In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:

"Ed Majden" wrote:

I watched a very interesting interview with aircraft designer, Burt
Rutan on CBC-TV a few days ago. He claimed that the large aircraft
manufacturers aren't being very innovative today. As a test pilot at
Edwards he stated that some of the aircraft he tested in the past out
perform today's modern fighters. The F-104 was one of the examples. He
didn't have anything good to say about the JSF or the F-22 for that matter.
He stated that modern manufactures aren't the innovative risk takers of the
past thus holding back aircraft design technology.
Any comments on this?

There's a tendency of most of us to live in the past. We were all
tougher than our predecessors and no one since has had the challenges
that we faced. Balderdash!

Certainly the F-104 was an aeronautical marvel. It was an incredible
achievement. But give me an F-22 (or for that matter, an F-15, or -16)
and I'll promise to mort the Zipper long before the merge--even before
he knows there is going to be a merge.

The way we control the air now is light-years beyond what was done
with the -104. Sure, it was fast, climbed incredibly, was a thrill to
fly---but the point is that the whole purpose is to "rove the alotted
area, find the enemy and kill him. Anything else is rubbish."

The Baron said it and it has only become more true over the years. If
you rove the alotted area in supercruise, the area is larger. If you
do it with stealth, you are infinitely more survivable. If you have
the benefit of data fusion and passive sensors, you don't need the Mk
1/Mod 0 eyeball. If you've got launch and leave, long range weapons,
you don't have to get all sweaty.


As you know well Ed, people have a tendency to fixate on one aspect
of performance or design. The trouble is, a combat aircraft is a package
deal. Airframe, engines and electronics and weapons all integrated
into a whole. As you've mentioned above, the performance of the
whole is what's important. That's why it's so hard (and expensive)
to upgrade an aircraft with, say, a new radar or EW system.
The effect on the whole has to be evaluated, not just how it fits in the
airframe and affects the W&B.

The trouble with aircraft like the zipper and the lawndart is that
(IMHO) they lack airframe room for the capable avionics systems
that really distinguish the force multiplier aircraft.

Take a gander into the packed airframe of an F-16 and how small
the compartments are. I've never had the opportunity to do the
same with an F-104, but I'll bet it's the same. The F-15 OTOH,
while packed it much larger and has room for more functions.

ciao

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur