Hi Schorsch,
three small details: The TF30-P-100 and P-414 are different and tuned for different missions as are the AL-21 and R-35 too. Even with two ETs dropped empty, Sukhoi do not claim more the 2775 km ferry range. The option of a third ET brings around 3000 km ferry range.

That is accepted. But as I don’t have SFC available for each engine in the world they set a useful yardstick to explain our fellows here the basics of aircraft engine design & performance. The data I gave can be considered representative for late 1960s engine design.
My little example was primarily aimed at showing the impact of a 25% higher SFC on overall range. If we plug in the correct weight data, assume the penalties for external tanks (and when they are dropped) and assess the rather tricky change of L/D for a swing wing aircraft (a ferry flight would most likely be done with wings swept fully forward, while a mission is mostly flown with wings in middle position). Then we also have to assume partial power SFC and flight profile.
However, no matter you turn it, the odds against the Suchoi 24 when it comes to range will not go away.

Noticed we had the 0.8 of Aardvark vs 0.76 of Fencer or 0.67 of Aardvark vs 0.76 of Fencer.

These SFCs are wrong.
We have actual data for TF30-P-412 (see my post page 2) and can see that for max military at 11km and M0.9 the SFC is about 0.9;
we use as representative for the AL-21 the data for the R-35 from the MiG-23ML aerodynamic manual. Page 76 and 78 give us about 1.13 for such conditions.
Now: (1.13-0.9)/0.9 = 25.5% more SFC.
Note: both infos are from Russian sources, downloadable from the net.

Using Breguet range equation:
[ATTACH]162843[/ATTACH]

W_initial is TOW.
W_final is TOW – Fuel
We assume a reserve fuel of 1000kg.
Fuel density is 0.8kg/l.
And for God’s sake, we assume both aircraft to weight 22t operating empty and similar L/Ds.

[ATTACH]162844[/ATTACH]

Hence: The SFC alone yields a 33% range penalty.
Now drop in the extra drag through external tanks and you easily arrive at the given figures from the quoted websites.
2839nm equal 5230km.

Note: for 0km altitude the SFC difference is similar, about 25%.

Real killer of T-4 is Tupolev with his child Tu-22M. And it’s apparent that you don’t know that T-4 role was aircraft carrier “killer”, not conventional bomber. Also there is no T-100, “Izdelie 100” was public name for T-4, and Sukhoi engineers chose it based on the planed aircraft weigh of 102 tons. That led to confusion and gave birth to T-100.
FBW was tested first on M-50 bomber.

I hope you are not requiring me to know all the details of the intentionally confusing Soviet naming system. As long as you know which aircraft is meant I regard my name memory as successful.
Whatever the role of the aircraft originally was, it was obviously not necessary any more or at least was considered uneconomical compared to other solutions (Tu-22M with cruise missiles).
FBW for large and small aircraft is a different kettle of fish. And Sukhoi is Sukhoi, while Tupolev is Tupolev.

So you can say that “surely” was unable, but you don’t know with what engines the testbed flew? In fact the goal was 2.8M. In the second part of the flight tests, when that speed was the target, in the first flight(10th with the previous) T-4 reached 1.36M. And here all stop, with the order to cancel the project.

Let’s look the other way around: If it was able to make M2.8 (or M3, doesn’t really make the difference) from the beginning, why wasn’t it demonstrated at least to get some measurements and validate the design? You cannot tell me that they purposely only tested to M1.3.
The reason is that with only the first prototype at hand and no further significant funding available they couldn’t bring it further.

The T-4 on the other hand was designed to fly at Mach 3 so even if it needed some changes we can certainly assume that a properly developed T-4 could do that eventually… that is the purpose of the development process after all.

Correct, but it didn’t. The T-4 that lifted off surely was unable to achieve Mach 3. Likewise the engines were probably not those designated for the high Mach testbed. therefore, there were still a few Rubel to spent. On paper many things work. But if it wasn’t tested, it doesn’t count.
That still limits the number of Mach 3 aircraft to three, A-12/SR-71, XB-70, MiG-25.

This vague predict didn’t overthrow the precious data MiG given.

MiG has no idea and continues to quote over and over the same figues again. If you stick to it, do so, it will leave you with all the other laymen guessing around and assuming things that constitute this thread, but are ultimately wrong.

Your comprehension for the L/D ratio still is wrong. Please review the knowledge you learnd.

I earn my money with correct comprehension and application of L/D.
You may take a sheet of paper and try to re-enact the calculations I did with simple numbers.
You may Google the Breguet Range Equation.
Otherwise, stop simulating you have any understanding of basic aircraft performance figures.

I see you are not willing to understand.

[Schorsch does not understand that the Su-24 never was fitted with anotehr engine simply becasue the AL-21 was a fine one and not as he claims a superfuel thirsty engine

Schorsch understands the difference between different engine types, the influence of external loads on overall performance and the dependence on mission profile.
Schorsch also knows how a seemingly small difference can add up and become a huge difference in the end. Guess why GE and Boeing sell their GrandMa if necessary to get 3% less drag, 4% less OEW or 5% better SFC. It adds up to 20% better economics in the end.
Schorsch is an engineer. You are obviously not.

Dear friend:
Who told you, add 2 external fuel tanks which means add 20-30% drag?

Experience from having looked at several flight manuals, several aircraft types, several flight regimes. A pair of large subsonic fuel tanks gives you another 10 to 15% of drag in pure subsonic and about 15 to 25% in transonic (start M0.8) regime.

Where did you get the fuel flow? How did you get 50% fuel flow more than F-111?

Fuel Flow [kg/h] = SFC [kg/(daN*h)] * Inverse Glide Ratio [-] * Weight [daN]