why are the su57 and f14 wide asf between exhausts?

why are the su57 and f14 wide asf between exhausts?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    another shit thread from a tomgay

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      f18 is more aesthetic imo

      t. OP

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    In the F-14, the wide fuselage actually provides additional lift.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      is additional lift based or cringe?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What's the (facetious) argument for it being cringe?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          extra drag or something idk. its an uncommon layout there must be a downside

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What's the (facetious) argument for it being cringe?

        extra drag or something idk. its an uncommon layout there must be a downside

        Lifting body and ground effect more than likely played into the design as much as where to locate the mechanicals and systems for the swing wing.
        I'm sure a lot of wind tunnel testing went into refining the overall design as well.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          isnt ground effect bad if you want to land on a carrier?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Rejects commonalty with the army
    >develops F-14 potato
    >develops Super Hornet to replace the F-14
    >Army laughs in F-15
    Navy morons should have accepted the F-15...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      commonality*

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It still makes me sad we never got the F15-N.
      Fricking butthurt squids wanting to do their own thing cause we won the bid.

      In the F-14, the wide fuselage actually provides additional lift.

      I somehow did not know that, pretty neat.

      https://i.imgur.com/Ny9bfgK.jpeg

      why are the su57 and f14 wide asf between exhausts?

      Another answer is airframe design and engine fitment. Larger engines on large fuselages will need to be spaced out further for optimal flow/extra gas storage/accessories. Keep in mind the tomcat is damn near 64' long, same length as the Eagle(within a few inches, sue me).
      For comparison the viper is around 50'.
      Su-57's is mostly due to russian smekalka moronation because they cannot develop powerful and small engines(weakest part of russian aviation industry besides sensor suites) domestically, so while trying to retain a smaller RCS it becomes p a n c a k e

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Rejects commonalty with the army
        >develops F-14 potato
        >develops Super Hornet to replace the F-14
        >Army laughs in F-15
        Navy morons should have accepted the F-15...

        I hear these beauties screaming over head almost daily. I live in a city with an ANG base.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          She's the best, I only got to see her fly a few times when I was in the chairforce up close on the flightline, but man. Eagle is the best airframe for it's time by far.

          https://i.imgur.com/iBf35VH.jpeg

          >army
          >F15
          >F15 as a carrier jet
          chatgpt take your meds

          >tripsdubs
          checked, also holy shit this looks like a girl I know from NY who does cosplay

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        > because they cannot develop powerful and small engines(weakest part of russian aviation industry besides sensor suites)
        Isn’t this the most important thing for planes? Like anyone can make jets but almost nobody but 2 countries can make leading edge stuff

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yah, it is lmao.
          It's why anything BUT their PGM stuff is shit(3rd party sensors).
          They can't even CCIP/CCRP bomb properly due to how shit their avionics is
          >webm related, the target was the building
          Hell they didn't even get a digital RWR till fricking 2012 iirc.
          Our sensor suites and engines(God bless GE and P&W) are actual space magic compared to most countries. Mq9/Rq4 is old as hell at this point, but the sensor packages on them are RIDICULOUS.
          Most mouthbreathing mongoloids here say some bullshit like >hahaha amelica so expensive see 250 dorra ari baba drone
          Without realizing it's a totally different ballgame. We'd send hellfires through 1x1ft building windows 14nm away.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lol something has to be going on here, there's no way Russian pilots are this bad.
            Even WW2 bombers could manage that

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They get like 50 hours of flight a year or something like that for training and than you mix in the poor accuracy of their weapons and it leads to things like the webm

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >army
      >F15
      >F15 as a carrier jet
      chatgpt take your meds

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >latex
        imagine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/qGxpcTV.gif

      It still makes me sad we never got the F15-N.
      Fricking butthurt squids wanting to do their own thing cause we won the bid.
      [...]
      I somehow did not know that, pretty neat.
      [...]
      Another answer is airframe design and engine fitment. Larger engines on large fuselages will need to be spaced out further for optimal flow/extra gas storage/accessories. Keep in mind the tomcat is damn near 64' long, same length as the Eagle(within a few inches, sue me).
      For comparison the viper is around 50'.
      Su-57's is mostly due to russian smekalka moronation because they cannot develop powerful and small engines(weakest part of russian aviation industry besides sensor suites) domestically, so while trying to retain a smaller RCS it becomes p a n c a k e

      I get that they were designed separately for their respective branches but the F-15 and F-14 would have been great if they swapped places.

      extra drag or something idk. its an uncommon layout there must be a downside

      There's a lot more aircraft whose fuselages provide lift than you might think. Given the amount of supersonic and other high performance aircraft that (intentionally) feature this, it doesn't seem to be a problem since it would be an aerodynamic surface anyway, possibly even moreso.

      My jet bro anons, do you think the NGAD, or some future jet fighter, will have two PW-100 engines side-by-side, for a staggering 86,000 lbs of thrust in afterburner? And give it 2D vectoring like the F-22 and it would be the most bonkers fighter ever. I need to see this in my lifetime.

      It'll be dual XA100s or XA101s, if not a brand new engine design entirely. over 90k or possibly even 100k ft/lb of thrust.
      >2D thrust vectoring
      Probably not a priority, but based on the concept designs coming out of Lockheed Martin it seems like they could easily do it without compromising stealth.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    On the SU-57, it enhances the effectiveness of 3D thrust vectoring if the exhaust nozzles are farther apart. On the F-14, I have no fricking idea. Maybe to accomodate the shit that has to go on the center of the undercarriage, like landing gear.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      > 3d thrust vectoring
      does maneuvering even matter anymore for planes?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >3d thrust vectoring
        >does maneuvering even matter anymore for planes?
        3d thrust vectoring is about as relevant now as the "plasma stealth" for the hundreds of su-47 berkut and mig-35 mapo that russia was going to build that totally would have worked.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    My jet bro anons, do you think the NGAD, or some future jet fighter, will have two PW-100 engines side-by-side, for a staggering 86,000 lbs of thrust in afterburner? And give it 2D vectoring like the F-22 and it would be the most bonkers fighter ever. I need to see this in my lifetime.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So my penis can get inside that hot tail

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Too late, mines already there

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If one engine gets hit in combat, less odds of also blowing out the other engine at the same time. Does make the asymmetric thrust if that happens a b***h though, which is why it's not too common on more recent twin-engines.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That could be a byproduct, but not worth a whole design change. I believe it was because the requirement made use of the AIM-54, which was pretty damn big and heavy. They had to carry six of those things to kill the USSR bomber formations attacking the CSG. Being an interceptor meant it also had to be fast as all hell. So once catapulted off the carrier, they can race out to the threat at mach 2+, all the while carrying six AIM-54s. This was a way to satisfy both of those requirements by tucking the draggy missiles up against the body. I think it also helped with the problem the F-111A had when it swept its wings back, the center of lift moved too far aft. The F-14's wing pivot point is further from center to allow less wing movement aft when fully swept. Also, the F-111 had pivoting weapons pylons, because drag would ripe your missile off when you swept your wings and the missile is 20 degrees into the air stream.
      Good presentation on it here from those involved:

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They're lifting bodies. The fusage generates lift.
    And they need to be big to accommodate all the shit you want to put on and in them.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Answering that question would require actual aerodynamic knowledge and there are only jingoistic drooling morons here

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      drop some knowledge then bruv

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *