Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3032
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post22 Jun 2020, 22:05

This for comparison —
Attachments
BA3105B0-B93E-4D3A-BB92-18C84F7BA8E2.jpeg
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4793
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post23 Jun 2020, 00:29

It already reduced subsonic drag. I can only think of three reasons to change it to that shape. Weight, CLmax, Wave Drag. It sure won't be cost.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3032
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Jun 2020, 00:45

Trades, trades, trades.

Am wondering what the (apparent) reduction in fuel capacity vs reduction in DI buys them...
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1010
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post23 Jun 2020, 00:46

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:It already reduced subsonic drag. I can only think of three reasons to change it to that shape. Weight, CLmax, Wave Drag. It sure won't be cost.


2nd crew-member egress?

It's often non-obvious, non-aero things: for the F-16, the redesign from the prototype tanks was motivated by the
damage to the tank from the cannon fire blast wave.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3032
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 Jun 2020, 02:46

marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:It already reduced subsonic drag. I can only think of three reasons to change it to that shape. Weight, CLmax, Wave Drag. It sure won't be cost.


2nd crew-member egress?

It's often non-obvious, non-aero things: for the F-16, the redesign from the prototype tanks was motivated by the
damage to the tank from the cannon fire blast wave.


The primary problem was a significant issue with loads/structures unrelated to the gun.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1010
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post23 Jun 2020, 18:55

quicksilver wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:It already reduced subsonic drag. I can only think of three reasons to change it to that shape. Weight, CLmax, Wave Drag. It sure won't be cost.


2nd crew-member egress?

It's often non-obvious, non-aero things: for the F-16, the redesign from the prototype tanks was motivated by the
damage to the tank from the cannon fire blast wave.


The primary problem was a significant issue with loads/structures unrelated to the gun.


Could be my misreading; I read the gun blast issue as causal in the redesign.

cft-f16-blast-1.png

cft-gun-blast-2.png
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3032
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post24 Jun 2020, 01:19

Read carefully the first sentence of the first paragraph and the first two sentences of the second paragraph.

That doc does not address it but there were unanticipated loads issues with the first design, and thus the design necessarily evolved as a consequence. As it evolved, gun issues emerged — as outlined in your reference.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1010
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post24 Jun 2020, 02:40

quicksilver wrote:Read carefully the first sentence of the first paragraph and the first two sentences of the second paragraph.

That doc does not address it but there were unanticipated loads issues with the first design, and thus the design necessarily evolved as a consequence. As it evolved, gun issues emerged — as outlined in your reference.


Interesting. Just re-read the related AIAA paper:

"Optimizing The F-16 Conformal Fuel Tank Using Design And Experiments"

and there is a rather buried reference to a loads assessment methodology
which drove CTF design and which is "(not discussed in this paper)"
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3954
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 17:35

Interesting how the CFT's on the F-16 and 18 don't hurt its performance much, whereas the F-15's it does. Actually, I think I read they're not so bad subsonic, but added a lot more drag in the supersonic part of the envelope.

Of course, the F-16's and 18's CFT's came many years (decades) later..
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post27 Jun 2020, 19:00

mixelflick wrote:Interesting how the CFT's on the F-16 and 18 don't hurt its performance much, whereas the F-15's it does. Actually, I think I read they're not so bad subsonic, but added a lot more drag in the supersonic part of the envelope.

Of course, the F-16's and 18's CFT's came many years (decades) later..

The F-16/18s CFTs are clean. The F-15Es CFTs have weapon station attachments. The F-15C CFTs aren't nearly as draggy.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1010
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post29 Jun 2020, 19:04

mixelflick wrote:Interesting how the CFT's on the F-16 and 18 don't hurt its performance much, whereas the F-15's it does. Actually, I think I read they're not so bad subsonic, but added a lot more drag in the supersonic part of the envelope.

Of course, the F-16's and 18's CFT's came many years (decades) later..


The Indian trials told a different story for the F-16s wearing conformals.
But I tend to think the increase in weapons carriage outweighs perf losses.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3954
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post01 Jul 2020, 15:47

Oh?

How/where did you hear about those results in Indian trials?? Curious..
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1010
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post01 Jul 2020, 18:50

mixelflick wrote:Oh?

How/where did you hear about those results in Indian trials?? Curious..


mixelflick wrote:Oh?

How/where did you hear about those results in Indian trials?? Curious..


Some of the performance evaluations were leaked to one of those Indian newspapers in a manner
similar to the leaked Swiss Gripen trials but less formal.

I can try to dig it up.

It's not so surprising; the CFTs are a pretty delicate balance between AoA, transonic performance
and fuel capacity. If they were really performance-tradeoff free, the original OML would have incorporated
them directly.

I think it was Hillaker who said (in terms) once you start seeing thing added above the wings the design is dead.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 879
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post02 Jul 2020, 00:07

marauder2048 wrote:I think it was Hillaker who said (in terms) once you start seeing thing added above the wings the design is dead.

Could be Worse
Image
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1010
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post02 Jul 2020, 01:07

*shudder*
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests