable, totally overpriced piece of hardware. Who defined it, the shareholders of Lockheed-Martin?
SchorschMore like a slow walk. Aircrews transitioning over from the F-14D must be totally blown away by the Rhinos turn of speed. 😉
Can’t imagine what the the F-111 crews will make of the Rhino’s raw performance. Whizz bang radar and avionics aside the raw performance figures of the Super Hornet doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
How about telling us normal cruise speeds of F-14D, F-111C and F-18E with typical weapons loads? Give your result in Mach or kts TAS (mph and kph would be OK, too). You may also provide the fuel flow relative to overall fuel load for one hour at that speed.
The Mach 2.x at the first digit for F-111 and F-14 is out of reach for most missions. Although I agree that the F-18 (any version) is not the fastest aircraft ever designed, the real life speed difference will be surprisingly low.
When F-14 or F-111 start to make anything besides going straight ahead they will lose, now with a big margin.
SchorschPerformance index? There are performance charts all throughout it.
So, it will have charts about fuel flow at maximum thrust with/without external loads. So why the question?
SchorschI recently bought a copy of the F-102 Delta Dagger pilot’s operating manual from amazon.com, and it’s really quite a fascinating ready. I’ve always been enthralled with the Deuce, and I figured it would just help me to learn more about it.
One thing that I noticed that really surprised me is that the typical touchdown speed in this aircraft is around 130 kts. This is somewhat slower than I expected as I was under the impression that delta-winged jets have pretty high landing speeds. Can anyone explain this anomaly? Anyone here know the landing speeds for the Mirage III or other delta-winged jets of the period?
Additionally, while not in the manual, I recently heard that the F-102 is capable of somewhere around Mach 1.5 whereas the figure you normally hear is about Mach 1.25. Could it be that this commonly accepted figure of Mach 1.25 is the maximum speed with two tanks and a weapons load, while the Mach 1.5 would be clean with no tanks and/or weapons?
I’ve always thought the Deuce looked to be a very clean airplane, and it has a slightly better TWR ratio than the F-100 which uses the same engine, so why shouldn’t the Deuce be faster than the Hun? (even if not by much) Is Mach 1.5 really that unreasonable for the F-102 to achieve in level flight by an aircraft with the Case XX wing?
You bought the manual without performance appendix? What a waste!
Next time order here:
http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/F106.html
SchorschThe distance to the target is quite remarkable, making it a 400nm roundtrip over hostile territory. Hard to believe that no response was possible in that time, as the time over Syrian territory even for a dash approach would be more than 30 minutes (F-15I cannot go supersonic when flying on the deck). So they were either undetected or well defended, or the Syrians were completely caught off guard.
The target is apparently far off any SAM site.
Can someone comment about nearby airports with air2air squadrons?
SchorschThe funny flightblogger-site is now password protected.
Does someone have an invitation?
http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/
SchorschEK transported 387 passengers per flight ex-MAN on a 77W in August (48,000 passengers on thereabouts) which is 60% loads on their A380HD version. I’m not anticipating them having an A380HD in service for 2 years at least, which leaves them plenty of time to push themselves to over 400 passengers per flight; the A380 should allow them to push prices down a little bit more to effectively compete against SQ and Jetstar (if they start SYD-MAN by 2010).
And they might offer their economy-passengers a bit more comfort than on the B777-300ER with HD cabin. The 3-4-3 seating in a 300ER is something Amnesty International has on its watch. 😀
Applied the same or a slight higher level of humanity (3-4-3 is OK in A380), the A380-800 is good for ~600 to 650 Paxe. Singapore has very low density has very low density First and business (1-2-1 for both).
SchorschThe report especially overlooks that the A380 is on the very beginning of its service life. Of course, the current airlines will have luxury stuff. At the moment it is doubtful that they can fill a 500pax economy. Other airlines will have different accomodations.
And please hold in mind that the A380-800 is the shrink of the real A380, so on the long run we will have the 600 people aircraft. No doubt.
SchorschSeven years ago I had calculated VLA plane simplified flutter criteria acc. to BCAR Part K, because was a request Polish Civil Aviation Authority and there was a lot of conversions such as Nm/deg to lbft/rad. Since then those conversions are not very difficult for me. :diablo:
dranio
The usual conversations from SI (m/s, m, kg) into the funny unit system (ft/min, kts, nm, ft) are so used to be that I actually start programming using the funny units. I am now even able to give a rough estimate on true airspeed to indicated airspeed conversion when I know the altitude. :diablo:
SchorschYeah i know that, and i allready thanked you.
I mean something else.When i look at this graphs, they are not so easy to “feel”.Just one graph can require atleast 3-4 unit conversions.Just an example.
Here nothing “tells” to me:this is high(value),this is low,this is far/close….after 5 conversion i can understand to some extent the scheme.
To be honest, it is not that I glance at a graph and say “err, yes, that looks like a mediocre damped dutch role coming up at Mach 1.2”. If one really wants to use the stuff in the document, you need to invest some time. But some items (like the control systems or the flight envelopes) are readily available.
SchorschI expected mention of the Su-24, but how come nobody has mentioned the F-4? Don’t they compose a large part of the IRIAF’s long-range strike force?
Don’t mix F-4 Phantom and long range. They are not long range. With worthwhile payload you might squeeze a 600nm radius out of an F-4E, on a high-high-high profile.
Sign In
