By: Sens
- 29th June 2008 at 11:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
HIGHER THRUST MAKES LONGER RANGE OR NOT?
WHICH ENGINE HAS HIGHER SFC?
YOU SAY IT, BUT NOT ME
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?
HAVE YOU EVER READ PRODUCT FILE FROM SUKHOI BEREAU?
I do prove my credibility by that if not be accurate but reasonable at least for all to see.:cool:
The prescribe minimum range Su-24 had is 2775km from Sukhoi web, same data of the F-111 is 3700km from JAWA. the rate is 0.75 where does your 1/3 come from?
We admitted turbofan is superior than Turbojet, but as we quoted previously, the SFC of the TF30 has no 1/3 advantage more than AL-21 neither on afterburner nor without afterburner.
Lacking fuel tank in wing a cause de internal fuel of the Su-24 less than F-111 but, bomb bay also occupied space in fuselage of the F-111, so 11 ton for Su-24 and 14tons for the F-111 also is reliable and reasonable. the rate is approxi to 3/4, where does 1/3 range at least base on?
It seems that simple math is behind the scope of someone. Your given data. used!
By: Sens
- 29th June 2008 at 12:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
except repeat same word, what more can you do?
To show, that you tried to cheat the readers here and not even be ashamed about that.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 29th June 2008 at 13:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Modern Attack Aircraft - Mike Spick
Some further data from: Modern Fighters and Attack Aircraft - Barry C. Wheeler
range with max internal fuel
(A/D) 3165 miles (5093 km)
(F) 2925 miles (4707 km)
(EF) 2484 miles (3998 km)
Sens
This information is what i have in one of my books the 7000 galons of total fuel is not in a aircraft carrying 6 external fuel tanks, in fact it carries only 4 external fuel tanks it means the 6 tanks are much more than 7000 galons however to be honest the book also says the range with four external fuel tanks and two nuclear bombs is 4150nm around 7500km, the max weight for the FB-111 is 54 tones, more than 10 tones than a Su-24.
Now if this information is true then the FB-111 indeed is a really very long range bomber
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 29th June 2008 at 19:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
except repeat same word, what more can you do?
I kind of accept the AL-21 is a more fuel thirsty engine than the TF-30, why? well it has a SFC of 0.86, yes it has more thrust, around 15% more but still is far far more thirsty.
The range published always changes either for the Su-24 or F-111.
For example Sukhoi claims a range or 2775 km with only two fuel tanks, which is not the max fuel in reality the Su-24 can carry, the real max range of the Su-24 is still something difficult to guess specially with three fuel tanks.
If the Ukranian air force webpage is right the max range of the Su-24 could be 3800km because with an inflight refuelling it will reach 5000km according to Sukhoi it self.
However if the FB-111 can reach up to 7600km with four fuel tanks and two nuclear bombs in the bombs bay indeed it is a really long range bomber.
the speed for that mission well we can only guess since fully loaded the FB-111 is at least 10 tones heavier than the Su-24 and at military power has less thrust it is probable its ferry range it is at very low speed perhaps 500-600km an hour but that is only a guess.
The vast majority of data is inconclusive, compared to the Tu-22M the FB-111 carries only a symbolic warload, now how far it can reach with six fuel tanks well that is something very difficult to guess.
By: franc
- 30th June 2008 at 06:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG:
I think that three EFTs carried by SU-24, which is out of question, as well as 6 EFTs carried by F-111. Most official web wouldn't give a correct data, esp, for important data of combat or judgment.
To show, that you tried to cheat the readers here and not even be ashamed about that.
I only cheat you here, just because the process I made in calculation was not in terms of your hope.
I believe you didn't cheat me because you hid the data you adopted from me.:p
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 30th June 2008 at 07:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG:
I think that three EFTs carried by SU-24, which is out of question, as well as 6 EFTs carried by F-111. Most official web wouldn't give a correct data, esp, for important data of combat or judgment.
I only cheat you here, just because the process I made in calculation was not in terms of your hope.
I believe you didn't cheat me because you hid the data you adopted from me.:p
Well to tell you the true data is many times unaccurate, for example if we are to believe the Ukranian air force, the Su-24 only weighs 39700kg at MTOW, it means it only has around 17000 liters of fuel with a range of 2775km and the F-111 will have more than 19000 liters with a range of more tha 4700km according to some data.
if the Su-24 has a max range of 3800km it means it uses its cruising regime SFC of 0.76, now if the F-111 indeed can fly a range of 7600km more or less the relation corresponds to the difference in fuel and SFC.
Now Sukhoi gives a minimun of 19000 liters for total fuel capacity, with 19000 liters of internal fuel the F-111 might have a range of 4000+ km so its possible the relation is not as high as we suppose.
However neither Sens me or You have proven facts because we have different values and Sens is not using data from the Ukranian air force since a lighter SU-24 with longer range contradicts his preconceptions, however some data does support his view, but i guess some data even for the FB-111 is hard to believe because they say the range is far too long almost like a Tu-22M something i do not believe since the Tu-22M is a more powerful bomber
and still in use so this means the F-111 might have some drawbacks
By: franc
- 30th June 2008 at 09:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 30th June 2008 at 16:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Well Franc it depends in what is the real SFC and range, i think and you can see, that in reality the AL-21 indeed is spends more fuel at its max SFC at military power since its max SFC at military power is 0.86kgf/kg/h however it is not 30% since the TF-30 has a SFC of 0.67 but at lower thrust.
The Sens concept is this TF-30 SFC is 0.67 and the AL-21 is 0.86, by logic the ratio is 0.67:0.86 is 1.28:1, so efectively the AL-21 is at its max military SFC 30% more fuel thirsty, however this would be true only if the TF-30 has the same thrust at its max military power, if the TF-30 gets its thrust at 79KN already is using afterburner, so its SFC is higher than 0.67 for sure, if the Al-21 has a thrust of 66KN then its SFC is lower than 0.86 very likely 0.76 in cruise regime
Now how can we explain the claimed difference in range, the EF-111 has a shorter range and has a MTOW in the class of a Su-24
Specifications StatsCentral
Model General Dynamics / Grumman EF-111A Raven
Length 76.02 ft | 23.17 m
Width 62.99 ft | 19.20 m
Height 20.01 ft | 6.10 m
Engine(s) 2 x Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 (later TF30-P-9) turbofan engines with afterburner delivering 20,840lbf of thrust.
Empty Weight 55,274 lbs | 25,072 kg
MTOW 89,001 lbs | 40,370 kg
Max Speed 1,855 mph | 2,985 km/h | 1,612 kts
Max Range 2,000 miles | 3,218 km
Ceiling 44,997 ft | 13,715 m | 8.5 miles
Climb Rate 11,000 ft/min (3,353 m/min)
Hardpoints 2
Armament OPTIONAL:
2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile
2 x 600 gallon external fuel tanks
General characteristics
Primary function Electronic countermeasures support
Contractor Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Power plant Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30-P-109 engines
Thrust 2x 18,502 lb 2x 82.32 kN
Length 76 ft 23.16 m
Height 20 ft 6.10 m
Wingspan minimum 63 ft 19.20 m
maximum 32 ft 9.74 m
Wingarea (min. wings ext.) 525 sq ft 48.77 sq m
Max. speed 1,587 mph 2,554 km/h
Initial climb rate 551 ft/s 168 m/s
Ceiling 45,000 ft 13,715 m
Max. takeoff weight 89,000 lb 40,050 kg
Range 1,430 miles 2,300 km
Sensors AN/ALQ-99E jamming subsystem
Unit cost $35 million
Crew Two (pilot and electronics warfare officer)
Date deployed June1981
Inventory Active force, 29; ANG, 0; Reserve:
By: MiG-23MLD
- 30th June 2008 at 16:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To show, that you tried to cheat the readers here and not even be ashamed about that.
Primary function Electronic countermeasures support
Contractor Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Power plant Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30-P-109 engines
Thrust 2x 18,502 lb 2x 82.32 kN
Length 76 ft 23.16 m
Height 20 ft 6.10 m
Wingspan minimum 63 ft 19.20 m
maximum 32 ft 9.74 m
Wingarea (min. wings ext.) 525 sq ft 48.77 sq m
Max. speed 1,587 mph 2,554 km/h
Initial climb rate 551 ft/s 168 m/s
Ceiling 45,000 ft 13,715 m
Max. takeoff weight 89,000 lb 40,050 kg
Range 1,430 miles 2,300 km
Sensors AN/ALQ-99E jamming subsystem
Unit cost $35 million
Crew Two (pilot and electronics warfare officer)
Date deployed June1981
Inventory Active force, 29; ANG, 0; Reserve: 0
Interesting Sens the EF-111 weighs almost the same weight a Su-24 does and has almos the same range how can you explain that diference? similar weight similar range it seems the SFC is not the answer for that since it has more advanced TF-30 variants than earlier F-111 variants see it is 14 tones lighter then the FB-111 as the Su-24 is and weighs almost the same a Su-24 does and has a similar range even closer to the one quoted by Sukhoi, remember the Su-24 has less internal fuel capacity than the F-111 and even if the EF-111 has more electronic equipment is range is not far too different from the Su-24 it is very close to it indeed
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 30th June 2008 at 17:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Franc here you have an excellent site for Su-24 pictures some are very contemporary pictures taken recently, these are from current russian air force Su-24s
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.
I do agree, the EF-111 has an empty weight higher than the Su-24 but also a MTOW weight higher than a Su-24 according the Ukranian, Belarussian and most of sources except Sukhoi`s webpage, nevertheless The EF-111 must be even heavier than a Su-24 carrying two fuel tanks even if we use the Sukhoi`s data, nevertheless both aircraft are in the 40 tones range, probably the Su-24 in the range of 39000kg and the EF-111 in the range of 40000kg so even if the EF-111 has slightly more drag it has slightly better SFC and the Su-24 is slightly lighter .
If we consider that both aircraft have similar drag since the difference in range is not so high the Su-24 has a range of 2775km according to Sukhoi and the EF-111 something like 3150km this show the F-111 is not super economical but just slightly more economical and this is the closest aproximation to a real equivalency of both SFCs in real operations
Why to use these two airplanes? well because very likely both aircraft have similar fuel capacity see the EF-111 will carry at least 15000kg of fuel and the Su-24 very likely will carry around 16000kg of fuel according to Sukhoi or around 14500kg according to the Ukranian air force and Yefim Gordon, since the EF-111 can carry too two external fuel tanks
By: franc
- 1st July 2008 at 13:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why to use these two airplanes? well because very likely both aircraft have similar fuel capacity see the EF-111 will carry at least 15000kg of fuel and the Su-24 very likely will carry around 16000kg of fuel according to Sukhoi or around 14500kg according to the Ukranian air force and Yefim Gordon, since the EF-111 can carry too two external fuel tanks
Very Well, It seems that we have a consensus on the major part.
But this paragraph I quoted from you, which I have a little different view.
1) EF-111 will never carry fuel more than or same as any other vertion of the F-111 serious. so the 15000kg is a suspicious data since the fuel loaed in other F-111 version slightly less than this number.
2) The data lost unit liter or kg may obscure the editor who wrote the article concerning the internal fuel capacity Su-24 carried. Around 16000 or 17000 must be liter with two 3000 liter EFTs, whereas the data around 13000 or 14000 seem to be kg as unite. If you reduce two EFTs weight from 14000kg, the result is quite closer to the weight of internal fuel JAWA adopted. Certainly, no matter 16000, 17000, or 13000, 14500, both of them are approximate number around the actual data.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 1st July 2008 at 21:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very Well, It seems that we have a consensus on the major part.
But this paragraph I quoted from you, which I have a little different view.
1) EF-111 will never carry fuel more than or same as any other vertion of the F-111 serious. so the 15000kg is a suspicious data since the fuel loaed in other F-111 version slightly less than this number.
2) The data lost unit liter or kg may obscure the editor who wrote the article concerning the internal fuel capacity Su-24 carried. Around 16000 or 17000 must be liter with two 3000 liter EFTs, whereas the data around 13000 or 14000 seem to be kg as unite. If you reduce two EFTs weight from 14000kg, the result is quite closer to the weight of internal fuel JAWA adopted. Certainly, no matter 16000, 17000, or 13000, 14500, both of them are approximate number around the actual data.
Well franc of course some are aproximations because of the disparity in data.
If i am to believe Sukhoi, the internal fuel capacity is 11100kg and it will carry 8000kg of fuel tanks or weapons if you rest that from its MTOW weight gives you that the Su-24 weighs around the same an EF-111 at empty weight or 24000kg.
Now if you are to believe the data given by Yefim Gordon, the Ukranian and Belarussian air forces, then the Su-24 weighs around 22000kg at EW.
The EF-111 weighs around 25000kg at EW and carries around 15000kg of payload.
Since the EF-111 can carry two fuel tanks it carries a similar amount of fuel to the Su-24 why? well simple if the Su-24 carries around 5000kg in two fuel tanks, its internal fuel capacity must be something around 9000kg if we take the Ukranian and Yefim Gordon`s data so you get around 15000kg of fuel, using sukhoi data we get something like 16000kg of fuel including two fuel tanks.
In my opinion the EF-111 might have a smaller internal fuel capacity than the average F-111 variant but if it also carries fuel tanks it must have a total fuel capacity including internal and external fuel tanks similar to the internal fuel capacity of other F-111 variants
Since the range difference is not so far off from each other i guess their fuel tankage is similar since both weigh around the same weight and have similar ranges
By: franc
- 2nd July 2008 at 16:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
then,The EC version of Su-24 will be heavier than others, my stand is consistant always.
New
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD
- 2nd July 2008 at 22:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
then,The EC version of Su-24 will be heavier than others, my stand is consistant always.
I do agree some of Sukhoi`s data seem to be wrong, speed for example is quoted to only Mach 1.35 that is basicly the max speed at sea level, also internal fuel weight and MTOW seem to be higher than what is reported by the Ukrainian and Belarussian air forces and Yefim gordon.
However they are the manufacturer and therefore they have a lot of authority when it comes to the specifications.
However both aircraft the Su-24 and EF-111 must have similar fuel capacities, this means their ranges are good examples of the SFC of both aircraft and since their ranges are not very different they reflect the real SFC in operational practice
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2008 at 11:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems that simple math is behind the scope of someone. Your given data. used!
2775 km = 100%
3700 km = X
X=133%
Posts: 620
By: franc - 29th June 2008 at 12:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
except repeat same word, what more can you do?
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 29th June 2008 at 12:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To show, that you tried to cheat the readers here and not even be ashamed about that.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 29th June 2008 at 13:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sens
This information is what i have in one of my books the 7000 galons of total fuel is not in a aircraft carrying 6 external fuel tanks, in fact it carries only 4 external fuel tanks it means the 6 tanks are much more than 7000 galons however to be honest the book also says the range with four external fuel tanks and two nuclear bombs is 4150nm around 7500km, the max weight for the FB-111 is 54 tones, more than 10 tones than a Su-24.
Now if this information is true then the FB-111 indeed is a really very long range bomber
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 29th June 2008 at 19:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I kind of accept the AL-21 is a more fuel thirsty engine than the TF-30, why? well it has a SFC of 0.86, yes it has more thrust, around 15% more but still is far far more thirsty.
The range published always changes either for the Su-24 or F-111.
For example Sukhoi claims a range or 2775 km with only two fuel tanks, which is not the max fuel in reality the Su-24 can carry, the real max range of the Su-24 is still something difficult to guess specially with three fuel tanks.
If the Ukranian air force webpage is right the max range of the Su-24 could be 3800km because with an inflight refuelling it will reach 5000km according to Sukhoi it self.
However if the FB-111 can reach up to 7600km with four fuel tanks and two nuclear bombs in the bombs bay indeed it is a really long range bomber.
the speed for that mission well we can only guess since fully loaded the FB-111 is at least 10 tones heavier than the Su-24 and at military power has less thrust it is probable its ferry range it is at very low speed perhaps 500-600km an hour but that is only a guess.
The vast majority of data is inconclusive, compared to the Tu-22M the FB-111 carries only a symbolic warload, now how far it can reach with six fuel tanks well that is something very difficult to guess.
Posts: 620
By: franc - 30th June 2008 at 06:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG:
I think that three EFTs carried by SU-24, which is out of question, as well as 6 EFTs carried by F-111. Most official web wouldn't give a correct data, esp, for important data of combat or judgment.
I only cheat you here, just because the process I made in calculation was not in terms of your hope.
I believe you didn't cheat me because you hid the data you adopted from me.:p
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 30th June 2008 at 07:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well to tell you the true data is many times unaccurate, for example if we are to believe the Ukranian air force, the Su-24 only weighs 39700kg at MTOW, it means it only has around 17000 liters of fuel with a range of 2775km and the F-111 will have more than 19000 liters with a range of more tha 4700km according to some data.
if the Su-24 has a max range of 3800km it means it uses its cruising regime SFC of 0.76, now if the F-111 indeed can fly a range of 7600km more or less the relation corresponds to the difference in fuel and SFC.
Now Sukhoi gives a minimun of 19000 liters for total fuel capacity, with 19000 liters of internal fuel the F-111 might have a range of 4000+ km so its possible the relation is not as high as we suppose.
However neither Sens me or You have proven facts because we have different values and Sens is not using data from the Ukranian air force since a lighter SU-24 with longer range contradicts his preconceptions, however some data does support his view, but i guess some data even for the FB-111 is hard to believe because they say the range is far too long almost like a Tu-22M something i do not believe since the Tu-22M is a more powerful bomber
and still in use so this means the F-111 might have some drawbacks
Posts: 620
By: franc - 30th June 2008 at 09:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 30th June 2008 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well Franc it depends in what is the real SFC and range, i think and you can see, that in reality the AL-21 indeed is spends more fuel at its max SFC at military power since its max SFC at military power is 0.86kgf/kg/h however it is not 30% since the TF-30 has a SFC of 0.67 but at lower thrust.
The Sens concept is this TF-30 SFC is 0.67 and the AL-21 is 0.86, by logic the ratio is 0.67:0.86 is 1.28:1, so efectively the AL-21 is at its max military SFC 30% more fuel thirsty, however this would be true only if the TF-30 has the same thrust at its max military power, if the TF-30 gets its thrust at 79KN already is using afterburner, so its SFC is higher than 0.67 for sure, if the Al-21 has a thrust of 66KN then its SFC is lower than 0.86 very likely 0.76 in cruise regime
Now how can we explain the claimed difference in range, the EF-111 has a shorter range and has a MTOW in the class of a Su-24
Specifications StatsCentral
Model General Dynamics / Grumman EF-111A Raven
Length 76.02 ft | 23.17 m
Width 62.99 ft | 19.20 m
Height 20.01 ft | 6.10 m
Engine(s) 2 x Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 (later TF30-P-9) turbofan engines with afterburner delivering 20,840lbf of thrust.
Empty Weight 55,274 lbs | 25,072 kg
MTOW 89,001 lbs | 40,370 kg
Max Speed 1,855 mph | 2,985 km/h | 1,612 kts
Max Range 2,000 miles | 3,218 km
Ceiling 44,997 ft | 13,715 m | 8.5 miles
Climb Rate 11,000 ft/min (3,353 m/min)
Hardpoints 2
Armament OPTIONAL:
2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile
2 x 600 gallon external fuel tanks
Accommodations 2
Operators the United States of America
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=277
So as you can see the EF-111 is not very different to an Su-24 in range and it weighs more or less the same
Specifications (EF-111A unless noted)
Data from The Great Book of Modern Warplanes [7]
General characteristics
Crew: Two (Pilot and Electronic Warfare Officer)
Length: 76.0 ft (23.17 m)
Wingspan: 63.0 ft spread, 32.0 ft swept (19.2 m / 9.74 m)
Height: 20.0 ft (6.1 m)
Wing area: 657.4 ft² spread, 525 ft² swept (61.07 m² / 48.77 m²)
Airfoil: NACA 64-210.68 root, NACA 64-209.80 tip (F-111F)
Empty weight: 55,275 lb (25,072 kg)
Loaded weight: 70,000 lb[8] (31,751 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 89,000 lb (40,370 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Initially Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3, later upgraded to TF30-P-9 turbofans with afterburner, 20,840 lbf (TF30-P-9) (92.7 kN (TF30-P-9)) each
*Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0186 (F-111D)
Drag area: 9.36 ft² (0.87 m²) (F-111D)
Aspect ratio: 7.56 unswept; 1.95 fully swept. (F-111D)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.5, (1,650 mph) (above 30,000 ft for all F-111) (2,985 km/h (F-111))
Range: 2,000 miles[9] (1,740 nautical miles)
Service ceiling 45,000 ft[8] (13,715 m)
Rate of climb: 11,000 ft/min[8] (3,353 m/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.598
Lift-to-drag ratio: 15.8 (F-111)
Armament
No normal armament, possibly 2xAIM-9 Sidewinder
2x600 gal fuel tanks possible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EF-111A_Raven#Specifications_.28EF-111A_unless_noted.29
General characteristics
Primary function Electronic countermeasures support
Contractor Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Power plant Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30-P-109 engines
Thrust 2x 18,502 lb 2x 82.32 kN
Length 76 ft 23.16 m
Height 20 ft 6.10 m
Wingspan minimum 63 ft 19.20 m
maximum 32 ft 9.74 m
Wingarea (min. wings ext.) 525 sq ft 48.77 sq m
Max. speed 1,587 mph 2,554 km/h
Initial climb rate 551 ft/s 168 m/s
Ceiling 45,000 ft 13,715 m
Max. takeoff weight 89,000 lb 40,050 kg
Range 1,430 miles 2,300 km
Sensors AN/ALQ-99E jamming subsystem
Unit cost $35 million
Crew Two (pilot and electronics warfare officer)
Date deployed June1981
Inventory Active force, 29; ANG, 0; Reserve:
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/ef111/ef111_en.htm
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 30th June 2008 at 16:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Primary function Electronic countermeasures support
Contractor Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Power plant Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30-P-109 engines
Thrust 2x 18,502 lb 2x 82.32 kN
Length 76 ft 23.16 m
Height 20 ft 6.10 m
Wingspan minimum 63 ft 19.20 m
maximum 32 ft 9.74 m
Wingarea (min. wings ext.) 525 sq ft 48.77 sq m
Max. speed 1,587 mph 2,554 km/h
Initial climb rate 551 ft/s 168 m/s
Ceiling 45,000 ft 13,715 m
Max. takeoff weight 89,000 lb 40,050 kg
Range 1,430 miles 2,300 km
Sensors AN/ALQ-99E jamming subsystem
Unit cost $35 million
Crew Two (pilot and electronics warfare officer)
Date deployed June1981
Inventory Active force, 29; ANG, 0; Reserve: 0
Interesting Sens the EF-111 weighs almost the same weight a Su-24 does and has almos the same range how can you explain that diference? similar weight similar range it seems the SFC is not the answer for that since it has more advanced TF-30 variants than earlier F-111 variants see it is 14 tones lighter then the FB-111 as the Su-24 is and weighs almost the same a Su-24 does and has a similar range even closer to the one quoted by Sukhoi, remember the Su-24 has less internal fuel capacity than the F-111 and even if the EF-111 has more electronic equipment is range is not far too different from the Su-24 it is very close to it indeed
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 30th June 2008 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Franc here you have an excellent site for Su-24 pictures some are very contemporary pictures taken recently, these are from current russian air force Su-24s
http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=911
Posts: 620
By: franc - 1st July 2008 at 05:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 1st July 2008 at 11:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do agree, the EF-111 has an empty weight higher than the Su-24 but also a MTOW weight higher than a Su-24 according the Ukranian, Belarussian and most of sources except Sukhoi`s webpage, nevertheless The EF-111 must be even heavier than a Su-24 carrying two fuel tanks even if we use the Sukhoi`s data, nevertheless both aircraft are in the 40 tones range, probably the Su-24 in the range of 39000kg and the EF-111 in the range of 40000kg so even if the EF-111 has slightly more drag it has slightly better SFC and the Su-24 is slightly lighter .
If we consider that both aircraft have similar drag since the difference in range is not so high the Su-24 has a range of 2775km according to Sukhoi and the EF-111 something like 3150km this show the F-111 is not super economical but just slightly more economical and this is the closest aproximation to a real equivalency of both SFCs in real operations
Why to use these two airplanes? well because very likely both aircraft have similar fuel capacity see the EF-111 will carry at least 15000kg of fuel and the Su-24 very likely will carry around 16000kg of fuel according to Sukhoi or around 14500kg according to the Ukranian air force and Yefim Gordon, since the EF-111 can carry too two external fuel tanks
Posts: 620
By: franc - 1st July 2008 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very Well, It seems that we have a consensus on the major part.
But this paragraph I quoted from you, which I have a little different view.
1) EF-111 will never carry fuel more than or same as any other vertion of the F-111 serious. so the 15000kg is a suspicious data since the fuel loaed in other F-111 version slightly less than this number.
2) The data lost unit liter or kg may obscure the editor who wrote the article concerning the internal fuel capacity Su-24 carried. Around 16000 or 17000 must be liter with two 3000 liter EFTs, whereas the data around 13000 or 14000 seem to be kg as unite. If you reduce two EFTs weight from 14000kg, the result is quite closer to the weight of internal fuel JAWA adopted. Certainly, no matter 16000, 17000, or 13000, 14500, both of them are approximate number around the actual data.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 1st July 2008 at 21:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well franc of course some are aproximations because of the disparity in data.
If i am to believe Sukhoi, the internal fuel capacity is 11100kg and it will carry 8000kg of fuel tanks or weapons if you rest that from its MTOW weight gives you that the Su-24 weighs around the same an EF-111 at empty weight or 24000kg.
Now if you are to believe the data given by Yefim Gordon, the Ukranian and Belarussian air forces, then the Su-24 weighs around 22000kg at EW.
The EF-111 weighs around 25000kg at EW and carries around 15000kg of payload.
Since the EF-111 can carry two fuel tanks it carries a similar amount of fuel to the Su-24 why? well simple if the Su-24 carries around 5000kg in two fuel tanks, its internal fuel capacity must be something around 9000kg if we take the Ukranian and Yefim Gordon`s data so you get around 15000kg of fuel, using sukhoi data we get something like 16000kg of fuel including two fuel tanks.
In my opinion the EF-111 might have a smaller internal fuel capacity than the average F-111 variant but if it also carries fuel tanks it must have a total fuel capacity including internal and external fuel tanks similar to the internal fuel capacity of other F-111 variants
Since the range difference is not so far off from each other i guess their fuel tankage is similar since both weigh around the same weight and have similar ranges
Posts: 620
By: franc - 2nd July 2008 at 01:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've said that data Sukhoj web given are very WRONG.
I must knew that EW of electric combat a/c generally bigger than other variant version.
F-111 and Su-24 have similar EW EXCEPT EF-111.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 2nd July 2008 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is possible but remember the Su-24 has also variants and some are lighter or heavier,
Posts: 620
By: franc - 2nd July 2008 at 16:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
then,The EC version of Su-24 will be heavier than others, my stand is consistant always.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 2nd July 2008 at 22:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do agree some of Sukhoi`s data seem to be wrong, speed for example is quoted to only Mach 1.35 that is basicly the max speed at sea level, also internal fuel weight and MTOW seem to be higher than what is reported by the Ukrainian and Belarussian air forces and Yefim gordon.
However they are the manufacturer and therefore they have a lot of authority when it comes to the specifications.
However both aircraft the Su-24 and EF-111 must have similar fuel capacities, this means their ranges are good examples of the SFC of both aircraft and since their ranges are not very different they reflect the real SFC in operational practice