AH64D?

[sobek]

[...]

 

Mach 3 sounds still awfully high, i don't think that the airframe was built to withstand such thermic strain.

[EtherealN]

With respect, Scrape, there is still the point that you are a guy on a forum that is contradicting all the literature out there. The literature is fallible, yes, and does not necesarily have full access to the hardware it describes, but not having to give sources due to personal experience only goes so far as the experience is verifiable, as I am sure you understand.

 

If you describe it in further detail (new thread I think though, since this thread's nominally on the AH64D and we've already been OT for like half the thread... :P ) it would be easier to accept, and I do understand that it might not be something that can be discussed in great detail (but if so, why give out stats like mach3, contradicting the literature, if you cannot defend the claim?). Either way it's fair enough, I try to always assume good faith, but I also try to maintain a healthy skepticism. ;)

[MBot]

Yeah, they had a couple losses to AAA and then began using Buccaneers fitted for ECM support, right?

 

Tornados also flew the most dangerous missions in Desert Storm (low level strikes against runways), thus their relative high losses were to be expected.

[Scrape]

I understand what you are saying, but the kind of books that state the performance evelope of these aircraft are not allowed to be posted on the web, getting my hands on a book for the 111 at this point would be a bit challenging at the base I'm at now which is Nellis AFB, NV. My first duty station was Cannon AFB, NM one of the last if not the last base that was home to the F-111.

 

I'm new to the forum so I understand if I haven't built enough repor with you guys to understand that I'm not making things up to sound cool but I've been working fighters and their weapons systems for a decade. My AFSC code is 2W171 in the USAF; Armament Systems Specialist.

 

EtherealN you mentioned detail...could you explain what detail you are referring to? Detail of the performance envelope of the 111? Or its weapons capapbilities?

 

Gentlemen the numbers that are in those books are the numbers that the military or supporting company tells them to write and for good reason. Would you trust a journalist or author that must be escorted, and into areas the are set up for his or her arrival, or would you trust the word of someone whos put their hands onto the same systems you have read about? Would you trust someone who watched the mach needle wrap around or stats in a book. Those stats that were posted were very inconsistent, if it were fact why would that be?

 

Please don't take my tone to be cynical or anything like that I'm just stating my position.

[TangoRomeo]

Standard aircraft characteristics for the F111 is declassed. So here's the Speed chart for the F111A.

[joey45]

If you're gonna talk abut the F111 make a new thread.

 

this is about the AH64D

[TangoRomeo]

... silly me, and i thought this thread was about Jag's and Tornados. :lol:

[joey45]

there's more OT on the F111 then them.

 

if they do model the D then they will have to do the British version.

[Topgun505]

getting my hands on a book for the 111 at this point would be a bit challenging

 

I own flight manuals for the:

 

F-16

A-4

A-7

A-10

and .... the F-111

 

Though, granted, I'm sure it covers an earlier block of the aircraft and not the final variant/block. But if you need info, let me know. :)

[leroy1964]

Thanks

 

Tornados also flew the most dangerous missions in Desert Storm (low level strikes against runways), thus their relative high losses were to be expected.

 

Did they loose many a/c, I think they lost a couple but I would hardly call that "high":thumbup:

 

Again, as i said earlier they did an awesome job at the start.

 

Cheers

[leroy1964]

yep sorry

 

If you're gonna talk abut the F111 make a new thread.

 

this is about the AH64D

 

Seems we did get a little of topic, all started when I metioned the tornado and F111, (me bad) just for everyone's interest, there has been sims made on both these a/c, one was called "fighter/bomber" and the other simply 'tornado' both were great sims for there day. I owned both.:)

 

Cheers:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

I understand what you are saying, but the kind of books that state the performance evelope of these aircraft are not allowed to be posted on the web, getting my hands on a book for the 111 at this point would be a bit challenging at the base I'm at now which is Nellis AFB, NV. My first duty station was Cannon AFB, NM one of the last if not the last base that was home to the F-111.

 

I'm new to the forum so I understand if I haven't built enough repor with you guys to understand that I'm not making things up to sound cool but I've been working fighters and their weapons systems for a decade. My AFSC code is 2W171 in the USAF; Armament Systems Specialist.

 

EtherealN you mentioned detail...could you explain what detail you are referring to? Detail of the performance envelope of the 111? Or its weapons capapbilities?

 

Gentlemen the numbers that are in those books are the numbers that the military or supporting company tells them to write and for good reason. Would you trust a journalist or author that must be escorted, and into areas the are set up for his or her arrival, or would you trust the word of someone whos put their hands onto the same systems you have read about? Would you trust someone who watched the mach needle wrap around or stats in a book. Those stats that were posted were very inconsistent, if it were fact why would that be?

 

Please don't take my tone to be cynical or anything like that I'm just stating my position.

 

F111s don't fly Mach3 thats a fact but they are one of the fastest and longest range bombers with the most comfortable seats(so long as its Australian) due to the escape pod.:thumbup: If you have any proof that it can do Mach 3 I'd like to see it.

 

F111

weight empty 47200lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 25100lbs each (50200lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.5

 

Mig25

Weight empty 44080lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 22494lbs each (44988lbs)

Max speed Mach 3.2

 

Mig31

Weight empty 48100lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 34172lbs each (68344lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.83

 

SR71

Weight empty 67500lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 32500lbs each (65000lbs)

Max speed Mach 3.6

 

F-15

Weight empty 28000lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 29000lbs each for 229 (58000lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.5+

 

F-14

Weight empty 43735lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 27800lbs each (55600lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.34

 

If you compare the empty weight with the combined thrust even from whats available on the internet it seems possible and the fact that it can sweep its wings but compared to a Mig 25 which requires an engine change if it flys at Mach 3 or the F-15 which has damaged its wings when flying beyond Mach 2.5. Now the only aircraft that is close is the F-14 which has more powerful thrust and is lighter empty but can only go Mach 2.34 but is also a variable geometry aircraft. On the one hand possible but never heard of any F111s doing Mach 3 I doubt its aerodynamically capable of it eventhough it has enough thrust to weight.

Edited May 20, 2009 by SUBS17

[SUBS17]

Tornados also flew the most dangerous missions in Desert Storm (low level strikes against runways), thus their relative high losses were to be expected.

 

The RAF lost 6 Tornados in desert storm.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/loss.html

[SUBS17]

Man does anybody remember DI's sim "Tornado?" And then Ef-2000.....man those were some fond memories....

 

To get back on topic though.....I think 2 seat operations could get a bit sketchy, great for MP play, but not sure how you'd fare with AI without "dumbing it down" or frustrating the pilot. In fact, my favorite part of simming is weaponeering. I don't WANT the AI being the CPG, because I enjoy those tasks. However, watching how the AI fles in BS, i don't think I'd have much choice....

 

2 seat MP worked in LB2 its AI also worked well in either role so long as there are commands like popup etc it should be no problem. :thumbup:

[joey45]

^^ bit like gunship!

[arneh]

Did they loose many a/c, I think they lost a couple but I would hardly call that "high"

 

The RAF lost six Tornados in combat, four of which were in the first week. And the Italians lost one too. Compared to other aircraft losses in Desert Storm that was high.

 

But then the Tornados flew some of the most dangerous missions. They dropped over 100 JP233 anti runway weapons. Just one of the Tornado losses was during such attacks, and that was when it crashed into the ground on egress, not during the attack itself.

 

The RAF has a summary of each of the losses: http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/loss.html

[joey45]

good find... and no Jag losses...

[leroy1964]

Good post

 

F111s don't fly Mach3 thats a fact but they are one of the fastest and longest range bombers with the most comfortable seats(so long as its Australian) due to the escape pod.:thumbup: If you have any proof that it can do Mach 3 I'd like to see it.

 

F111

weight empty 47200lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 25100lbs each (50200lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.5

 

Mig25

Weight empty 44080lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 22494lbs each (44988lbs)

Max speed Mach 3.2

 

Mig31

Weight empty 48100lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 34172lbs each (68344lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.83

 

SR71

Weight empty 67500lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 32500lbs each (65000lbs)

Max speed Mach 3.6

 

F-15

Weight empty 28000lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 29000lbs each for 229 (58000lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.5+

 

F-14

Weight empty 43735lbs

Max thrust with afterburner 27800lbs each (55600lbs)

Max speed Mach 2.34

 

If you compare the empty weight with the combined thrust even from whats available on the internet it seems possible and the fact that it can sweep its wings but compared to a Mig 25 which requires an engine change if it flys at Mach 3 or the F-15 which has damaged its wings when flying beyond Mach 2.5. Now the only aircraft that is close is the F-14 which has more powerful thrust and is lighter empty but can only go Mach 2.34 but is also a variable geometry aircraft. On the one hand possible but never heard of any F111s doing Mach 3 I doubt its aerodynamically capable of it eventhough it has enough thrust to weight.

 

Great reading, thanks:thumbup:

[leroy1964]

Thanks

 

The RAF lost 6 Tornados in desert storm.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/loss.html

 

Thanks good reading, however sad to have lost even one a/c and crew:cry:

[leroy1964]

excellent Post

 

The RAF lost six Tornados in combat, four of which were in the first week. And the Italians lost one too. Compared to other aircraft losses in Desert Storm that was high.

 

But then the Tornados flew some of the most dangerous missions. They dropped over 100 JP233 anti runway weapons. Just one of the Tornado losses was during such attacks, and that was when it crashed into the ground on egress, not during the attack itself.

 

The RAF has a summary of each of the losses: http://www.raf.mod.uk/gulf/loss.html

 

Again great reading, thanks to you all.:thumbup:

[arneh]

If you compare the empty weight with the combined thrust even from whats available on the internet it seems possible

 

 

It's a lot more than just thrust which limits top speed. Particulary when you get up to those sorts of speeds. Temperature is a serious problem, it's not for nothing the SR-71 was built from almost pure titanium, while the MiG-25 and XB-70 are very heavy because they use mostly steel (while most other planes uses mostly aluminum).

And also the engine inlets have to be built specificly with high mach speeds in mind, the air that enters the engines have to be subsonic, so they will have to have som way of slowing the air in the inlet.

And there are tons of other such limitations which limits top speed.

 

So you can't just look at thrust/weight diagrams to see how fast a plane can go. A good example in your own stats is that the MiG-31 is limited to a slower speed than the MiG-25, despite it having a much higher thrust/weight ratio, and basically the same shape. But temperature is the limit for the MiG-31.

[leroy1964]

you lost me

 

It's a lot more than just thrust which limits top speed. Particulary when you get up to those sorts of speeds. Temperature is a serious problem, it's not for nothing the SR-71 was built from almost pure titanium, while the MiG-25 and XB-70 are very heavy because they use mostly steel (while most other planes uses mostly aluminum).

And also the engine inlets have to be built specificly with high mach speeds in mind, the air that enters the engines have to be subsonic, so they will have to have som way of slowing the air in the inlet.

And there are tons of other such limitations which limits top speed.

 

So you can't just look at thrust/weight diagrams to see how fast a plane can go. A good example in your own stats is that the MiG-31 is limited to a slower speed than the MiG-25, despite it having a much higher thrust/weight ratio, and basically the same shape. But temperature is the limit for the MiG-31.

 

Very impressive knowledge, lost me at the start:megalol:

 

SR71 now there was an impressive a/c as well:)

 

Cheers:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

Thanks good reading, however sad to have lost even one a/c and crew:cry:

 

Get a book called Tornado Down its quite interesting to read.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

It's a lot more than just thrust which limits top speed. Particulary when you get up to those sorts of speeds. Temperature is a serious problem, it's not for nothing the SR-71 was built from almost pure titanium, while the MiG-25 and XB-70 are very heavy because they use mostly steel (while most other planes uses mostly aluminum).

And also the engine inlets have to be built specificly with high mach speeds in mind, the air that enters the engines have to be subsonic, so they will have to have som way of slowing the air in the inlet.

And there are tons of other such limitations which limits top speed.

 

So you can't just look at thrust/weight diagrams to see how fast a plane can go. A good example in your own stats is that the MiG-31 is limited to a slower speed than the MiG-25, despite it having a much higher thrust/weight ratio, and basically the same shape. But temperature is the limit for the MiG-31.

 

Yeah with some aircraft they can achieve some quite high speeds by breaking the rules eg the F-15 that got damaged whilst intercepting an aircraft over Iraq. I think in some configurations like clean stores 1/2 fuel tank you could exceed what is known of the aircrafts top speed in some aircraft but theres no doubt that you would be breaking the rules accomplishing that. For an F111 it might be nearly the right shape with its wings swept back etc but its unlikely otherwise it would be quite well known that it can reach such speeds eg pilots would brag about it:D As for the Mig 31 I'm not surprised about the speed limiting as the 25 requires new engines when it lands after doing such a high speed run.

[xxvintersorgxx]

lol this thread is completely derailed. I don't care about the apache in SP.. i cant wait to fly my m8's around while they shoot stuff =D