Does anyone have any info on the max sustainable speed of a clean ( it has a small bomb bay) F-111 on military ( no A/B) thrust??

Surely not supersonic. The F-111 has a little drag problem. Installed thrust isn’t that good, either.

The whole problem can summorized in one single sentence:

CRITICAL MACH NUMBER.

No, it can’t.

Primarily determined by wing sweep, but also by thickness/cord ratio and area ruleing.

Wing sweep is not so influential as you think. See F-18.

————————-

“Supercruise” is only meaningful, when I can achieve a ~50% higher cruise speed (M0.9 to M1.3 f. e.) at an affordable drop in specific range [SR] (that is nautical miles per lbs of fuel). Normally SR drops about 60 to 80% when going supersonic with reheat. The F-22 only suffers a ~40-50% drop of specific range when flying M1.5. It actually has a ~70% drop at Mach 1.7, and here it is close to normal reheat. In words: If the F-22 can cruise Mach 1.7 in dry or not doesn’t matter, as the specific range is the same. For anything beyond M1.6ish usage of reheat is actually better.

What you see: the simple fact that an aircraft can fly supersonic is purely academic. Second: even supersonic flight without reheat causes a severe drop in specific range.

The B-58 suffered less drop in SR when flying supersonic, the SR-71 actually had better SR at Mach 3 than at M0.9. In both cases – however – this was mostly due to the pathetic performance in subsonic of both aircraft.

Even a single Komoran would probably mean a “mission kill” of the carrier, as it would probablby sustain substantial damage. Sinking the carrier is not necessary, removing it from the battle space is the mission.

In WW2 single bomb hits rarely sank aircraft carriers, but they nearly always had to exit the fight and needed repair.

The Tornados have a chance, when they attack in numbers and use speed and decoy attack aircraft. But losses would be there, and the success is not granted. With CVBG operating far enough of the coast, the chances for succes become smaller for the attacker.

Thanks to martinez for taking the time to scan the pages. That is much more effort than many people do on forums like these. Overall a useful discussion with some previously unavaible first-hand data coming up.

For some Russian aircraft pretty detailed “Aerodynamic Manuals” exist. They have thrust and drag data as well as some other information (control limits). As I cannot read Russian, I may have missed some infos from it. I have seen these manuals for MiG-23/25/29. None for the MiG-21, but I am sure there is one.
Take one of those, and you can produce virtually any graph.

The -21 grew in weight considerably (from 4.6t to over 6t), but engines kept pace.

MiG-21F-13 MiG-21MF MiG-21bis
OEW 4.9 6 6.2
FUEL 2.2 2.4 2.4
PAYLOAD 0.2 0.2 0.2

Maneuver 6.2 7.4 7.6
Thrust 5630 6560 6960
Wing Area 23 23 23

T/W 0.91 0.89 0.92
WingLoad 270 322 330

Don’t nail me on the numbers, I used various internet sources. But the general statement should be the same: the performance (at least using the obvious numbers) didn’t deteriorate so much, actually also to my surprise.

One thing: 50% internal fuel looks very dangerously low on fuel, shouldn’t be more than a minute or so burner time if you still want to fly home.

Hi everyone,

I am working on a small project for my Physics class and I want to compare to turbofan engine from Su-27 and F-15 in different parameters:

Honestly, the two noted engines are so similar, that with these basic parameters no comparison is possible. I would rather aim at some civil engines that are better accessible through public sources, or compare a low bypass turbofan (such as a military engine, TF30 for example) with a high bypass engine of a similar time frame (the JT9D for example).
Both P&W, both late 1960ies.