Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote
Design catch 22: long range interceptor performance equals more fuel equals more size. Tanking is used in any part but carrier based tankers are an issue, hence “buddy stores” tanking is primary.
The E/F models in the trailer are ironically approaching Tomcat size :
“The Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft at about 20% larger, 7,000*lb (3,200*kg) heavier empty weight, and 15,000*lb (6,800*kg) heavier maximum weight than the original Hornet. The Super Hornet carries 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% over the "Legacy" Hornet. The empty weight of the Super Hornet is about 11,000*lb (5,000*kg) less than that of the F-14 Tomcat which it replaced, while approaching, but not matching, the F-14's payload and range.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boei...F_Super_Hornet |
Didn't realize the hornets had gotten that big.
I think it's just that widebody stance they have that gives them such a lumbering look. That's a loooooot of fuselage.
Anybody between probably 35 and 55 is gonna have a soft spot for the big fighter; it's just the era we grew up in. At least the A-10 is still fighting the good fight and the F-15 is gonna have a 50+ year service life when all is said and done. In this era of aircraft development and for a high performance fighter, that's unthinkable.
But the F-14 will almost certainly always be my favorite.