These modifications resulted in an increase of empty weight from 46,172 pounds for the F-111A to 55,275 pounds for the EF-111A. However, since the EF-111A carried no weapons, its maximum takeoff weight was only 88,848 pounds as compared with 98,850 pounds for the F-111A. The Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 turbofans of the F-111A were retained.

MiG:

This paragraph may tell you why, if internal fuel wouldn’t be reduced, I couldn’t image why EW of the EF-111A surprisingly jump 20%!!

Specifications of the EF-111A Raven:

Two Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 turbofans, 10,750 lb.s.t. dry, 18,500 lb.s.t. with afterburning. Maximum speed: 1377 mph at 40,000 feet. Initial climb rate 11,000 feet per minute. Service ceiling 45,000 feet. Normal range 929 miles. Dimensions: wingspan 63 feet 0 inches (maximum), 31 feet 11 1/2 inches (minimum), length 76 feet 0 inches, height 20 feet 0 inches, wing area 525 square feet. Weights: 55,275 pounds empty, 70,000 pounds loaded, 88,948 pounds maximum takeoff.
The normal range which means no EFTs carried is 1495km. quite believeable.

MiG:
The 17883 liter fuel for the Su-24 is believeable, whereas over 19000liter fuel for the Su-24 could be conceived as 3 EFTs carried.
The mistake made by Sens mas a cause de your confusion.
Some concepts of dynamic increment will make clear for you:
presume
△EFTs is an increment for Su-24 EFT added more
△Rs is an increment of range for Su-24 accompany with more EFTs added.
△EFTf is an increment for F-111 EFT added more
△Rf is an increment of range for F-111 accompany with more EFTs added.
Then real thuth is △Rf/△EFTf >> △Rs/△EFTs (EFT >2)
Indubitably, because the basic number of internal fuel for the F-111 has already been much more than Su-24, so it was possible that range for the Su-24 with a couple of standard EFTs would be still less than F-111 only carry internal fuel a little bit. But they are almost same at this time. otherwise, if the F-111 carry two EFTs,which won’t enlarge 1/3 more range for itself, how can it take 1/3 more range compare with Su-24 which two 3000liter EFTs has already been loaded? Remember each EFT for Su-24 almost 1/4 bigger than F-111’s.

Certainly, if the F-111 carries four 2270 L EFTs, its range possibly be large enough, but meanwhile, warload on F-111 under this situation won’t be reach 3 tone as well as the Su-24.

The war-load for each pylons underwing was also maximum warload for F-111’s pylon each I ever saw.
So, our stand is if warloads was equivalent, there would be no more EFTs for enlarging the range of the F-111, because no more pylons provided.

BTW,Would you please post all of Slavonian web concerning Su-24 specifications follow.

except repeat same word, what more can you do?

Very convincing, despite higher installed thrust and higher sfc.

HIGHER THRUST MAKES LONGER RANGE OR NOT?
WHICH ENGINE HAS HIGHER SFC?
YOU SAY IT, BUT NOT ME

You do ignore the data from producer.

PRODUCER? THE EW OF THE F-22 ON LOCKHEED OFFICIAL WEB IS OVER 19 TON, I BET YOU’LL BE MUCH MUUCH GLADE TO SEE MY IGNORANCE OF THAT.
PLEASE DON’T IGNORE THAT F-111 WEB CLAIMED SOME VERSION OF THE F-111 HAD 8 PYLONS FOR ANY LOAD, BUT THEY WERE NOT CLAIM HOW LONG RANGE THE SU-24 WILL BE, THEN WHAT DO YOU MEAN SAME SOURCE?

IF I IGNORED SOMETHING ADVISEDLY, DID YOU IGNORED SOMETHING DELIBERATELY AS WELL?
Will you allow me calculate data according to this: with ferry range being 3165 miles with maximum external fuel being carried. Internal fuel capacity was 5043 US gallons. With underwing fuel tanks, a maximum of 7443 US gallons of fuel could be carried.:diablo:

You do claim a lower internal fuel

WHICH ONE IS LOWER THAN REALITY?

You do create an artificial range from different sources.

HAVE YOU EVER READ PRODUCT FILE FROM SUKHOI BEREAU?

You do “prove” your credibility by that for all to see.

I do prove my credibility by that if not be accurate but reasonable at least for all to see.😎

That must be his personal opinion 😆

When it comes to ferry-range it is the max possible range with the max possible fuel load in doing so.
It is max. internal + external = liter in total divided by the ferry range in km.
At MTOW the ceiling of the F-111 is limited to 15000 feet. To reach max ferry range the F-111 is never loaded to MTOW.
Internal fuel is ~14815 kg or (0,77 specific)~ 19240 liter to start with.

The max lim range of the F-111 was 5700km, the min lim range for it was recorded as 3700km, we adopt a mid one 4700km
The external fuel tank under F-111’s wing could be 6, 4, 2, we adopt a mid one, say 4.
So internal+external fuel F-111 carried was 28332 liters.
28332/4700 approxi to 6.03l/km
Meanwhile, the F-111 still carrying about 3000kg warload under another two pylons and bomb bay.

For Su-24, 11883+2*3000=17883liters
range of max lim was recorded as 3600km, min lim as 2775, so mid data is 3187.5km
17883/3187.5=5.61l/km meanwhile it carry 5 missiles under fuslage and outboard pylons, weighs 3000kg.

Now we got
6.03l/km for F-111
5.61l/km for Su-24 even lower then your 5.66l/km

If the external fuel tanks loaed under F-111’s wing was reduced to 2, the data still be 5.06l/km much closer to 5.61 for the Su-24.
How do you get 30% more range for F-111?
Even if your data adopted, we still couldn’t see how to be relevent 30% more range?

The condition you given still was not sufficient, you just repeat 30% more range for the F-111 without any ground. I can see through what you hope to say but fear the shadow behind it.

The VG inlet gives more advantages for speed to F-111, either for lower drag while the F-111 makes transonic. But you have pre-known, there was no proportional relation between transonical drag and combat radius.

On one side, you want to give the related range for data of fuel, on the other side, you just ignore the present range of the F-111 was never 30% more than Su-24. You just fall in fantasy which you hope to see.

Name the data where. Not my fault, when you are unable about basic physics.
So you still have to explain, where the difference in fuel economy comes from?
F-111 = 5,66 l per km
Su-24 = 7,41 l per km
From every l of fuel a F-111 generates 30,9% more range!

It wouldn’t be right ever, if your calculation was grounded on wrong data, even you copy it thousands times.

To intergrate each aspects, which only give 1/4 more range for the F-111

So you still have to explain, where the difference in fuel economy comes from?

F-111 = 5,66 l per km
Su-24 = 7,41 l per km

From every l of fuel a F-111 generates 30,9% more range!

The dividend you adopted is wrong.

The size of Tu-22 almost same as B-1, so it is hard to say, Tu-22 is a sort of bomber which is more efficient than neither F-111 or Su-24.

The undercarriger was designed on F-111 makes inlet shorter so that structual weight reduced. Dual-wheel which Su-24 undercarriage used gives a using flexible for wild runway but more space in aeroframe occupied.