The Ultimate Military Combat Aircraft & All Others Thread (All Topics).

[MastanKhan]

I didn't know there would be fines if it was overweight, but I did know that the F-14 was basically the replacement for the failed F-111B. In fact the F-14 traces a lot of its subsystems to the F-111B, including the TF-30 engines in the F-14A (meant to be interim, but unfortunately only very few F-14B/Ds with the F-110 engines were built), the AWG-9, and the AIM-54.

Considering its F-111B components, Grumman did an amazing job to make the F-14 such an excellent fighter. Contrary to popular belief it was a very capable dogfighter and could match if not beat the F-15 which had a much less powerful radar-missile combo. I've also read that despite the complexity of the variable geometry wings, they provide such an aerodynamic advantage that to get a fixed-wing aircraft of the F-14's capabilities (weight, speed, payload) to fly slow enough to land on a carrier the design would be 1-2 tons heavier! Grumman made a model which showed it would need a bigger, heavier wing.
View attachment 47494

Hi,

Ask the australians and they will tell you that F111 did not fail---just the utility had changed.

Ask the 'iranian' air force and they will tell you how successful the f14 had been.

F14 was far superior to the F15 and if it had the same life span---F15 would have bitten the dust long time ago---. It was just the battle between the navy and the air force---.

 

[DF-41]

https://thediplomat.com/2024/06/chinas-6th-generation-and-upcoming-combat-aircraft-2024-update/

China’s 6th Generation and Upcoming Combat Aircraft: 2024 Update​

A look at where the PLA’s cutting-edge aircraft programs – from the J-XD to J-20 upgrades and the mysterious H-20 stealth bomber – stand.
By Rick Joe
June 11, 2024

 

[GoMig-21]

I didn't know there would be fines if it was overweight, but I did know that the F-14 was basically the replacement for the failed F-111B.

And look at the number on that fine! $440K for each 100lbs over the requested limit! Almost half a million for what basically amounts to a bag of mixable cement! lol It doesn't take much to get to 100lbs when you're dealing with a huge chunk of heavy metal filled with tens of thousands chunks of metal.

I've also read that despite the complexity of the variable geometry wings, they provide such an aerodynamic advantage that to get a fixed-wing aircraft of the F-14's capabilities (weight, speed, payload) to fly slow enough to land on a carrier the design would be 1-2 tons heavier!

Makes sense. Aside from the size of the wing, the variable geometry allowed for that aerodynamic change to get that necessary improved lift. It's really fascinating stuff when you look at how they figured out that going from the steeply angled delta wing to a conventional sweep angle that it would take an aircraft from the maximum lift & minimal drag to the maximum subsonic lift & minimal drag. Essentially combining the best of two worlds.

Interestingly enough, the same concept was required for the F-35. There's no way the A, with its teeny-weeny winglets lol could possibly reach carrier landing speed requirement without dropping into the water, hence the C model.

The difference in the wing size is considerable.

Grumman made a model which showed it would need a bigger, heavier wing.

Indeed! That whole VFX program was fascinating to learn about. The USAF and the USN were essentially requesting a new aircraft to replace the F-4 Phantom, since it was a dual-branched aircraft flying for both, the air force & navy. So they initiated the VFX (or VFAX) program which actually had 8 total proposed variants. The 6th one became the famous F-14 Tomcat and the 7th one you aptly mentioned evolved further to become the also but not as equally as famous F-15 Eagle.

The original 8 Layouts of the G-303 VFAX (F-14 Tomcat) designs:
1) 303-60 The January 1968 proposed aircraft: Podded Engines, High Variable-Sweep Wing
2) 303A Nacelle Modification of 303-60: Podded Engines, High Variable-Sweep Wing
3) 303B Design 303-60 updated for configuration comparison: Podded Engines, High Variable-Sweep Wing
4) 303C Submerged Engines, High Variable-Sweep Wing
5) 303D Submerged Engines, Low Variable-Sweep Wing
6) 303E Basically, the winning F-14 design: Podded Engines, High Variable-Sweep Wing
7) 303F Submerged Engines, High Fixed Wing
8) 303G A fighter only version (AWG-10, 4 Sparrows) without Phoenix capability:
Podded Engines, High Variable-Sweep Wing

Imagine that?! lol, crazy. But many don't know the history of the origin of the F-15 Eagle like you said, it was derived from this original VFAX program to build the Tomcat, one for the navy and one for the air force except the one for the air force ended up being tweaked to something a bit different in the F-15 Eagle, hence the increase in the 14 to 15.

And it's easy to see where the F-15 came from; remarkable similar to what would've been the Air Force's F-14.

Fun fact:
The name “Tomcat” pays tribute to Admiral Thomas F. Connolly, and it became the official moniker in line with Grumman’s tradition of giving its fighter aircraft feline names.
Your post reminded me of another instance where the concept of variable design was also adopted but in a different form to geometry and that was "incidence," as in variable incidence and that was in the F-8 Crusader. Another beauty in its own right.

Variable incidence wing design where the incidence (or angle of incidence) is variable or moveable. This is just incredible engineering. The whole wing moves up to raise its leading edge and give the airfoil a greater incidence angle for greater lift. Again another critical aspect to get that navy-desired lift for slow speed landing and takeoff.

Just a beast of an aircraft, had so many cool features & looks, from the gaping gully intake to the body-blended gunports, the way they hung AIM-9s on its sides and of course, the variable incidence wing.

To add to that super cool design features, the Vought F8U-1/F-8A Crusader had a hydraulic ventral hatch similar to the way the wing incidence worked that housed a rocket pack and the ventral air brakes! Totally insane.

The original founder was Chance Vought who designed the early Vought classics like the F4U4 Gullwing Corsair and such, later passing and the future design team of the late 50s & 60s led by a fella names John Russel Clark were the ones who designed the unique looks & features of the F-8 Crusader and all its cool gadgetry and was a rather effective fighter mostly for the Navy.

And a bit of history to go along with this classic fighter jet is the RF-8A was a great low altitude flyer and being the R variant with its numerous cameras was tasked to fly the recon missions over Cuba in 1962, where in 6 weeks it took 160,000 photos to show the Soviets loading and staging MRBMs in Cuba, leading the the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis that almost saw the world tip of the edge of thermo nuclear war.

Thankfully averted, a year later one of those RF-8A Crusaders on an approach to carrier landing ended in an ejection by the pilot. Just some great stuff about this particular aircraft.

Unfortunately, despite all its great looks and features and even history making, it was a bitch to land on aircraft carriers lol, and unfortunately suffered a high accident rate. Out of a total of 1,261 Crusaders that were built, 1,106 had been involved in mishaps by the time it was retired lol. Crazy but a classic.

 

[GoMig-21]

Hi,

One time flying in an air bus 380---at park position I marked the wing tip position on the window---then saw the difference at 38000 feet.

You do that kind of thing, too? lol. I'm always doing that, whether in a plane or in the boat especially but a lot when driving my truck. The yellow dividing line and edge of road line I'll have a visual distance in my mind that needs to stay constant, and by doing that, I know I'm maintaining the right spacing in the lane hahaha. mostly just for fun, but I also have a dashcam which let me tell you, that is one of the smartest things any motorist can do. I'm sure you know this being the car guy that you are and living here in the US where cops will pull you over in a heartbeat if they see you veering or barely crossing the yellow line. Bastards.

That's cool that you got to fly in an A380. Must've been quite the experience.

I don't recall the exact numbers I wrote in that post but my rough estimate was about 15-17 ft rise in the position of the wing tip from the mark on the window---.

So---up and down variation on the A380 be over 20 feet.

I know you know this already that it's actually a technique used by fighter pilots during close flight formations. It's called "Spot Visualization" and it's taught in air force academies and later in service training. It's a very difficult technique to master and used very carefully so they don't cause major accidents and kill a bunch of people.

It's mostly used by airshow pilots who are flying side by side in tight formations of 4-6 or more aircraft. The Thunderbirds & Blue Angels talk about how they use spot visualization when they're formation-flying with only 18 inches between wingtips and performing all those crazy loops and stuff. Very cool stuff.

One pilot will focus on a certain spot on his wingman's aircraft and line it up with something on his glass canapy and maintain that position as he moves the stick. It's crazy when you think about it, how dangerous it is for us to do it on an empty road using the yellow lines with no traffic in sight and these guys are doing that in flying missiles at 5,000ft!

Here's the actual definition:

Blue Angels pilots use a technique called “spot visualization” to maintain close formation during their precision flying demonstrations. This involves mentally focusing on a specific reference point on the canopy or windshield of their aircraft. By keeping their eyes fixed on this spot, they can gauge their position relative to other planes and make precise adjustments to stay in formation. The teamwork required for their high-speed, low-altitude flying takes hundreds of hours to develop, ensuring safety and precision during their performances.

This guy is spot visualizing right at take off, doesn't even look at the runway and spends more time looking at the plane next to him than anything else. It's really something and a bit through the video it's mind-blowing how close the wingtips are.

 

[AmirIGM]

Hi,

Ask the australians and they will tell you that F111 did not fail---just the utility had changed.

Ask the 'iranian' air force and they will tell you how successful the f14 had been.

F14 was far superior to the F15 and if it had the same life span---F15 would have bitten the dust long time ago---. It was just the battle between the navy and the air force---.

The Australians would have good reason to as they operated the F-111C which was a strike aircraft. It was the F-111B fighter which failed. Its strike variants were well regarded.

Interestingly enough, the same concept was required for the F-35. There's no way the A, with its teeny-weeny winglets lol could possibly reach carrier landing speed requirement without dropping into the water, hence the C model.

The difference in the wing size is considerable.

This is also why the F-18 has a very straight wing and hence has poor transonic/supersonic performance. The added weight in the 35C isn't so bad because it has the advantage of stealth. But I've always disliked the 18 for all the compromises it made, in contrast to the Tomcat which was a true air superiority fighter that allowed no compromises to achieve its incredible performance.

Imagine that?! lol, crazy. But many don't know the history of the origin of the F-15 Eagle like you said, it was derived from this original VFAX program to build the Tomcat, one for the navy and one for the air force except the one for the air force ended up being tweaked to something a bit different in the F-15 Eagle, hence the increase in the 14 to 15.

The USAF was never involved in the VFX/VFAX program. All those 8 proposals are by Grumman whereas the -15 is from McD Douglas. I think the similarities are mostly a coincidence.

 

[GoMig-21]

Top Gun Maverick inverted mountain ridge run by Swiss Mirage IIIS and a one million dollar drone prize!

 

[GoMig-21]

This was voted the best combat aircraft ever produced by a pole taken by the Military Chanel. The criteria were both, performance & looks.
Do you agree?

 

[GoMig-21]

The REVOLVER

This is some crazy stuff. Why even need expensive billion-dollar bombers when a C-17 can launch such devastating munitions safely and a lot cheaper from a transport A/C with this crazy innovative contraption.

 

[GoMig-21]

Speaking of the F-8 Crusader,

F-8 Supercritical Wing: NASA's Unconventional Aircraft That Changed Commercial Flight Forever​

In 2023, very few people can claim to have flown on a supersonic airliner, but for a while in the 1960s, it looked as if futuristic planes like the Concord would be a common mode of air travel. In the end, though, it was the comparatively slower airliners like the Boeing 747 that "shrank the world," while Concord proved to be a one-off. It was the gilded carriage of a privileged few, operating on a handful of prestige routes until retiring in the early 2000s.

Why didn't supersonic airliners catch on? Simply put, they weren't economical. The high drag experienced by planes at Mach 1 and above imposes enormous fuel costs, while the smaller cabins could carry only a fraction of the passengers accommodated in slower "wide-body" planes. After the oil crisis of the early 1970s, airlines lost their appetite for gas-guzzling planes. Rather than focusing on getting passengers from A to B as quickly as possible, they needed to figure out how to do it cheaply. For aircraft designers, this meant developing a new wing design optimized for high subsonic flight, where conventional airliners are already most economical. In the early 1960s, aeronautical engineer Dr. Richard T. Whitcomb started working on the problem of economical high-speed flight, specifically, on a so-called "supercritical" wing. to reduce drag. The speed which this occurs is known as the "critical" speed, according to NASA. A "supercritical" wing is designed to halt formation of a shock wave, thereby creating less drag, better controllability, and reduced fuel consumption.

Enter The TF-8A​

TF-8A supercritical wing demonstrator in flight.

Compared to a conventional wing, the supercritical wing, which NASA abbreviated to SCW, "is flatter on the top and rounder on the bottom with a downward curve at the trailing edge," according to Defense Department records. Wind tunnel tests indicated that the design had potential, but NASA knew that such an unconventional design would need to be tested before the commercial flight industry could be convinced of its benefits.

Rather than building a new plane entirely from scratch, NASA chose to convert an existing airframe — a Vought F-8A Crusader obtained from the U.S. Navy. The Crusader boasted a speed capacity up to Mach 1.7. It had an innovative wing design, which hinged upwards during slow-speed flight, to improve controllability when landing on aircraft carriers.

The tail-mounted elevator was to be modified to provide roll control. When studies indicated that such a design would lack adequate control at low speeds, conventional ailerons were included in the wing design. The supercritical wing was manufactured by Rockwell International's North American Aircraft Division and delivered in December 1969. With the new wing attached, the converted Crusader was designated the TF-8A.

Flight Tests And Legacy​

TF-8A supercritical wing demonstrator during testing© NASA
Although the TF-8A's slender, elegant supercritical wing was ultimately equipped with fixed wings for roll control, it lacked flaps to increase lift at low speeds. As a result, the TF-8A require a lengthy runway to take off and an even longer one to land. Its 200 mph landing speed meant that its only choice was to land on Rogers Dry Lake in the Mojave Desert. The TF-8A first flew on March 9, 1971, with lead project pilot Tom McMurtry at the controls. He took the TF-8A up to 9,200 feet and achieved a maximum speed of 260 mph. Later flights would be much faster, and its first supersonic test flight took place on May 26, 1971.

Testing ran through May 1973, during which time NASA found that "results showed the SCW had increased the transonic efficiency of the F-8 by as much as 15 percent and proved that passenger transports with supercritical wings could increase profits by 2.5 percent over aircraft with conventional wings." This might not sound like a lot, but it meant an influx of $78 million per year then — equivalent to almost $500 million today.

Now, this supercritical technology is incorporated in the wing designs of virtually all modern airliners, including the massive Boeing 777. The one and only TF-8A survived to be preserved at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California.

Read the original article on SlashGear.

 

[GoMig-21]

Yawzah! Su-57 (most likely Su-57M)with new engines displayed and looking really, really, really sharp!!!

@The SC

 

[GoMig-21]

Side-hinged canopy flops open on this female pilot soon after takeoff. No panic or flustering she handles the situation like a boss and lands the aircraft safely.

 

[GoMig-21]

Aggressor F-35?