Why does the su24 have such abysmally low range compared to the f-111? They have near identical top speed, weight, engine thrust, drag coefficient, etc.
It’s safe to assume Soviet engines were not as advanced as their western counterparts, but I can’t for the life of me understand how it would create such an extreme difference (nearly a quarter of the aardvarks rang) considering the near identical specs of the two.
Planegays, get in here and tell me just what the frick is going on.
>what are jet engines
Oh yeah, I forgot the f-111 is prop driven
Russian engines suck.
oh well, here we have the problem
It’s literally described in the picture moron.
>near identical top speed
Not according to your graphic.
(with tanks)
pretty sure it means drop tanks you fricking moron
any aircraft can fly around the world with aerial refuelling, only limited by wear and tear (and pilot piss and shit retention)
That's what I meant moron pic doesn't always have to be related
>They have near identical top speed, weight, engine thrust, drag coefficient
What? One goes mach 2.5, one goes mach 1.4
That's clearly a pretty big difference in engine power and drag. Also, the fencer's range doesn't specify it has tanks, and its combat range is lololo vs the aaaaardvark's hilohi, which makes a massive difference.
Regardless, this graphic shows why these stat card comparisons of planes or missiles are moronic. You can have a literal order of magnitude difference introduced by things like flight profile. Which is why missiles that have 100km marketing range might fail to catch a fleeing bandit on the deck from 10km.
Speaking of engines, the fencer has TURBOJETS while the f111 has TURBOFANS. This is enough to explain the difference.
>That's clearly a pretty big difference in engine power and drag.
F-111 had adjustable inlets
Su-24 doesn't. It speed is not limited by drag it's limited by intake shockwave reaching engine compressor.
That's interesting, i thought that it had the F-4/MiG-23 style of variable ramp intake, but it turns out that although fitted on initial Su-24s and externally similar, that feature was deleted on the main production models.
interesting though that the Su-24 is still heavy without them though, even with considerably less internal fuel capacity.
Su-24 was supposed to be Soviet carbon copy of F-111 and soviets copied high altitude speed too. But as first Su-24 reached operational capability it was clear 2M speed had zero use. They never reached those speeds neither in regular air units no in Russian combat tactics development center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipetsk_(air_base)
So capability was dropped without regret.
>looking at combat range
>not looking at ferry
If you think 1k lbs of fuel adds 4000km range I dunno what to tell you
The F-111 sucks the souls and vitality out of all who touch her, leaving disabled empty wrecks of people in her wake. This gives like a +30 to her range.
Beware the slampig, gentlemen.
It's fine, we will only use it for a few years till avro comes out with a new design.
>RAF probably
TBF the TSR appears to have many of the same issues as the Su-24, turbo jet engines, tiny wing ect.
The main reason for the range difference is that the Pratt and Whitney Tf-30 has a SFC of around 0.65 pounds per pound hour of thrust at mil power, whereas the saturn AL-31 has 0.8 pounds.
The F-111 also carries 14000 kg of internal fuel compared to 11000 kg on the Su-24.
The F-111 also manages to have a higher wing area with wings swept out, which increases cruise efficiency.
As to why this gulf in performance when both aircraft have similar empty weight, I would imagine that the F-111 is of more advanced construction as well as the use of more modern engines.
For the record though that top speed on the Su-24 is not accurate, it could push to 1.6 at high altitude.
Look at he comparison between weights and wingspans. The SU is a heavier aircraft and has less variability in the wingspan and mess thrust. So the F111 is going to be able to choose from both more lift OR less drag (with more thrust) than the SU, carry more fuel and be able to have a more efficient cruise configuration.
Soviets general tech lag.
Talking Su-24 specifically
turbojet vs turbofan
Much heavier electronics eating into airframe weight budget
Inferior structure design and materials achieving less payload fraction
Russia has always been an overrated shithole. How is this still surprising by this point?
First day learning about aircraft OP? The Su-24 has Russian engines.
>F-111
Hi-Lo-Hi
>Su-24
Lo-Lo-Lo
wow OP is moronic or this is a bait thread
Ferry range is still massively different and that is done at optimal cruising altitude. Reality is that the engines on the Su-24 burned 25% more fuel in cruise, it had a smaller wing for the same weight and the F-111 could carry 30% more fuel internally.
If there is any silver lining for the Su-24, this difference in performance might have been smaller in the fast and low attack regime using afterburner; It's turbojet actually consumes less fuel in afterburner per unit of thrust compared to the turbofan on the F-111.