SchorschThe numbers all depend on the parameters and type of jet. What model, what altitude, what configuration, etc.
At low altitudes, the F-104 numbers were more competitive as long as the pilot stayed above 400KIAS. As altitude went up or speeds decreased below 400KIAS, then the F-4 had the advantage.
a common formulation of drag is:
CD = CD0 + k* (nz*CL_1g)^2
Where:
CD: overall drag cofficient
CD0: zero lift drag, Mach dependency
k: induced drag factor (result of aircraft design)
CL_1g: lift coefficient at 1g
nz: load factor
The Starfighter has disadvantages through its high wing loading, as the CL_1g is higher. Additionally, the k-factor is higher as the Starfighters wings have no efficient profile. This changes when maneuver flaps are used.
On the other side, the CD0 of the Starfighter is pretty low.
The CL is determined by weight and airspeed, basically
CL ~ 1/KIAS
CL ~ Weight
So keeping the lift coefficient low makes the Starfighter better.
SchorschI’ve seen it written somewere, that the F-16 has better endurance, range than an F-15. The F-16 carries less fuel but burns at exactly half the rate, compared the F-15…
The F-16 also has better lift over drag at 1g and 3g, has wing tip stores (which are basically drag free) and below 30k and M1.5 it is superior to the F-15 in performance.
SchorschI can remember one situation that was somewhat illustrative…we were ingressing at low altitude with some F-4Ds…I think we had tip tanks and a centerline bomb dispenser, the F-4s had pylon tanks and a dispenser on an inboard pylon. When we pushed it up to enter the target area, the F-4s had to go into burner while we stayed in military power. No big deal but it said something about drag and thrust.
Some numbers on that:
The F-104G has a clean optimum lift over drag of 9.2.
The F-4E has a optimum lift over drag of 8.6.
Data from here:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-a3.htm
Now, that difference doesn’t say much. In reality many small factors may change lift-over-drag. The F-104G has the advantage of the tip stations. Fuel stored here causes significantly less drag than pylon stores. Missiles on the tip actually reduce drag.
The endurance in a dogfight does not depend on 1g drag alone. The F-4 probably is a more efficient turner (a comparison of E-M charts at 1, 3 and 5g should unveil that, I assume the F-104G pretty much similar in 1g-SEP, but at disadvantage at 5g-SEP).
The theoretical mission distance for an “air superiority mission” usually includes cruise in and cruise out, and the “fight” is either represented by a set number of turns or a fixed time at full power.
The F-4 has the advantage of rather large drop tanks: I think it can add 1100 gallons of external fuel (2×250 + 1×600), and still carry 8 AAMs.
The F-104G can add 2 pylon tanks at (please correct me if I am wrong, my flight manual is in very bad quality) 170gal each.
The pylon tanks add 195gal each, which results in a pretty impressive 730gal, but pretty much without weapons (except the center pylon, which could hold a single Instant Sunrise Device or two Sidewinders).
I think only the F-104S had a second set of wing pylons.
SchorschOk, so you are in a position to give an informed opinion on the matter. Why dont you do that then?
Actually he did, plentiful:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39447&page=13&highlight=F-104
Especially this page:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39447&highlight=F-104&page=10
SchorschMust be the F-4. The F-104s high tailplane, small wing and lesser power/weight ratio would be a great disadvantage in a dogfight, and not just against the F-4 either.
Regards
If you keep the airspeed up, the F-104 can compete. Thrust-weight ratio may be better for the F-4 (while only marginally), but what counts is thrust-drag ratio. The F-104 has less drag than the F-4 compared to its thrust.
SchorschThe problem is that an aircraft of half the cost does not have half the effectiveness. It may have the same, but it may have only 10%. The problem is at what mission one is looking.
Example: The USN used the F-4B Phantom alongside the A-1 Skyraider. The F-4B undoubtedly was a very expensive bird in its time, yet for some purposes the Skyraider actually was better.
The key question is: what is the “sizing” mission and how likely is it?
The F-16A was build as affordable daylight fighter with some ability for fighter-bomber. Now, basically throughout its career it never did fighter duties but is more or less a bomb-truck, which can fly Mach 2 and make 9g turns. So, with hindisght, they could have used an A-7 for the job. Had the Cold War ever gone hot, the F-16A would have been the nightmare of Soviet aviators over Europe (like it was over Lebanon 1982).
The best mix probably is a bunch of very advanced fighters in conjunction with a large number of low tech fighters. In case of the USAF: F-22A together with F-16C Block 52.
Using an F-22 for air policing over Washington D.C. is like tasking the Navy Seals for giving out speeding tickets on the interstate.
SchorschWich one was the better dogfighter? I assume it must have been the Phantom.. (I’m only considering gun equiped F-4Es etc here).
Probably the F-4, but the F-104 could escape and didn’t need to take the fight if conditions were not favorable. Well flown F-104 using good tactics can beat most other aircraft.
In a classic dogfight, the second crew member in the Phantom can be invaluable. But the F-104 has the advantage of smaller size.
SchorschWhile I agree the aircraft is doomed, I would like to point out that a more valid comparison is the 757. I’ve pasted the wing span and area below, the aircraft is much closer to the 757 in size than the smaller A321. It seems it only took the Russians 30 years to copy the 757-200, an aircraft that is now out of production due to lack of demand.:)
type span (ft) Wing area (sq ft)
a321 112 1320
tu204 137 1938
b757 124 1951
The problem is that the Tu-204 seats less people than the A321, but weights about 13-15t more empty. For a low-cost carrier the Tu-204[SM] is a very bad deal.
SchorschWrong idea. It is about the future of the European fighter industry, when I have no problem to accept that behavior for Airbus/Boeing and their products. A fighter plane is no ordinary item and adds nothing to your economy at first. The development phase of a fighter is payed by the taxpayer always. No company will start a fighter program without that. The promises of future exports (=carrot) will reduce the pressure of cost control (=stick) at first. The taxpayer will have no real returns, when it comes to the profits of such exports. That extra profits were not even used to start a new fighter project of their own and relief the taxpayer of that burden. Military spending is an economic burden only. Smart people will keep the military spending as low as possible. 😎
While spending in aviation usually had a strong beneficial effect on the civil side of aviation. It educated people, matured technologies (see B707, or use of advanced materials) and equalized the ups and downs of the civil aviation market. In the initial years the military also supplied well educated pilots and maintenance crews to the airlines at low or no cost.
Military spending is of course always lost, but depending where you put it you always generate some sort of return.
The benefits of civil aviation from military aviation have diminished over the years, like current mainstream sport cars have nothing in common with Formula 1 racers any more. Military engine technology still is a driver in some aspects, but as current civil engines focus more on optimized fan technology or hot section lifetime, it also diminishes. I think a “5th generation fighter” will not include any technology that is truly required in civil aviation.
SchorschYes, the civil aviation indsutry looks indeed healthy. And if you look at the engine industry, it is obvious that the basic capbaility to built a combat aircraft will remain in Europe, what Europe lacks is the political will to pick one project and go ahead with it.
We could also built battleships or heavy subsonic bombers, yet we don’t do it.
I think the need for high maneuverability dedicated fighter aircraft will diminish in the next 20 years, and that current aircraft already represent the close-to-optimum in technology.
When looking at a Eurofighter, there is nothing much to change if you keep the requirements (weapons, range) similar. A requirement for increased speed would land you somewhere closer to the F-22 (which is undoubtly faster, but heavier and at least twice as expensive).
A “5th generation aircraft” would probably add stealth, but above that only the avionics still advance in a meaningful manner (but can be integrated in any existing airframe). It cost effectiveness is part of the equation, the most efficient aircraft today is an F-16C/E with latest avionics.
Simply, there is apparently no need for future fighters.
SchorschThe Tu-204 carries the same amount of passengers as an A321 with a 30% higher empty weight. It uses late 1970ies style systems, apparently quite basic turbofan engines and a 3-men crew. No wonder why nobody – even in the third world – ever wanted this aircraft.
The SM will rectify some issues, especially the engine, the systems (probably source of most technical break-downs) and 3-men crew. Tupolev cannot do much on the empty weight, they say they gonna drive down the weight by several tons (which doesn’t sound very believable, more like the usual empty blabla of Russian aviation officials).
The aircraft is doomed.
Schorschthe situation is equally bad on both sides of the Atlantic. The US is down to 2 possible suppliers – or maybe 1.5. Europe has more possible suppliers but fails to get them all into the boat, as Europe would need a combined effort with all countries investing in one project, so it ends up with similar but competing projects that take a long time to develop and are more (Typhoon) or less (Rafale) outdated, when they finally enter squadron service.
The majority of skills required for a fighter design* will be retained even without an actual program. The cost to restart design and production is higher, but overall no big issue. We could still build battleships today, or the V-2 missile. The technology is there.
————–
* Which skills are actually required?
> aerodynamics and flight mechanics
> aircraft design (bringing it all together)
> material technology (retained in and outside of aerospace industry)
> engine technology, kept via civil programs
> system engineering (an A350 beats the Eurofighter in complexity, with margin)
> electronics, again a skill used in many other fields. Human resources can simply be shifted.
When looking at nations like China or India, which struggle to build their own fighter aircraft, it usually lacks engine and material technology, while these two are strongly interrelated.
Up to the 1980ies the military hardware was much more complicated than the civil stuff. In civil aerospace affordability limited the technology. Today the balance has shifted, and civil programs are equally complex and hence the skills of the involved people can readily be used for military programs.
A good point of reference: the military A400M is delayed, overweight and under spec. That’s normal for a military program. The civil B787 is actually more delayed, also overweight and probably also under spec (at least internal).
SchorschYou’d wonder who actually pays for the development costs of a derivative of an airliner that has sold all of 50 or 60 examples in the last 20 years…
… but finally arrived at a technological level of current Airbus and Boeing Single Aisles. Actually, when I quickly learned at Wikipedia what the Tu-204SM is all about, you understand why the Tu-204 Classic didn’t sell.
3-man cockpit, engines apparently comparable to early CFM56, clumsy and unreliable systems. The aircraft is a nightmare for any operator.
SchorschThe engineering offices capable of designing a fighter are still intact, and keeping this 20 to 100 people isn’t too costly (10-15 Million a year). The rest of the capability is mostly occupied in other programs. Be it engine manufacturers, airframers or avionic specialists. They can always be used to generate a new fighter. Of course, it will take longer, but the majority of technologies necessary for a fighter jet is maintained inside the industry even without the market.
SchorschBeating a Dead Horse?
[ATTACH]191237[/ATTACH]
Sign In
