|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Conformal tanks? f-35 vs. Eurofighter
Shaken
8/23/2004 6:11:15 PM
|
| >> (Hellfire)
>> I've never really found logical the fact that some aircraft have to carry external tanks ALL THE TIME. Why not make the aircraft bigger with more internal fuel in the first place?
(Shaken)
Most of the conformal tanks have been afterthoughts in the design process. In this context, they are much cheaper and more readily added than a redesign of the aircraft to add fuel.
>> (Hellfire)
>> External tanks have disadvantages.. drag, RCS, weapon
>> station taken - usually the one which can take the biggest
>> load -. And a non-negliegeable part of the external fuel is
>> used just to compensate the additional drag.
>>
>> External tanks are usefull to extend the aircraft range, but
>> my point is that for most missions, aircraft should not have
>> to carry them.
(Shaken)
External tanks have the advantage that you can dump them off and become a lighter, more agile aircraft. Internal carriage of a large fuel load is part of why the F-35 is percieved as less agile than Rafale and Typhoon. F-35 always carries its tanks, Rafale and Typhoon never carry them in comparisons. (On the other hand, we'll probably rarely see them without the tanks in service. This has been the case for most modern fighters).
>> (Hellfire)
>> And I don't think the penalty in terms of weight for the
>> aircraft is that much. The CFTs are an example of that. They
>> are not a big penalty for the aircraft for a very significant
>> increase of range.
>>
>> The F-16XL and the JSF are good examples of what I mean.
(Shaken)
We'll see. The F-15 Fast Packs were supposed to have no effect on performance, but F-15Es are limited a gee and a half less than F-15Cs. My guess is we will see similar performance losses in other CFT developements. You end up in this fight between performance and wing-loading (weight). Since wing loading hits you in the aircraft's range, performance will often be the balance factor that loses.
-- Shaken - out --
|
| |
|
|
|
