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.
Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

by quicksilver » 22 Jun 2020, 22:05

This for comparison —
Attachments
BA3105B0-B93E-4D3A-BB92-18C84F7BA8E2.jpeg
BA3105B0-B93E-4D3A-BB92-18C84F7BA8E2.jpeg (13.73 KiB) Viewed 52224 times


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5997
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 23 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
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

by quicksilver » 23 Jun 2020, 00:45

Trades, trades, trades.

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


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

by marauder2048 » 23 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.


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

by quicksilver » 23 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.


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

by marauder2048 » 23 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


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

by quicksilver » 24 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.


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

by marauder2048 » 24 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)"


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
Location: Parts Unknown

by mixelflick » 27 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..


Elite 4K
Elite 4K
 
Posts: 4474
Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

by wrightwing » 27 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.


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

by marauder2048 » 29 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.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
Location: Parts Unknown

by mixelflick » 01 Jul 2020, 15:47

Oh?

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


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

by marauder2048 » 01 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.


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 883
Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

by geforcerfx » 02 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


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

by marauder2048 » 02 Jul 2020, 01:07

*shudder*


PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests