Didn’t change the consequence very much

Schorsch:
All the data you claim does not prove at all the F-111 has a big advantage, see that only on internal fuel the F-111 carries the same fuel capacity the Su-24 has with three fuel tanks at ferry range.

not three, two.

you are not ignoring me, you are simply not facing those facts, you are ignoring and not even acknowledging a reality, the Su-24 carries less fuel than the F-111A in fact 8000 liters of fuel less when they fly their ferry range.

not so many as 8000 liters, 6000 liters approxi.

With at least 3 tons load in full payload on Fencer and Aardvark to both, condition will be not compareable.
More than 3 tons warload means only two 3000liter(about 2400kg) each external fuel tanks carried by Su-24 but F-111 can carry four 2271liter(about 1800kg) each external fuel tanks.

Don’t forget when F-111 loading 4 1800kg external fuel, and loading more than 3000kg bombs under outboard pylons simultaneously, its wing haveto be fixed.

Even thus, compare with approxi 15ton internal fuel, 4X1800kg=7200kg external fuel could enlarge the range of Aardvark from 4000km to 5600km (I count it as 4000+4000*40% should be reasonable because external fuel added only less than 50% to internal fuel, futhermore considering drag and weight influencing), whereas internal fuel plus 2*2400kg=4800kg external fuel for Su-24 gives 3600km range.

So 3600km/5600km still is go far away from 332nm/900nm you given. As we’ve said the gap wouln’t as bigger as somebody imaged or say wished.
Put in other words, 3 tons warload will enlarge the gap of range between F-111 and Su-24 from 10%(tanks loaded already for Su-24)~30%(without external tank to both) to 36%(2000/5600), but no matter how do you count, the range of Su-24 won’t be only 1/3 of F-111.

You are right that graph shows that with 11000kg payload the radius of the F-111 is around 350nm or around 700km

sukhoi claims the Su-24 has a radius
Operational radius of action at sea level in mixed mode (Vcr in the 200-km area, V=900 km/h in other areas) with PTB external fuel tanks and 6x FAB -500M-62 bombs, km 615

http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su24mk/lth/
http://www.ausairpower.net/F-111-Payload-Radius-GD.gif
see the data shows the F-111 is not very different it might have a better radius but not a big difference

Armament Up to four nuclear bombs on four pivoting wing pylons, and two in internal weapons bay. Wing pylons carry total external load of 25,000 pounds (11,250 kilograms) of bombs, rockets, missiles, or fuel tanks.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-111.htm

yes, “see the data shows the F-111 is not very different it might have a better radius but not a big difference” you finally admitted what I have pointed out.
At last…….

I am getting serious doubt on your willingness to understand, even though Sens now has arrived at very basic level.

F-111:
NTOW is 37.6t
OEW is 21.6t
Internal fuel is given with 5040 gallons, makes 5040*3.8*0.8 = 15.3t fuel.
That gives a useful payload of 700kg (=2x B61 nuclear bomb).
Aircraft is clean.
Fuel fraction is .41 (that is close to a B747)

Su-24:
NTOW is 38t
OEW is 22.3t
Internal fuel is 11.1t
Add 2x2000kg and you have 15.1t.
Useful payload is 600kg, or two nuclear bombs.
Fuel fraction is .4.
Aircraft is not clean (~+20-30% drag)
SFC +25% (conservative)

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

Fuel Flow = SFC * Glide Ratio * Weight
Now, we assume for the F-111:
SFC = 1 (fictional value)*
Glide Ratio = 1/10 (fictional value)
Avg Weight = 29.6t
Fuel Flow: 3.0t/h

In case of the Su-24:
SFC = 1.25
Glide Ratio = 1/8 (20% more drag)
Avg Weight = 30.2t
Fuel Flow: 4.7t/h (50% more than F-111)

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

:confused::confused::confused:

The conditions are not the same from the start.
There are two main differences, when not comparing pears and apples.
10 tons of fuel inside a Su-24 do generate a range of 100% or whatever number in nm/km you like.
10 tons of fuel inside a F-111 do generate a range of 130 % or ……….
Even when we reduce that difference in SFC to 10% only, there is still a difference in favor of the F-111.
But that is all without the second main difference.
Before going to that, a small example may be a help for better understanding.
When your car has 150 hp/kW installed power and a truck has an engine of the “same” nominal 150 hp/kW too, but both have to haul a load of 15 tons at 80 km/h you will get an idea, that same hp but different torque make u huge difference.

There was a story which mes told out what was your logic:
A man went to post office to send a mail. server told him his mail is overweight so he should buy more stamps and affix those stamps on envelop. The man ask back: Isn’t more stamps will overweight more?
If there was no misinterpretation, I can understood why you like that man who sent mail in that story thought more fuel carried that oppressed engine working under infaust condition .

:p The more stamps, the more overweight, so the more fuel carried, the more fuel consumption will be in any different flight profile. 😎 I am not laughing at you but even we ratiocinate among your logic, the consequence will rebut yourself: if the range or engine work will be unbenefited from more fuel carried, WHY the range of Fencer is so much less than Aardvark, or put in reverse word, why the range of Aardvark go ahead of Fencer so many??

Now the problem is still here.

In some sense, the airflow of an jet-engine is something similar like torque.
The TF30 is ~5500 kp in installed dry, when the AL21 is ~8000 kp in installed dry.
The engines in both aircraft are able to give that enough thrust to reach Mach 0,8 till Mach 0,9 in max military or dry with external load.

The difference in installed dry to do so is up to 45 % alone.

But that is not for free, every kp or kN in nominal thrust has to be payed by fuel measured in SFC, when in use.
Where ever you look first, you will find out easily, that there is a huge gap in range capability between the Su-24 and the F-111, related to the propulsion system alone.
Looking into some data only can be very misleading.
So under the most favorable conditions a F-111 can have two times the action radius of a Su-24 with the same weapon-load.
Compared to that yardstick, the Su-24 is close to the Tornado IDS by nearly double the size.

Sorry I didn’t see what you mean? Because where ever I look the Raven is dark, so unexceptionallly the Raven always be dark?
:diablo:

There is no demand from me to post any pix, to prove how many fuel that Su-24 or F-111 carry. All data I just used from yours. That’s ok, you quote them quite well.

But the keypoint here as you posted the gap of fuel consumption between Aardvark’s engine and Fencer’s engine is only 11%. The 11% is a very data to display what the difference between Turbine jet and Turbinfan is.

I will shut up if you also prove the range of Aardvark only larger than Fencer 11% or even 15% for VG inlet used. But Here is 30% in addition to data of fuel carried by Su-24 with 2x2400kg EFT under this condition are more than F-111 almost 20%.

I have to point out that range data on internet always go mess if we scrutinize them
Here we saw some data of combat radius are much more acceptable even convert them roughly to be range, which will still be less than F-111’s.

The range on Czech web 3600km I saw somewhere appeared auther have done speculation on this.

On the other hand, with the wing could be swinged, warload of Aardvark won’t be more than Fencer too many, do you believe? :diablo:

well,

That data from Sukhoj web is the most doubtable. Let’s see:
with two dropped external tank, Su-24’s range only is 2775km.
with no external tank, F-111’s range could reach 4000km

the internal fuel Aardvark contains is approxi 14tons
whereas Fencer contains internal fuel approxi 11tons, plus two external tank will be 16tons approximately.

two more tons fuel carried cause less 70% range? is this reasonable? unless the fuel consumption of engine Su-24 used is 50% higher than F-111’s? is it possible? who can help to check the fuel consumption?