WT Forums

I am curious to what the pilots on this forum think about the VG wing design in regards to air superiority aircraft...........Is it an advantage, disadvantage?

Curious for your thoughts................VG was the latest greatest in the late 1960's.............(F-111, F-14, Mig-23/27, SU-22 series........etc) but it is almost an after thought now. Has fly by wire, and digital flight controls made a more conventional wing design just as adaptable to changing aerodynamic profiles........or was the VG design overated?

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

First of all chad its is how you define What Air Superiority is. And how you go about attaining and maintaining it.

IF we were to base a litoral of haveing Zero Surface to Air Capability. and wanted to maintain Airsuperiority solely based on Aircraft.

Next lets narrow this down to lack of resources. Say a carrier Flotilla.

Next what is the Enemies engagement capabilities

lets say Antiship Missiles.

Essentially your ultimate goal is a screen. BARCAP that would allow for protection of friendly forces before the enemy reached its WEZ or deployment zone. Time is a factor here...

So in this Littoral, You want a Supremecy fighter that can get on station and engage the target before its a threat factor to the Flotilla

That is clearly the purpose of the VG wing Concept of the TomCat.

One is to be able fly supersonic to get on station ASAP the second is to be able to manuever in an ACM role. Vg wings are a design quality that benefits high Mach Flight with Low Speed Manuevering.

The way you control Flight surfaces will never decrease transonic drag or parasitic drag. It will only make the Flight smoother. Their are methods to penetrate this wall of drag to increase speed.

The ultimate goal in the future is to reduce all drag produceing qualities of an airframe and building lighter and integrated internal avionics, Targeting, jamming capabilities.

Ofton its not the jets design thats the problem but what you hang on it....

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

[quote]
I am curious to what the pilots on this forum think about the VG wing design in regards to air superiority aircraft...........Is it an advantage, disadvantage?

Curious for your thoughts................VG was the latest greatest in the late 1960's.............(F-111, F-14, ----------

Swing wing tech became a maintenance nightmare. F-14Ds are sucking up 60DMMHs per flight hour now. Hornets are about 15-20 DMMH per flight hour. The Force has parked all of their F-111s.

The future will probably shift to UCAVs. If they actually work well. We will find out in Iraq.

Jack

Their is no use in a carrier flotilla for specialist aircraft, all the bells and whistles that were required to fill a full airframe in the past to prosecute a single mission is now thanks to technology able to be stuffed into a small bulkhead and or hung on a rack.

Theres people that love to Dog the Superhornet. But it brought the Navy a highly efficient and capable carrier airwing. Their is no littoral threat left at this time or a foriegn power capable of engageing a us carrier flotilla. Sure there is capabilities out there. But with our new Force Structures and capabilities as well as the Flotillas upgrades in force protection really forsee no need to keep the Tomcat. Newer and more eficient multirole aircraft are what is needed.

I've seen the numbers and studies/statistics of the tomcats and quite honestly they were not that great. Ofton times force protection was an Awacs and land based aircraft or Hornets. The Tomcats never were deployed and maintain on an operational level to be of any benefit in a combat enviroment as the prime air supremecy fighter-option. The sortie turn around generation hours were too low, after 24 hours the Tomcats were well bellow a 50% operational force structure. thats pretty bad when you consider limited maintence and supplies on board a carrier.

What the superhornet achieved, was SEAD, Strike, Counter Air, Strike Protection, Combat Ferry. This succesfully releinquished the S-3 Vikings from the Sead and suppresion role, the A-6 intruder from the Strike Role. The F14 from Package escort and Barcaps. And the Fact is the Superhornet does all the missions better and more efficiently.

This isnt the 60's anymore, we dont have a lack of strategic resources and or operational locations. Our Force protection ability now has eliminated the Cold war philosophies of the past requireing specialist aircraft to only prosecute 1 mission scenaio. It is clearly proven that the old way of thinking, Limited flexibility and execution of warfighting.

The carrier wings now can prosecute a continous effort of warfighting ability with no required standown to catch up. 1 maintenance team focused on keeping the Fighting arm in the fight. This also means Whatever aircraft is up on the deck can take care of any mission required of it as it happens.

_________________
\"A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week. \"

George S. Patton

It's NOT an accident that the YF-22 and the YF-23 BOTH had wings that had significant sweep to the TRAILING edges. Yes it helps planform alignment for stealth, but it was also found long ago that a significant amount of transonic and supersonic drag comes from the TRAILING edge of a wing! VG enables that to be greatly reduced. It( reducing drag by sweeping the trailing edge) was also tried in a different way back in the late 50s early 60s in an aircraft called the XF-91 "Thunderceptor" a mod of the Thunderjet series with a rocket in the tail for climbing, and inverse taper to the wings to bring more sweep to the trailing edge.
<img src="http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/graphics/XF-91/Small/XF-91_3view.gif" border=0>
I for one DONT think VG is dead, it will re-apear when better materials are available to greatly reduce the maintenence. There will of course always be the extra equipment for the mechanism, and thier attendant weight addition, but the potential is SO high especially for large aircraft that I think we'll see it again at some point when the time is right.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Let it be known I do agree with the maintence issues, and poor sortie turn around rate assocaiated with the F-14................

The F-18E/F however flexiable it is is not the answer......F-18C with greater range IS the answer............F-18E/F is not the same airplane as the F-18C nor is it better........atleast from what gouge I have had the privy to access........F-35 should get it done better.

Ok, are the F-15E and F-14D not comparable? I am talking the F-14D with all the mods, and AIM-120 capability.


If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>


The F-18E/F however flexiable it is is not the answer......F-18C with greater range IS the answer............F-18E/F is not the same airplane as the F-18C nor is it better........atleast from what gouge I have had the privy to access........F-35 should get it done better.

Ok, are the F-15E and F-14D not comparable? I am talking the F-14D with all the mods, and AIM-120 capability.----------

Navy snuck in the SuperHornet. This is probably the last show for the F-14Ds.

Raptors are having big problems in flight test with computer problems. JSF will be using most of the computer code from the Raptor. Add in the overweigh in the JSF. It might be a long time before the Navy replaces the SuperHornet.

God will only know how many DOD bucks we will burn up in the Gulf War. Abrams need a new motor for starters. We have dropped around 7,000 PGMs and they are pricey. Granted most of them are JDAMs. Choppers are being eaten up in Iraq too.

If the Iraq War lasts a few months or longer. Lots of equipment will have to be replaced.

Jack


If your not having fun, your not doing it right!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well seems like 2 of the swing wing fighters were muc better strikers than fighters, and those would be the Tornado and MiG-23/27.

And the Aardvark.

The F-111 was no fighter, lol.

"I Am Infantry...Follow Me!!!"

Is there any aircraft today in our inventory that handles low-level flight as well or better than the Aardvark?



<img src="http://www.drublair.com/images/f111s.jpg" border=0>

Edited by - Tritonal on Mar 31 2003 12:22 PM

F16CG, F15E, B-1, F18D/E/F..can even select how smooth the ride is.<img src=icon_smile_cool.gif border=0 align=middle>

Supernav is a fun course.. Low level at night and Balls to the wall!!!

Britain has quite a few low level TFR Demons. Mostly the Tornados and Jaguars.<img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Supernav is a fun course.. Low level at night and Balls to the wall!!! <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


What do you employ in that case, I guess "Trust Thy Instruments".

Also, can you compare it to any experience that a civilian might experience.




Edited by - Tritonal on Mar 31 2003 1:01 PM

Mudd, isnt the Mudhen pretty bumpy down low without a good load on it?

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mudd, isnt the Mudhen pretty bumpy down low without a good load on it?

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

All aircraft are bumpy in the denser air especially with full station load of parasitic drag producers and weight. Add in inclement weather and winds and its a party mix of acheing joints and upset stomachs.

But after doing it time and time again, it becomes manageable.

In the deserts Its typically really smooth, Because of the dry and thin air. When you fly through regions of a high humidity and vegetation then it brings onto itself a whole new dimension of flight. Pockets of thick air and cold air with differnt swirling airmasses and blue and red thermals (dry-wet).

Just keep your eye on the Heading Tape, Baro/Radar Altimeter and watch your allow limits and your pretty much set with the occasional glances at the threat displays and listening to the WSO as your Banking and yanking. Its probably been some of the funnest flying ive ever done. Best part of being in the bubble.

"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."

the radar alt just looks straight down right? you cant use it as some form of primitive TFR cause it doesnt look ahead enough?

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
the radar alt just looks straight down right? you cant use it as some form of primitive TFR cause it doesnt look ahead enough?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

TFR is a function of the A2g Radar, it has nothing to do with the Radar altimeter and its function

The thought of useing a radar altimeter to define the path ahead of me is frightneing. Thats as simple as a 4 year old boy dragging his toy duck on a string. sure the toy is an indicator where the ground is. But eventually hes going to hit the wall with his nose in search of the lightswitch.


However I would use the Radar altemeter as a degrade manual bombing tool <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> Their are uses for the radar altimeter....But it does not find your way in the dark

"<---Jesus Powers My Hotrod---<<<"

"My purpose in life does not include a hankering to charm society."

yeah Stress I saw the VI wing , I just didnt think it applied to my point about drag. But from all I've seen the inverse taper WAS for drag reasons. BTW "washout", the F-4 seems to have less than most, did the angled wing tip allow this? It would seem a good way to achieve it while developing less drag than the wing twist normally used.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

[quote]
Yes, they could vary the pitch angle of the wing relative to the fuselage in flight. It was kind of like the F-8, except I think it was infinitely variable rather than two position. --------

I knew a lot of drivers that loved the F-8. Problem was we kept crashing them. 90% or so of the fleet went down for one thing or another. Most of the F-8 drivers that went to Phantoms didn't like them that much. Phantoms felt like a truck compared to a sports car.

F-8 was known as the Ensign Killer for good reason.

Jack