|
Post by cwemyss on Jan 15, 2019 21:19:27 GMT -6
No problem, I had a feeling you were going the wrong direction, we all do, no worries. I've read about the Rutile ore, very sandy soil and only available in a few parts in the world. Interesting way they did it through third world nations. Interesting. Anyway. The A-12 I was referring to was the development program that got axed, among other things, for being way above spec weight. The spec was driven by carrier requirements... we design planes to fit the boats, not the other way around. That's really been the case since about the Kitty Hawk class, since then flight deck size and hardware has gotten more efficient/reliable (think safety, sortie generation rate, etc) but hasn't gained significant raw capability (aircraft size).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 15, 2019 21:32:11 GMT -6
No problem, I had a feeling you were going the wrong direction, we all do, no worries. I've read about the Rutile ore, very sandy soil and only available in a few parts in the world. Interesting way they did it through third world nations. Interesting. Anyway. The A-12 I was referring to was the development program that got axed, among other things, for being way above spec weight. The spec was driven by carrier requirements... we design planes to fit the boats, not the other way around. That's really been the case since about the Kitty Hawk class, since then flight deck size and hardware has gotten more efficient/reliable (think safety, sortie generation rate, etc) but hasn't gained significant raw capability (aircraft size). Yes, I am aware of what you were referring to, no problem. Well, I don't know about that. I've worked on the Kitty Hawk and the Carl Vinson, and while they are both very large carriers, the Vinson was impressive. BTW, here is a link to examine, the data is interesting. www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.htmlAs an aside, bring-back weight includes fuel. I think its about 10%, but I don't remember, it depends on the aircraft. www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=16321&sid=d29c61db2c6a3fb0f49cd0f3be628cf9&mode=view
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 22, 2019 4:06:44 GMT -6
F-18 E/F at maximum attack weight weights about 63,934.056. This aircraft has an approach speed of about 134 knots. She has to be launched with a 35 knot wind over the decks. So basically an aircraft from 1999 is lighter than a 25 years older F-14 Tomcat from 1974, or 6% heavier than an F-4 from 1960? This proves that modern carrier aircrafts are getting heavier how? F-4 Phantom II - 1960 - 19.2m length - 28 ton max takeoff F-14 Tomcat - 1974 - 19.1m length - 33.7 ton max takeoff F-18 Hornet E/F - 1999 - 18.3m length - 29.9 ton max takeoff F-35 Lighting II - 2018 - 15.5m length - 31.8 ton max takeoff Looking at the Carrier planes above it's clear that the weight has stayed roughly in the same ballpark the last 50+ years, not been growing heavier as you claimed.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 22, 2019 9:55:52 GMT -6
F-18 E/F at maximum attack weight weights about 63,934.056. This aircraft has an approach speed of about 134 knots. She has to be launched with a 35 knot wind over the decks. So basically an aircraft from 1999 is lighter than a 25 years older F-14 Tomcat from 1974, or 6% heavier than an F-4 from 1960? This proves that modern carrier aircrafts are getting heavier how? F-4 Phantom II - 1960 - 19.2m length - 28 ton max takeoff F-14 Tomcat - 1974 - 19.1m length - 33.7 ton max takeoff F-18 Hornet E/F - 1999 - 18.3m length - 29.9 ton max takeoff F-35 Lighting II - 2018 - 15.5m length - 31.8 ton max takeoff Looking at the Carrier planes above it's clear that the weight has stayed roughly in the same ballpark the last 50+ years, not been growing heavier as you claimed. Gross weight of an F-4 was 61,651 lbs. Gross weight of an F-14 or loaded weight was 61,000 lbs. Max. Takeoff weight was 74,350 Max Takeoff Weight of an F-18 E/F is 66,000 lbs. Remember that the F-14 was not a multi-role fighter, it was an air superiority fighter. It's takeoff weight was rarely near its maximum. This isn't as simple as examining weights. The F-14's standard load was fuel tanks and Aim-9's and Aim-7's. They rarely carried the AIM-54 Phoenix which weighed about 1000 lbs. It was a very complex aircraft and it leaked.... yea that's right it leaked. The last maintenance procedure before sending a WRA out to a bird at our test line was to seal it with Dupont 3145 sealant. The assembly already was sealed but if you had to repair it, then you had to reseal it. The WRA's were very heavy and very complex. The CSDC was the central computer which moved the wings among other things and it got its speed and attitude information from the CADC which was connected to the pitot and static tubes. This along with it attitude sensors moved the wings forward and back. The wing pivot were made out of titanium and they were heavy and complex. In the area of multi-role fighters, the aircraft weights have gone up along with the ordnance weights. I agree that the new materials such as boron-epoxy and such, along with VLSI circuits have reduced structural and electronic weights. But you cannot simplify this to "aircraft have roughly stayed the same", they have not. Their combat loads have gotten bigger. Its that combat load that you worry about, not dry weight. The stats that you and I use from the internet are just simplifications not the actual fly-away weights but that is all we have. fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 24, 2019 8:25:26 GMT -6
In the area of multi-role fighters, the aircraft weights have gone up along with the ordnance weights. Their combat loads have gotten bigger. Its that combat load that you worry about, not dry weight. No. What we were talking about was if the aircraft have gotten larger or heavier in a way which required redesigned Carriers, and in this context what matters is the maximum take-off weight, not the typical combat mission weight. I also disagree that the ordnance weights have grown significantly. The listed capacity of the F-14 tomcat is 14,500 lb of combined ordnance and external fueltanks, and that of the F-35 is 15,000 lb external or 18,000 lb total (including internal ordnance). Futhermore worth pointing out is that the F-35 has a much smaller ordnance capacity when flying high threat missions limited to internal storage which means less than half as many air-air missiles as the F-14 could bring. It's not strange that planes of similar size and weight can squeeze out a bit more performance when using 45 years more modern engine and materials technology though. Ordnance when looking at air-air missiles have shrunk in weight going from the massive 1000lb long range AIM-54 Phoenix missile of the F-14 era down to the 335 lb AIM-120 AMRAAM the F-35 fire. If they rarely carried it that was because it wasn't needed, because they were not fighting a dangerous enough enemy to need long range radar missiles.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 24, 2019 10:10:12 GMT -6
In the area of multi-role fighters, the aircraft weights have gone up along with the ordnance weights. Their combat loads have gotten bigger. Its that combat load that you worry about, not dry weight. No. What we were talking about was if the aircraft have gotten larger or heavier in a way which required redesigned Carriers, and in this context what matters is the maximum take-off weight, not the typical combat mission weight. I also disagree that the ordnance weights have grown significantly. The listed capacity of the F-14 tomcat is 14,500 lb of combined ordnance and external fueltanks, and that of the F-35 is 15,000 lb external or 18,000 lb total (including internal ordnance). Futhermore worth pointing out is that the F-35 has a much smaller ordnance capacity when flying high threat missions limited to internal storage which means less than half as many air-air missiles as the F-14 could bring. It's not strange that planes of similar size and weight can squeeze out a bit more performance when using 45 years more modern engine and materials technology though. Ordnance when looking at air-air missiles have shrunk in weight going from the massive 1000lb long range AIM-54 Phoenix missile of the F-14 era down to the 335 lb AIM-120 AMRAAM the F-35 fire. If they rarely carried it that was because it wasn't needed, because they were not fighting a dangerous enough enemy to need long range radar missiles. Well, we agree to disagree. I have a disadvantage... I worked on the F-4, F-14, E2C and the F-18A, so I have a clouded viewpoint. Interesting but don't necessarily believe all that is published on the web... I don't.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 25, 2019 8:58:06 GMT -6
Well, we agree to disagree. I have a disadvantage... I worked on the F-4, F-14, E2C and the F-18A, so I have a clouded viewpoint. Interesting but don't necessarily believe all that is published on the web... I don't. I don't believe that statistics published on the wikipedia or elsewhere they can be fact checked are wrong when they all match. You are free to do so ofcourse. It is to me obvious that the facts which would require a redesign of the Carrier like maximum length, maximum span of wings or maximum takeoff weight all tell a different story then your memory of your experiences tells you. Also keep in mind that I did not claim the Carrier planes never have grown in size. They grew greatly in size from the interwar period up to the F-14 or from small and flimsy wooden machines of about ~1.5 ton to massive machines of destruction of ~33 ton Basically an increase of +2100%. If the increase in weight had continued at the same rate since 1974 up until today then a Carrier aircraft today would have a maximum takeoff weight of over 700 tons, larger than a A380 and something I think we both can agree in would be both silly and require very different Carriers.
|
|