[TomasCTT]

With the often mentioned lack of range of the Superbug, has there ever been a proposal at least from Boeing to give it CFTs? Some F-16s (UAE, Israeli, and IIRC Singapore) have CFTs. F-15E of course. One proposal for the F-14 (Tomcat 21 I think?) had CFTs as well IIRC. I reckon CFTs for navy/marine Superbugs would be a no-go due to the added weight...? However, if ever the E/Fs would find its way to the ANG, CFTs might be attractive, yes?

Any other aircraft as well?

This post has been edited by TomasCTT: 07 September 2009 - 0507 AM

[swerve]

Rafale & Typhoon have had CFTs developed, but AFAIK nobody has ordered any yet.

[TomasCTT]

I reckon they are mounted on top along the fuselage like the F-16?

[shep854]

CFT-Conformal Fuel Tank?

This post has been edited by shep854: 07 September 2009 - 0702 AM

[TomasCTT]

Yup.

[swerve]

TomasCTT, on Mon 7 Sep 2009 1211, said:

I reckon they are mounted on top along the fuselage like the F-16?

Yes, above the wing.

[ShotMagnet]

'Bugs for the ANG? Why?

At any rate, I would think tanker capacity and loiter should suffice to make irrelevant a need for CFTs for the Hornet.


Shot

[Tuccy]

AFAIK CFT was being proposed by Saab for Gripen upgrade, might be part of their Gripen NG project.

[Luke Y]

Tuccy, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 0324, said:

AFAIK CFT was being proposed by Saab for Gripen upgrade, might be part of their Gripen NG project.

I was pretty sure they actually flew with the CFT's, they looked like F-16 CFT's, and were proposed for some Air Force's tender which was after a fairly large aircraft, can't remember who's though. But my memory might be fading...

[Exel]

How adversely do CFTs affect the aircraft's performance? How do they compare to drop-tanks?

[TomasCTT]

ShotMagnet, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 0048, said:

'Bugs for the ANG? Why?

Super Hornets for the ANG thread

Exel, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 0303, said:

How adversely do CFTs affect the aircraft's performance? How do they compare to drop-tanks?

Pylons where you hang drop tanks could be freed for more weapons if there are CFTs. CFTs still have a weight and drag penalty, but I think they don't give that much increase of RCS since they are designed to blend well with the aircraft. The Silent Eagle makes use of CFT-like weapons bays, thus reducing RCS compared to having weapons hanging from the wings. I reckon their drag penalty isn't that great compared to drop tanks as well. How much more fuel does the average set of CFTs have compared to the usual drop tanks? Do they have more fuel than conventional drop tanks or less?

[Burncycle360]

A variant of the F-14 where the tunnel was filled with a giant CFT was proposed to the USAF for interception duties.

This post has been edited by Burncycle360: 07 September 2009 - 2149 PM

[Josh]

I believe the FAST packs for F-15's actually generated a little lift. Most CFTs generate a small amount of drag compared to drop tanks.

[nexus6]

Burncycle360, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 0249, said:

A variant of the F-14 where the tunnel was filled with a giant CFT was proposed to the USAF for interception duties.

have you got any data/photos etc on that subject? when i was a kid i grafted an f-111 nose onto an f-14 ( f-14 kit was missing its canopy) and i fillied in that area to represent a bomb bay of sorts.

[TomasCTT]

nexus6, on Thu 10 Sep 2009 1508, said:

have you got any data/photos etc on that subject? when i was a kid i grafted an f-111 nose onto an f-14 ( f-14 kit was missing its canopy) and i fillied in that area to represent a bomb bay of sorts.

It looked like a pregnant F-14:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F-14IMI.jpg

(if the hotlinked image doesn't work, try: http://media.photobu...ner/F-14IMI.jpg )

http://home.att.net/...er1/f14_10.html

(in one book, the picture was less flattering)

This post has been edited by TomasCTT: 10 September 2009 - 0218 AM

[nexus6]

thanks for that. Interesting. and your right, not very flattering look for the f-14

[Doug97]

I think CFTs make any aircraft look "overweight":

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/base/util/89372_1.jpg

[EvanDP]

Doug97, on Sun 13 Sep 2009 1138, said:

I think CFTs make any aircraft look "overweight":

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/base/util/89372_1.jpg

I thought we agreed to call them "Muffin-tops". :lol:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DyO-z_7Ip9c

This post has been edited by EvanDP: 13 September 2009 - 1740 PM

[shep854]

EvanDP, on Sun 13 Sep 2009 1340, said:

I thought we agreed to call them "Muffin-tops". :lol:

Made with lumpy dough. :P

[Doug97]

It doesn't taxi, it waddles!