Discussion: F-14, F-15 Hybrid Idea

[Eddie M.]

If I may, here is how my version of the Tomcat/ Eagle hybrid turned out. Lots of power. I call it the F-61F Archangel III
    Eddie


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/scurrfy/Early%20Kitbashes/May08199.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/scurrfy/Early%20Kitbashes/May08201.jpg

[KJ_Lesnick]

You guys know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about General Dynamics' VFX proposal (after the TFX failed).  It kind of looked like a mini F-14 with F-111 features?

BTW: Eddie... 4-engines will consume twice the ammount of fuel as a twin-engined fighter jet... it will be powerful, but it will have terrible range

Kendra Lesnick

[Eddie M.]

You guys know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about General Dynamics' VFX proposal (after the TFX failed).  It kind of looked like a mini F-14 with F-111 features?

BTW: Eddie... 4-engines will consume twice the ammount of fuel as a twin-engined fighter jet... it will be powerful, but it will have terrible range

Kendra Lesnick

No different than any other fighter.  There would be no loitering without tankers. During my time in the USN working the flightdeck, no Tomcat or Hornet could go anywhere without them.

My hybrid is a flight of fancy, although if you saw the bottom ,you'd see the CFTs. That's why it's called a whif.

[KJ_Lesnick]

No different than any other fighter.  There would be no loitering without tankers. During my time in the USN working the flightdeck, no Tomcat or Hornet could go anywhere without them.

Well true, but wouldn't the idea be to do as much loitering without having to use the tanker?

That's why it's called a whif.

But of course


BTW:  Does anybody have any pictures of the GD TFX Proposal?

Kendra

[Eddie M.]

Well true, but wouldn't the idea be to do as much loitering without having to use the tanker?

One would think so, but when we got the first Hornet squardons on board the Midway, it was immediately apparent that the Bugs had very short legs. I never saw a Tomcat or a Hornet leave the deck without drops unless it was for a VIP airshow.
    Eddie

[GTX]

BTW:  Does anybody have any pictures of the GD TFX Proposal?

Have a look over on Secret Projects.

Regards,

Greg

[ysi_maniac]

If I may, here is how my version of the Tomcat/ Eagle hybrid turned out. Lots of power. I call it the F-61F Archangel III
    Eddie


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/scurrfy/Early%20Kitbashes/May08199.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/scurrfy/Early%20Kitbashes/May08201.jpg

FOUR engines! wow

[KJ_Lesnick]

Eddie, 

On the bright side, you might be able to get supercruise out of your four-engined F-14/F-15 hybrid... twice the thrust with no afterburner needed.  I'd sharpen up the top lip in front of the inlets though to avoid low-pressure recovery (you want that one as high as you can possibly get away with).


Kendra 

[Eddie M.]

Eddie, 

On the bright side, you might be able to get supercruise out of your four-engined F-14/F-15 hybrid... twice the thrust with no afterburner needed.  I'd sharpen up the top lip in front of the inlets though to avoid low-pressure recovery (you want that one as high as you can possibly get away with).


Kendra 

I appreciate the tip. I'll use it if I ever attempt a big project like that again.
    Eddie

[KJ_Lesnick]

Out of curiousity, why did they get rid of the F-15's originally intended air to ground capability and adopt the "not a pound for air to ground" -- was it just weight?  Or was it the worry of taking an expensive plane down into the weeds to do air to ground missions? 


Kendra Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

if it was also air to ground capable , it would have shot down a couple of USAF wings . A world beating matchless aircraft in the mold of Phantom means there is no place for A-7s and since the Eagle is expensive why not disband the now unrequired attack wings to save money that can be better spend on procurement of new fighters ?

numbers are important and to keep them USAF sort of replaced the A-7s with A-10s , which was probably even more hated by the higher ups in Pentagon .

So you mean they basically took off all the air to ground capability not because of any physical or weight limitation but for political reasons to keep other less capable airplanes flying around? 


Kendra Lesnick
BTW:  Even if the F-15 had air to ground capability added, it's unlikely they could have gotten up sufficient numbers of them because of price -- wouldn't the less capable A-7's have remained flying around anyway? 

[KJ_Lesnick]

r16,

apart from attempts to safeguard the force structure , there was also commercial ideas at play.I guess it can be argued that the PW management made a "mistake" in sizing the F-100.As it was at about 10 tons of thrust ,

What mistake was there made?

USAF might have chosen to keep the weight of the Eagle as low as possible to increase the thrust/weight ratio ,thus avoiding structural reinforcement needed for air to ground stores.

Actually, from what I remember the T:W ratio was set early on.

Though as Israelis had their aircraft suitable for attack missions right from the start , this can not be much of a problem .Maybe some radar modes for ground attack work were deleted to maximaze memory in computers ; I have read this was done in Tomcats .

What modifications were made to the radar of the F-15's given to the Israeli's in order to allow them to perform air to ground?  Regarding the F-14, this deleting of radar-modes for Air-to-Ground was done before NAVAIR deleted the Air to Ground capability correct? 

But the cry "Not a pound for air to ground "is definetely senseless as  McDonnell Douglas was the builder of the most capable multimission aircraft while the teen series were drawn or flight tested ,it is unconceivable that they would give up the flexibility that had sold the Phantom to USAF , a bigger customer than USN/USMC.

Very, very good point.

back to mistake part . PW had J-75 on F-105 and 106 while GE had done extremely well with the J-79 (5000 Phantoms plus the Starfighters meant lots of business ).

For the next generation sales TF-30 had seemed a winner , but it was uncharted territory and both GE and PW overdid their initial engines by giving them too much by-pass ratio .

The TF-30's problem was that it was not resistant to sudden-changes in airflow (which was only reasonable at certain RPM's) requiring the plane to be flown largely at the limits of it's engines to the best of my knowledge.

I did not think there was a problem with the F-100 in regards to it's bypass-ratio... am I wrong?

I think the C-5 engine (TF something by GE) is still lonely with its 8 to 1 ratio.

Actually, the GE-90 which is used on the B-777 has a 9:1 Bypass-Ratio?

though the single mission F-15 also opened the way for the A-10 , since no one on this planet could defeat the planned F-15 force , US Army brushed away all opposition to have some aircraft that its troops could actually see overhead instead of shiny jets that had to be fast to survive in modern air combat .It appears kicking USAF really makes the other branches' day. And it still survives in a day when USAF has F-16s in Davis Monthan than it has A-10s

So if he F-15 had Air to Ground capability, the A-10 wouldn't have been built? 

What did the US Army do to ensure the A-10 would beat out all competition by the way?

nobody wins all the time. Has to be a fact  ,I guess .

Well of course.


Kendra Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

r16,

writing that this plane will have a T/W ratio of 1 does not guarantee it will do so when it reaches hardware stage.

So you're saying they trimmed off weight by eliminating the Air-to-Ground capability?  I think there was more to it than that, though I could be wrong...

Out of curiousity, while we are discussing weight, was the F-15 about the same weight as the F-4 even though it was not a carrier plane because extra strengthening was made to improve damage resistance (battle-damage)

the "mistake" is in  quotation marks because I also wrote later that F-100 was quite successful.

Never mind then

on radar modifications I can't say that I know but as Middle East is CAVU territory , it could use bombs by gunsight .Israelis are agreed to be the source inspiration for the Mirage V , which didn't have much in the  way of avionics or electronics.

What's CAVU?

ı won't challenge the bypass ratio of GE90 , but it was a big step in the 70s. F-100 didn't have that many problems as it closer to the turbojet with a smaller bypass ratio ; a cycle which was understood by that time . Even if the TF-30 had been disturbance resistant , it would have come out of the Tomcat .Probably a misprint but I have seen 2.7 quoted for sfc in afterburner for 1970s. It was not the proper engine for a fighter .

Actually, the TF-39 was developed in the 1960's...

As for the 2.7 SFC figure...  Doesn't that mean 2.7 pounds of fuel burned for every pound of thrust?  If so, I don't think that's right, from what I read at full power those burners really guzzled gas, though I could be wrong to the exact degree, but I think it would be higher than that figure...

A-10 discussion would probably evolve into politics and my posts really disappear if I do so ;it is way cooler to delete your own posts . It should suffice that it is my belief that in an imaginary graph that compares the power of countries , USA takes care that the line that shows its comparative power does not go off the chart . It is one thing to be a superpower ,it is another to be powerful enough to , well , do anything that has to be done . And the very last line in my post does not actually say what it seems to say.

You're saying the US actually tries to make sure it won't be perceived as a country that can take over the whole wide world?  I'm not sure I believe that, in fact I think we try to project that appearance even when it's not so...


Kendra Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

r16,

cavu should be something that defines clear weather , maybe ceiling and visibility unlimited.

Understood

if TF-30 is 20 000 pounds of thrust engine with a sfc of 2.7 in A/B than its continious operation in this mode for an hour will burn 20000 x 2.7 = 54000 pounds of fuel. And it is alot of fuel at this rate .F-14 had an internal capacity of 8900 kgs  less than 20000 lbs I know for sure .

Then how come afterburners are thought of as such gas guzzlers... from what I was told they burned like a thousand pounds a minute... why have I heard such wildly varying figures?  Is that just at maximum setting?  What setting is the 2.70 SFC figure derived from?

believe it or not , but America avoids making too much fuss.

Yeah I suppose sometimes... but this seems to be more the exception than the rule!


Kendra Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

How did the US Army manage to brush away all opposition to allow the A-10 to be flying over the F-15?  That just strikes me as stupid as the F-15 is better and it could have flown low over the troops also...

Kendra Lesnick