SchorschTechnically the F/A-18 doesn’t have a straight wing. The A-37 is a jet with an almost straight wing. The sweep on the F/A-18 leading edge is about the same as the F-104. The F-35C also has sweep that matches what is seen on the F/A-18. This works well for low speed handling, it did back then and it still does today.
When McDonnell Douglas and Northrop joined forces to produce the F/A-18 for the US Navy, it was agreed that McD would get the carrier based sales and Northrop would get the land-based sells. McD went after all sells and Northrop sued over it. No real F-18Ls were ever produced, it was a paper jet for the most part.
Technically a sweep of less than 20° is insignificant in terms of less transonic/supersonic drag. The F-104 had technically spoken an unswept wing. But it combined it with a very low profile and small wing area. The arrangement of the F-18 proved to be less than optimal for transonic performance, but is of advantage for low speed handling and performance.
Schorschhttp://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft7X/FRHeft78/FRH7803/FR7803b.htm
Maybe someone can translate the intresting data.
For all interested, a highly recommendable article. Written in early 1978 in discusses the new fighter of the Luftwaffe and covers the F-18L as contender. Some data is given, for example empty weight compared to carrier-based F-18A. Interesting is the statement that German industry would be unable to produce its own fighter before mid 90s, even when doing cooperation. This became true.
Here an example, translation tool kind of crappy:
The F-18L Cobra is basically modified F-18 with the same(identical) engines, the same(identical) board radar and many other common electronics systems, and also externally(outwardly) both airplanes are identical. Because F-18L from the carrier airplane F-18 Hornet was derived(deduced) for a land execution, it is lighter(simpler), easier(simpler) and equipped with more achievement profit than this. Compared with(Towards) with 400 $ per kg of airplane to figured costs(expenses) for F-18 / A18 the weight savings achieved(reached) in F-18L and with it(thus) cost savings are impressive. The weight of the Basis-F-18L is called(mentioned) with 27400 lbs (12 440 kg), compared to 33 700 lbs (15300 kp) for F-18. More than 2 800 Ib (1 270 kg) structural weight and system weight have become unnecessary(needless) for from land(country) from carried out applications F-18L.
SchorschAs far as 1950s bomber designs go: the Bison is absolutely beautiful, but the tandem landing gear cost it a lot of internal volume which could have been better used… Don’t forget that pre-G model B-52s not only relied heavily on tankers, but also had to haul those absolutely huge wingtanks to be truely intercontinental bombers.
.
28th March 2007 20:18
It would be technically correct to compare the B-52 against the Bison. The Tu-95 was a re-assurance to have a intercontinental bomber available, as jet technology did only marginally provide the technology for transcontinental flight. The Bison is a good example, as its design suffered from lacking engine technology. It is also fair to consider the performance of the first B-52, which had much shorter range than later G and H models. The Americans always had air refuelling in mind.
SchorschBy the late 1950s, the Soviets had little more delivery methods for nuclear weapons than some 150-200 M4 and Tu-95 bombers. It wasn’t until the Cuban missile crisis that the Soviets actually had a nuclear deterrent. Prior to that, the US could have attacked without any serious (never mind appropriate) repercussions.
The M4 wasn’t produced in large numbers, I think no more than 93 were build. I think there were never more than 2 wings active. The biggest issue about the aircraft was the engine. Appart from that, it was a decent aircraft in line with other 1950s design (like the V-bombers). The B-52 was a remarkebly design for its time, it excelled in payload range. It was, however, far far away from being trouble free.
SchorschThe gap between the first Soviet Hydrogen bomb and the first US hydrogen bomb was much smaller than the gap between the first Soviet nuclear weapon and the first US nuclear weapon…
Which is … irrelevant. Hydrogen bombs with 10+ MT were just terror-weapons useful to erase cities. But to do it you need to get there. They only fitted on large bombers, which could successfully be detected and intercepted even by mid 1950s interceptors. The Americans fielded quite a lot of bombers, so that at least some hydrogen bombs would have found its targets, while the Soviets maybe could have managed to attack one or two cities, at best. The M4 was able to reach USA, possibly able to outrun some of the interceptors. The Tu-95 would hardly be so lucky. Stand-off weapons, maritime component or missiles were unavailable in the 1950s.
If there was ever a chance of the USA to attack the SU with minimal own losses in the home country, it was in the 1950s. I guess quite a lot people considered this attack possible and desirable, which changed just 10-15 years later.
SchorschIf an acceptable number of americans might have survived the result would you doubt they would have tried… the reality is that the only thing that stopped WWIII was that the US thought they would come out of WWIII the way the USSR came out of WWII. If they thought they could come out of WWIII the way they came out of WWII I don’t doubt the average radiation levels around teh world would have been much much higher.
I think – “thanks” to the B-52 – an all-out atomic war would have cost much less American lives than Soviet/Russian. The Soviet offensive transcontinental striking power was until the availability of missiles quite low. So, in the 1950s the Americans enjoyed a comfortable advantage in transcontinental nuclear strike. The Russians also lacked behind in the number of nuclear bombs, I heard estimations that in 1960 the Soviets possessed something like 300-400 bombs, compared to 10.000 American nukes.
So, I think in the 1950s an war between NATO and Soviet Union would have left the continental USA largely unharmed, but most likely would have devasteted Europe. That changed in the late 60s with more bombs being available, more missiles (medium & long range) being available and subs cruising through the Oceans.
SchorschThe empty equipped F-35* are around 14 tons, an installed dry of ~12 tons and a wing area of ~43-62 sqm
The empty equipped F-16C/D Block 50 are ~8,5 tons, an installed dry of ~8 tons and a wing area of ~28 sqm.
The empty equipped SH* are around 14 tons, an installed dry of ~13 tons and a wing area of ~46 sqm.
The empty equipped Su-30s are around 18 tons, an installed dry of ~16 tons and a wing area of ~63 sqm
The empty equipped Rafale* are around 10 tons, an installed dry of ~10 tons and a wing area of ~46 sqm.
The empty equipped MiG-29* are around 11 tons, an installed dry of ~10 tons and a wing area of ~38-42 sqm
The empty equipped Typhoon* are around 11 tons, an installed dry of ~12,2 tons and a wing area of ~50 sqm.
Your numbers actually reflect somehow that exact figures are hard to obtain and are generally not accurat (sources often state “empty weight” when OEW is more important).
Interesting to note is that the only aircraft with proven supercruise capability has higher dry thrust than empty weight.
SchorschIt would be technically correct to compare the B-52 against the Bison. The Tu-95 was a re-assurance to have a intercontinental bomber available, as jet technology did only marginally provide the technology for transcontinental flight. The Bison is a good example, as its design suffered from lacking engine technology. It is also fair to consider the performance of the first B-52, which had much shorter range than later G and H models. The Americans always had air refuelling in mind.
After all, I think the Soviets had no affection for large bombers, and were eyeing missiles quite early (the procurement costs of a large bomber fleet was beyond Soviet capability in the 50s, too).
SchorschI am surprised to learn that views. The F-16 is technology from the 70s and the JSF is two decades later. “Wing-load” is no longer the same. Just to learn about lift designed into the JSF. The JSF is as agile as the SH at least and none of thats pilots claim a lack of agility really.
I agree that wing loading doesn’t give away the full potential of a wing. In case of wings with automatic leading and trailing edge devices less wing will produce more lift. Same applies for vortex generating devices. Still, the F-16 incorporates all of them in a fairly good manner that can’t hardly be beaten today. Other key parameters (like empty weight and thrust/weight) just don’t look like for an F-16.
SchorschI think it is pretty hard to gain such data (except for the wing loading which is easy to calculate as the wings from Su-27 series were kept, AFAIK). IIRC, the Su-34 has more range than any contemporary Sukhoi 30, that should be suffiicient as a start.
With wing area, empty weight (or better: operating empty weight), internal fuel capacity and engine thrust you basically get a lot of information. With basic assumptions on lift over drag, engine SFC and mission profile you can guess an operational radius, like I have done at this occasion:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1093531&postcount=250
SchorschTWR with 43000lb engine is around 0.9 and wing loading ~500kg/m2.
Doesnt look very good compared to an F-16, but the latter has to carry all stores external, so the F-35 might not perform worse. One goal of the F-35 was afterall to have equal or better flight characteristics than the F-16.
From currently published figures this goal will be missed, when we focus on pure dogfight performance criteria (acceleration, turn rate). But as I said: If it is not needed or required, it is idiotic to design it this way. The US armed forces only get an aircraft as good as they define it, and in my opinion that is one of the primary reasons for sobering results of some designs. The American aircraft industry is the most capable and can deliver nearly everything, and that for acceptable costs (relative to the economical power of the country) and in acceptable time frames. Some aircraft suffered from contradicting requirements, and sometimes illusions about technical capability.
SchorschNo one has ever seen any Su-27, Su-30, Su-33, Su-34, Su-35 or other Flanker carrying a fuel bag, that is true. Got anyone a good details to check out whether they feature wet pylons?
Maybe it is because long range strike is not a classic mission of the Russian Air Force. I guess the procurement of external tanks is not a priority for an airforce that still struggles to keep its aircraft operational and its pilots flight-rated and trained.
SchorschHow would you know how nimble it is? Your statement is nothing more than conjecture considering the plane hasn’t done any real flying yet. I’m sure the plane is quite nimble and will be more than capable of defending itself. How nimble we won’t know for quite a while. I think the USAF, USM, US Navy, and Lockheed-Martin know what they’re doing.
You are right that nothing is sure before flight testing is done, the final weights are set and engine rates are typed in the FADEC. But from current figures and the normal tendencies during an aircraft program we can assume that basic dogfight capability is worse than for an F-16. That is OK, because it was not the mission. An aircraft does not need to be agile, if the mission doesn’t require it. Actually it is stupid to design too much agility in a fighter. However, I had in mind the F-35 was primary a fighter aircraft, and that is – how I learn here – not true.
SchorschSens
It is not possible the Su-34 has less range than the Su-30MK as you claim simply because it carries more internal fuel, also another reality of this, is the fact the 4000km are achieved on only internal fuel and with just a single in flight refuelling has a range of 7000km contrary to the Su-30MK that needs two in flight refuelling hook ups to get to a range of 8000km and it has a range of 3000km armed with four missiles not full weight.
The F-111 and the Su-34 are in many ways similar in concept
More interesting is fuel fraction, wing loading and TWR. They give a clue how efficient the aircraft can cruise (wing loading), which thrust settings it needs in cruise (TWR) and how much fuel it carries relative to weight. The sheer number of kg carried inside is less relevant.
SchorschBritain always believed a heavier weight (11t) would be needed to meet specs. 9.75 tonnes was a compromise with the other nations.
Which specs do you mean? Of course, a heavier aircraft can potantially carry more payload, but other performance goals do not benefit from weight increase (for example range). A heavier aircraft is more costly (more technology needed to achieve the performance goals). When one compares the Eurofighter with the F-15C or the Su-27, the Eurofighter has a very good relationship between combat performance (in terms of flight performance and weapons carried) and take-off weight. The F-35A and the F-22A are both pretty heavy birds, somehow sticking to the USAF/Navy tradition to procure expensive and heavy birds.
I actually like the 9 tons of the Rafale more.
Sign In
