dark light

franc

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 509 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Su-24 vs F-111 #2495621
    franc
    Participant

    Now we turn back, when Aardvark carry 6X2271liter tanks, yes, no doubt it can even reach 6000 km ferry range, but is this compareable ? is it still a swing wing aircraft compare with Su-24 which can swing wing during full load?

    in reply to: Su-24 vs F-111 #2496144
    franc
    Participant

    MiG:

    The web data you show me didn’t say what’s condition cause F-111 approach over 5000km ferry range. what if max internal fuel with 4X2271 Liters external fuel tanks which Aardvark normally carry?

    in reply to: Su-24 vs F-111 #2496831
    franc
    Participant

    Due to upper surface, МиГ-23МЛД, you are right, but when we count available section, please notice that no matter how the inlet on Su-24 narrow are, the section of inlet on F-111 is semicirclar so that bottom surface factually is narrower that Su-24.

    According to some photos, I believe, only two 454kg bombs could be put in F-111’s bomb bay abreast, but three same weight bombs under Su-24. Remember what the diameter of X-58 is.

    Then if the fact in terms of somebody here taught me is true, only 2 pylons are usable under each wing for F-111, we can concieve that range of Su-24 while it carring 2 X 3000 liters tank, won’t be smaller that F-111 which only internal fuel used, meanwhile more warloads that Su-24 can carry than F-111.

    For max speed, that 2.5M is almost some sort of fantasy while F-111 have to fixed swept angle at inferior limit if both 4 or 6 pylons are fully used. I bet that speed of Su-24 with max swept wing must be faster much more than F-111 with mini swpet wing.

    Concerning nuke bomb, yes F-111 can drop nuke, but Su-24 couldn’t?

    in reply to: Su-24 vs F-111 #2497313
    franc
    Participant

    The americans designed a fighter bomber with larger cross section, this allowed for a larger and heavier internal fuel capacity, since they did not delete the VG inlet system, their fighter was much faster, so the F-111 also ended up having a much longer range thanks to the fact it can carry more fuel tanks than the Su-24, add up the refueling probe and the F-111 has a range at least a 1/3 longer than the Su-24.

    The aircraft is heavier, yes the F-111 has a MTOW heavier than the Su-24 and can carry more weapons, and still the F-111 is a Mach 2.5 aircraft, this shows the excellent aerodynamics it has.

    This provoked that the F-111 was suitable (probably ill suited) for strategic missions.

    The Su-24 was simplier making it a basic medium range tactical bomber that out produced the F-111 in an almost 2.5:1 rate or a 1400 Su-24 /563 F-111 units rate

    The speed of Fencer is over 2.2M. Three X-58 loading under fuselage means the cross section of Fencer would be larger than F-111, which also because the powerplant en Fencer is greater than Aardvark.

    Considering internal fuel in both Fencer and Aardvark are roughly equal, so the vantage of range you mentioned basically depends on external fuel which carried by.

    Let’s presume that both Fencer and Aardvark carried two standard external fuel tanks, Fencer could load more weapon than F-111 if swept angle of wing is variable.

    in reply to: Su-24 vs F-111 #2497772
    franc
    Participant

    do you mean the inlet on Su-24 is not a variable geometry?

    “why not add the Tornado IDS? Seems like another aircraft with lots of positive results (unlike say the ADV it seems)”

    just compare similar powerplant bomber, don’t drag in two many lead to go mass.

    in reply to: F-22 internal fuel #2498245
    franc
    Participant

    What is your source on that? AvWeek and others give the YF-22’s internal fuel as something like 23,000-25,000 lbs.

    23000-25000 lbs is a guess
    so that why you see such big gap between 23000 and 25000

    in reply to: F-22 internal fuel #2499167
    franc
    Participant

    18,000 and 18,488lbs is due to different fuel quality. 20469lb is a figue that YF-22 originally carried.

    it is better to measure the fuel by capacity not weight if you want an accurate data.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode III #2501487
    franc
    Participant

    RSM55, IIRC in your original posts several months back, you also stated (in addition to all in the above post), that the PAK-FA will definitely NOT have FSW, correct?

    thanx in advance

    – hyper

    Nowadays, nobody still think that Su-50 will be FSW layout.
    I quit believe what RSM55 said.
    Spacious set engine bay seemingly became a traditional design of Russia since 70’s.
    Erased horizontal tail for reducing weight is advanced and reasonable modus operand since OVT was available.

    in reply to: Future Jet Training #2462885
    franc
    Participant

    The topic concerning future jettrainer, but all trainer showed in pictures posted by author of this thread are old fashion.
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/images/eads-mako4.jpg
    What’s progress of this?

    in reply to: Question concerning phantom2 #2464594
    franc
    Participant

    In terms of this photo, I wondered underneath of this pod would touch ground during mk taking off.
    http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/JPGS/MD%20RF-4C%20Phantom/FGR2%20with%20pod.jpg
    The size and weight is till a data I am seeking for.

    in reply to: Question concerning phantom2 #2465005
    franc
    Participant

    This quetion I’ve asked somewhere else, but I lost so I have to ask here again.
    What the pod underneath as arrow pointed?
    How weight it is?
    Are there other aircraft carries this pod too?

    in reply to: JAS 39 Gripen-N #2466709
    franc
    Participant

    No, it is impossible to refit C/D vertion to NG version. The structure is changered too much

    in reply to: JAS 39 Gripen-N #2467224
    franc
    Participant

    The rival to the LCA and JH-17 will be much more than which to the Rafale I think. Now the JAS-39N is a really multi-role fighter, not a light intercepter only.

    in reply to: JAS 39 Gripen-N #2467534
    franc
    Participant

    only 2 years past, it is quick enough compare with FC-1 to JH-17

    in reply to: Top 5 fighters as of today. #2467778
    franc
    Participant

    The Lighting wing was designed for speed but still it is a 1950s design and up to some degree a very conservative design if we compare it to the then more revolutionary MiG-21 or Mirage III.

    Interesting? MiG-21 and Mirage3 was belong to 60’s design?:rolleyes:

Viewing 15 posts - 301 through 315 (of 509 total)