For the F-4F as example the two empty inboard pylons add one third the drag of the center wing tank, or about 4/5 of the drag of one wing tank.

I suppose you mean centerline tank.
Interesting info, thanks. Strange that the centerline tank adds more drag than two wing tanks.
And for the Hornet, factor in a smaller airplane plus larger pylons.

Really?

Swwweeeeetttt – emule, torrents or where? (I’ll be having some of that :D)

Yes, more info please. 🙂

2 different loadout-configurations for sidewinders? [1A and 1B2?]

2 or 4 Sidewinders is possible.

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)?

Sure, but the fact remains that pylons add a lot of drag.
I dont know about the wing pylon, but 1 Phoenix and 1 Sidewinder is the heaviest I have seen.

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.

Well its the USNs own fault isnt it and I dont really care that much aswell.
The Starfighter too is much cooler than any Tornado, but I certainly wont argue about the F-4/Eurofighter. 😉

I guess with 6 MK84 the Tomcat is worse. Oh forgot, it can’t carry so much. 😮

Neither can the Super Hornet (or any other carrier plane I can think of). Five might be possible if you want to bomb your own escorts. 🙂

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)

Thats 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.

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.

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.

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. 😉

It is cooler 😎

No fighter can outrun a modern AAM. The one with the smartest weaponsystem, centric support and crew will win most of the time.
May be some people missed, that there is no need of speeds behind Mach 1,6 in modern warfare.

Boeing/McDD agrees with you as the SH is able to reach Mach 1.6 in a clean configuration. :diablo:

AFAIK the 125kg bomb isn’t developped yet.

I was under the impression the 125kg lgb has already been used in Afghanistan by Rafales and Etendarts.
Not the AASM of course.

In the previous vids on page 17 the typhoon carries 2 ASRAAM and 4 AMRAAM. I am not super, 100%, sure on the f-15 engine, as I remmebered it from an airforces montly article on lakenheath f-15’s a few months back. If I can find the issue i’ll let you know;)

The F-15Es flying in Alaska before the F-22 arrived had -220 engines. They might have swapped jets earlier but I dont know.

I spoke about the video in post #473 on page 16. There the aircraft is in the QRA “outfit” with 4 ASRAAM, 4 AMRAAM and 2 drop tanks.

Me too, but I can only see 2 ASRAAMs. The other wing rails are empty as are the fuselage stations – that is if my eyes and the video quality didnt fool me.

Regarding the pilots comments, besides the 5.5tons of internal fuel, he also says the empty weight is 12tons. :confused:

@Eagle,
but you have also to take into account that the Rafale only carries 4 AAMs, while the Typhoon carries 8.

In the videos above, I can only recognise two ASRAAMs and two MICAs for the Rafale.

I believe it is a an f-15e from Elmendorf, Alsaka with AK on the tail. These and the Lakenheath eagles have -229 engines.

Are you sure about that? Im pretty sure those were Eagles with -220 engines. (they have F-22 now)