Do you remember what range did you quote?

I reposted the figure. Its on the top of the list.

It becomes obvious, that you are not intrested in the related details seriously, are you?

You disputed the range that wikipedia has for the F-104G, and favored a higher range from an uncited source. What “related details” are bothering you?

I did quote the F-104G.
Your note, that Gunston,Spick gave 2920 km for the higher weight and higher thrust F-104S.

I think not. Their figures appear to be for the F-104G, although they don’t make that as clear as they could have. All the figures I listed are for the F-104G, except for the last one (Gunston, 1995), which gives the same range for the F-104S. But, I have since found

The Worlds Military Aircraft, by Bill Gunston, c 1983 lists “RANGE” for each as:

1770 km – F-104A, C
3510 km – F-104G
2920 km – F-104S

The “RANGE” for the F-104A, C seems to be close to the short ferry range that wikipedia gave for the F-104G, and agrees with you and Krivinyi (1973) for the F-104G. It gives the same range for the F-104S that Gunston,Spik(1983) give for the F-104G and Gunston (1995) gives for the F-104S. This makes some sense to me, because I predicted that the F-104G would have more range than the F-104S, and it is the only source I have that lists the range for each type. Dispite the seven references that say you are wrong, I now think that you were right. What was your source for the ferry range of the F-104G?

Neither Gunston (1977), nor Gunston (1983) give the ferry range of the MiG-23, but Gunston,Spik (1983) state that it is 2800 km. They don’t say which varient. MiG-23/27 Flogger in Action, by Hans-Heiri Stapfer, c 1990, states that the “range” of the MiG-23 M/MF is 2591 km. Gunston (1995) gives a ferry range of 2820 km for the MiG-23ML.

Spreading nonsense. The ferry range for a F-104G is 3510 km or 1895 nm and close to the F-4 by that.

1630 km – wikipedia
3510 km – World Military Aviation, by Nikolaus Krivinyi, c 1973
2220 km – Modern Military Aircraft, by Bill Gunston, c 1977
2220 km – The Encyclopedia of US Military Aircraft, Martin W. Bowman, c 1980
2920 km – Modern Air Combat, by Bill Gunston and Mike Spik, c 1983
2620 km – F-104 Starfighter in Action, by Lou Drendel, c 1976
2220 km – F-104 Starfighter in Action, by Phillip Friddell, c 1993
2920 km (F-104S) – The Encyclodedia of Modern Warplanes, Bill Gunston,1995

Take your pick, but it looks like 3510 km is too high.

The MiG-23 had more range than the MiG-21, but it would by today’s standards never apply for “long range”. It still uses a rather thirsty turbo-jet that compensates for the better lift drag ratio. In general, it is correct to say the MiG-23 had a considerably larger range than its predecessor

True. Soviet fighter range was very poor prior to the MiG-23.

But it is incorrect to say it had much higher range than an later F-104. Maybe some MiG-23 experts enlighten us.

73% more range with a turbojet isn’t “much higher”?? How much better are you looking for?

Basically all swing-wing aircraft have shown considerable technical challenges, sometimes severe problems, and were generally very expensive (F-14).

VG does add to cost, but almost all of those VG aircraft were very big jets packed with very sophisticated avionics. The MiG-23 was very cheap when compared to an F-15.

No VG aircraft was particularly “successful”*, just as aircraft tailor-made for a single mission never turn out to become very successful.
*: “successful” defined as time period in operation, production run, cost effectiveness, application to different missions

By those criteria, I’d rate the F-14 very highly. The MiG-23/27 was a poor dogfighter, but it was cheap and built in huge numbers, and was used for strike and interception. There were a lot of interceptors that did nothing but interception. The Tornado ADF/IDS is still around. Other VG aircraft did and still do their jobs well.

the fighter version of the MiG-23 was never intended as low level fighter

My quoted source says otherwise. I think they were looking for something that could chase an F-105, F-111, Tornado IDS, or Jaguar on the deck. The threat was coming in fast at low level. For that mission, its airframe is better than an F-15.

(a MiG-17 is good for that)

Hunh? You’re kidding, right? A MiG-17 has a very low wing loading, and its slow. A MiG-17 would be my last choice for low level interception. Its best advantage in a dogfight is in thinner air.

Update yourself on the -23. The wing tanks of the MiG-23(all versions) can only be installed when wings are locked in forward position. This is a pure ferry option as these tanks cannot be jettisioned

“The tanks could only be used at 16 deg sweep, and for wing movement to 45 deg and 72 deg the pilot was required to jettison the tanks first.”
-international Air Power Review, Vol 14, c 2004

I also have a photograph of a Soviet MiG-23MLA(D?) armed with four missiles and three tanks. It is an unusual configuration. Update yourself.

The MiG-23 was never designed to have long range. When you have a VG, you don’t need too much range as airfields can be closer to frontline.

“Five main design requirements were identified in the early/mid-1960s during the project definition phase of Mikoyan’s new-generation fighter.
The first of these called for a significant low-level speed increase; the second for an improvement in pilot comfort during high speed low-level flight; the third for a considerable increase in range…”
-ibid

if you reduce the wing loading you achieve comparable results, especially will many ofther factors finally influence fuel flow. Therefore, reasoning the swing wing due to endurance would be a poor design choice.

All other things being equal, VG gives you more endurance than a swept wing. It is just one of the several previously mentioned benifits of VG. Just because you select VG, it doesn’t mean you have to give up low wing loading or turbofan engines.

They basically all hail the higher effectiveness of the wing for low speed, but which pilot engages his opponent at Mach 0.7?

Although one doesn’t want to start a fight at M 0.7, a dogfight can often end slower than that.

The Navy surely did not intend to build an aircraft to engage the MiG-17 on equal terms.

Surely not, but its a nice ability to have in your bag of tricks. The F-22A is super manuverable, on purpose, even though an F-22 pilot would want to avoid a dogfight.

What do your quoted authors say to 19 ton empty weight?

“The fleet air defense role carrying Phoenix missiles demanded a large aircraft, and the F-14 is dimensionally large. It therefore could hardly help being fairly heavy…”
-Spick, 2003

Interesting that currently more B-52H are active than B-1B. :diablo:

And there are more B-1B active than B-2A. :rolleyes: There are going to be fewer F-22A than F-15C. The good stuff is expensive.

With the F-105 you have taken the least useful example with very inefficient supersonic wings…

Well, thats my point. The wings on an F-105 are great for high speed at low altitude, but they aren’t good for getting off of a runway, which you know.

But I dispute that the Tornado is only gaining through its VG-wings.

I didn’t say that. But it is the biggest reason.

Who says that? Sources? I have problems finding specifications of the M-version at all, all quote the ML, which is a different beast. The MiG-23 carries two SR-AAM and two MR-AAM and one external tanks, while the -104S has same missiles but three tanks. Once again: advantage of the -23M is (besides its higher maximum Mach number) its better field performance, but I refuse to see any range advantage.

I can’t find figures specific to the M either, but the MLD carries less fuel than the M, and according to wikipedia, the MiG-23MLD has a ferry range of 2820 Km, while the F-104G has a ferry range of 1630 Km. The F-104G has fewer pylons and fins than the F-104S, so it should be cleaner. In any case, it would be silly to quibble about the difference between the M and the MLD when the differences between the F-104 and the MiG-23 are so much bigger. I just picked the MiG-23M because it was manufactured at the same time as the F-104S, which isn’t really relevant.
Part of the goal of MiG-23 was to make a fighter that had the long range of the F-4 Phantom. The F-104 was a point defense fighter.

Basically wrong. At Mach 0.75 to M 0.85 most aircraft have their sweet spot in terms of cruise efficiency. Going slower, even when a swing-wing is available, normally doesn’t yield much.

You are not understanding my post. Going slower than Mach 0.75 in a normal jet with a low aspect ratio wing won’t improve range, but it will if the jet has a high aspect ratio wing.
There is another effect of cruise with a straight, unswept wing which is probably even more significant: a wing with a high aspect ratio has less induced drag. A wing produces a tip vortex that disrupts the air flow at the end of the wing. “the further away from the lifting part of the wing the disruption occurs, the better. When the tip vortices are closer, as they are in a low aspect ratio wing, they are proportionally bigger with respect to the lifting area of the wing.” (Grumman F-14 Tomcat, by James Perry Stevenson) The same aerodynamic advantages that improve field performance also improve cruise performance. Gliders have high aspect ratio wings for the same reason. More lift with less drag gets you more range. Another reason that you want to cruise slower with a high aspect ratio wing is that it has more drag at higher speeds than a low aspect ratio wing has.

The Tomcat has the swing wing because of field performance (or carrier performance) and heritage combined with high dash Mach number. That’s it.

“If we examined two wings of equal area, each creating equal lift, we would find that the higher aspect ratio wing has a lower AOA, and consequently less induced drag. The direct result of this is that the high aspect ratio wing needs less thrust to maintain both its lift, and the energy level of its aircraft. The reduction in drag also means that less thrust is needed to acheive the same performance than a low aspect ratio wing, and by the same token, less fuel.” (The great book of modern warplanes, edited by Mike Spik, c 2003)

Besides improved landing speed and field performance, the unswept wing provides increased range, increased loiter time, and it also improves low speed manuverability. An F-14 can out turn just about any jet fighter at low speed. The corner velocity of an F-14 is only 300 knots. Also: “The straight wing effect lets the F-14 turn more dramatically without losing energy.” (Stevenson)
“The high aspect ratio wing is most advantageous at high lift, and the maximum L/D ratio is reached at increasingly high lift as the aspect ratio increases. High sustained and transient turn rates are best achieved by high aspect ratio wings. Sustained turn rate is in effect thrust-limited g, and is the product of thrust/weight (T/W) ratio and the L/D ratio. All else being equal, the higher L/D ratio of the high aspect ratio wing gives a higher level of sustained manuverability down to lower speeds than a fixed wing. It also permits transient turning out to the very edge of lift with a smaller loss of energy, than a low aspect ratio wing.” (Spik, 2003)

Like comparing B737-200 and A321 and relating the increased payload range to FBW on the Airbus. And I rather doubt the B-1B has any real advantage over the B-52H in terms of payload-range.

The B-1 is far better in everything except range. It lifts a bigger payload with a shorter takeoff and the A model was more than twice as fast. Granted you could redesign a B-52 to trade fuel for more weapons, but its still slow, even if you reengined it with modern turbofans or whatever. What was the takeoff run of a B-70?

The next interesting comparison (at least the weight is close to similar): comparing RB199 of a 3rd generation combat jet against J75 of first generation supersonic jet makes me sad and sorry. Do your homework first!

Put any jet engine you want into a loaded F-105D, and it will still eat up more runway than a loaded Tornado.

The F-14 by the way carries less ordonance than either aircraft.

Like the B-52H, its a weapons stations problem, not an lift problem. The F-111 can lift way more than any of these aircraft with the same engines as the F-14, and fly farther and faster.

Apart from the field performance I can’t see big difference, except that the MiG-23 is 50% heavier and is optimised for higher Mach numbers. Note also that the F-104G was leaving production when the Flogger really entered it (with MiG-23M). Again, kicking in two aircraft that completely changed their mission and specifications over their various versions makes me doubtful you know what you are talking about. We can have any result we want depending if we take F-104S against MiG-23S or F-104A against MiG-23MLD.

Ok, lets make it the F-104S vs MiG-23M. Both were in production at the same time, both were single engined, single seat fighters optimized for air to air combat at very high speeds (faster than current fighters are optimized for). Armament was equivalent – two SARH and four IRH missiles plus cannon. Besides the better field performance, the MiG-23M has far more range. I’m sorry if the MiG is bigger. All I have to work with is what went into production. I don’t have a VG F-104 or fixed wing MiG-23 to make comparisons with. You could make a good argument that the F-4E is a closer equivalent (but its bigger than the MiG-23M 😉 ).

Do you have dependable performance figures for those? I rather doubt.Note again that you compare two airframes of which the heavier weights 80% more than the lighter. It is like comparing a B777 with an A380.

Maybe I should have selected the MiG-23BN, which has the intake ramps to take advantage of what the wings will allow, but either MiG is faster. But the empty weight of the MiG-27 is very little more than the Jaguar. The old guesstimates that I have handy are 7850Kg for the MiG, and 6800Kg for the Jag. If max takeoff weight is so much more for the MiG, you can thank VG! :p

Maybe, but please: reduced cruise speed will give additional loiter, never range. Best range for most fighters in a2a config will be at M0.8 or close.

Yeah, because most fighters are fixed wing with high sweep. As they slow down, they have to increase AOA to get enough lift at altitude, and drag shoots up. VG aircraft cruise with minimum sweep (or very close to it) because drag is so much less at lower speeds. High lift low sweep wings allow the pilot to throttle way down and fly for much longer and with greater efficiency. Unless you get into compression lift (B-70), slower gets you farther. Its the same for cars and jets.

Also remember that you compare a turbofan engine (TF30 with ~1 bypass ratio) against a pure turbo-jet. A TF-equipped aircraft with fixed wings wouldn’t give that much lower loiter times.

TF helps, but the F-14 loiters with minimum sweep, which just goes to show that its a better wing configuration for loiter than 45 deg or higher sweep that most fixed wing fighters have. (F-5 and F-18 are the only exceptions that I can think of right off.)