Lockheed F/A-19 A/B Typhoon

[perttime]

The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.

I'm wondering about the effect of conformal tanks on aircraft performance.
When I see Finnish Hornets, drop tanks are not an unusual sight. But at least you can get rid of a drop tank, mid-flight.

[scooter]

The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.

I'm wondering about the effect of conformal tanks on aircraft performance.
When I see Finnish Hornets, drop tanks are not an unusual sight. But at least you can get rid of a drop tank, mid-flight.

It's a toss up between aerodynamic efficiency and dead weight when empty.  At least the CFTs on Eagles\Strike Eagles\Silent Eagles double as weapons carriage.

[zenrat]

Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.

[PR19_Kit]

Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.

That's WHY they work so well on Lightnings. 

Almost everything on a Lightning is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it being a real classic. 

[Scotaidh]

The conformal fuel tanks were supposed to be introduced in the Tranche 4 package update but none of the customers have ordered them. They have gone for the new radar instead.

I'm wondering about the effect of conformal tanks on aircraft performance.
When I see Finnish Hornets, drop tanks are not an unusual sight. But at least you can get rid of a drop tank, mid-flight.

It's a toss up between aerodynamic efficiency and dead weight when empty.  At least the CFTs on Eagles\Strike Eagles\Silent Eagles double as weapons carriage.

I was always rather fond of the look those trailing edge fairings on the Victors.;  For some reason I always fancied they were fuel tanks ... like the bullet fairings on the leading edges, only aft (if that makes any sense)?

 What about detachable tip tanks?  I know that now that's home for a lot of Sidewinders et al, but they could find other homes - put the launch rails either sides of the stabilizer?  Put a fuselage plug fwd of the wing to keep your CG, and voila!  Tip tanks now viable, plus added internal tankage!

No?   

[perttime]

...
 What about detachable tip tanks?  I know that now that's home for a lot of Sidewinders et al, but they could find other homes - put the launch rails either sides of the stabilizer?  Put a fuselage plug fwd of the wing to keep your CG, and voila!  Tip tanks now viable, plus added internal tankage!

No?   

I think wing tips is now the favored place for counter measures on many fighters. At least that is what I recall seeing on Eurofighters and Gripens.

[McColm]

Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.

That's WHY they work so well on Lightnings. 

Almost everything on a Lightning is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it being a real classic. 

The EE Lightning was underdeveloped, if more money had been spent on it to make improvements it might be still flying today in frontline service with a third world country.

[zenrat]

Wingtip tanks add mass as far from the aircraft's centre of roll as possible.  This will increase the required roll-moment and slow down roll rate when a combat aircraft wold want it as fast as possible.
Mounting conformal tanks on the fuselage puts the fuel closest to centre of roll without putting it inside.

[rickshaw]

Overwing stores are wrong.  The only things that should be on top of a wing are fences and those little vortex thingamajigs.

That's WHY they work so well on Lightnings. 

Almost everything on a Lightning is 'wrong', but that doesn't stop it being a real classic. 

The EE Lightning was underdeveloped, if more money had been spent on it to make improvements it might be still flying today in frontline service with a third world country.

The Lightning was originally a development/test aircraft that got turned into a fighter.  As a consequence it was all designed wrong and was a real maintenance hog for an operational aircraft.  Engine changes were apparently a real nightmare and not looked forward to by the ground crew at all.  As Kit suggests, its unusual appearance is what makes it so interesting.  The overwing tanks worked and quite well by all accounts just as the overwing Sidewinders of the Jaguar did.  They were just a little difficult to attach/detach.

[McColm]

From the feedback,  when I was in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force 1986 to 1997 was the over wing fuel tanks created so much drag that the speed had to be reduced to mach 1.5. This allowed upto 40 minutes endurance hence the inflight refuelling probe. The Lightning was also limited to the amount of underwing pylons it could carry.
I think over wing 'Y' pylons might have been a better solution.
According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state, but we are discussing the Eurofighter Typhoon.

[PR19_Kit]

According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state,

That would have been the big winged and big engined PR9s. They took off on 75% throttle or they'd cook the brakes and tyres! 

[kitbasher]

According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state,

That would have been the big winged and big engined PR9s. They took off on 75% throttle or they'd cook the brakes and tyres! 

The PR9 is an incredibly underrated aircraft.  It's performance was very impressive - climb, endurance, you name it.  Powered by a pair of Lightning Avons sans reheat, in its final years a number were equipped with U-2R cameras that required fairly sizable ports to be cut out of the fuselage.  Certainly the pinnacle of RAF wet film PR - of course digital photography has progressed in leaps and bounds since its retirement.

I remember very clearly the sight of a one-eyed nav climbing out of the hinged nose of a PR9 when I was holding at Wyton ahead of air traffic training.  Got a trip in a T4 while I was there.  Was sworn to secrecy not to mention the tiny bit of aerobatics over Lincolnshire, so I haven't.

[PR19_Kit]

According to the Wyton boys the Canberra could out climb the Lightning to 50,000ft and out manoeuvre a F-16 ina clean state,

That would have been the big winged and big engined PR9s. They took off on 75% throttle or they'd cook the brakes and tyres! 

The PR9 is an incredibly underrated aircraft. 

Absolutely, a totally different aeroplane to other Canberras, except possibly an RB.-57F.

When I worked on XH131, also at Wyton, the ground air crews could do nothing but sing their praises. 

[joncarrfarrelly]

Overwing tanks, like a Lightning, that's the way to go. 

That'll be a REAL Lightning, the one with its engines on top of each other...............

I think overwing tanks would be problematic on a REAL Lightning. 

[scooter]

Overwing tanks, like a Lightning, that's the way to go. 

That'll be a REAL Lightning, the one with its engines on top of each other...............

I think overwing tanks would be problematic on a REAL Lightning. 

I think the engines on top of each other would also be a problem on a real Lightning