H-6 Bomber Aircraft Discussions


drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Maybe, the misses are not shown.
of course not, however, in that one particular frame there were two drops hitting two separate targets in the bullseye, and a third target in the middle that was previously hit with pretty good accuracy, that tells me that they were pretty consistent and it was not just a lucky shot.
 

plawolf

Brigadier
i wonder how they manage to hit the target like that with unguided bombs

You can get very good accuracy even with unguided bombs on stationary targets thanks to targeting computers.

This was the case even back during the first gulf war.

The limitations with doing so are range, weather, altitude and approach vector and pilot. So it’s only really applicable once you have achieved air dominance and SEAD/DEAD.

Technically, the US could have saved itself a stupid amount of money using iron bombs this way in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than PGM everything, but then the Pentagon has never really cared about cost effectiveness.
 

victoon

New Member
Registered Member
You can get very good accuracy even with unguided bombs on stationary targets thanks to targeting computers.

This was the case even back during the first gulf war.

The limitations with doing so are range, weather, altitude and approach vector and pilot. So it’s only really applicable once you have achieved air dominance and SEAD/DEAD.

Technically, the US could have saved itself a stupid amount of money using iron bombs this way in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than PGM everything, but then the Pentagon has never really cared about cost effectiveness.
other things to consider is speed and carrying capacity. the H6 is unique compared to what the US has in that it has good capacity and can probably fly pretty slow and low, making it perfect for precision drop of unguided bombs.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I'm a bit confused since I noticed, that all technical data available for the H-6 still refers to the older variants.

This list below is from Wki based on "Data from Sinodefence.com", which is long dead since years. (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) ... but I think there is nothing published so far on the modernised variants, not even their dimensions?

Any idea to complete this list?


Specifications (H-6)​


General characteristics
  • Crew: 4
  • Length: 34.8 m (114 ft 2 in)
  • Wingspan: 33 m (108 ft 3 in)
  • Height: 10.36 m (34 ft 0 in)
  • Wing area: 165 m2 (1,780 sq ft)
  • Airfoil: root: PR-1-10S-9 (15.7%); tip: PR-1-10S-9 (12%)
  • Empty weight: 37,200 kg (82,012 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 95,000 kg (209,439 lb)
  • Powerplant: 2 × Soloviev D-30KP-2 turbofan engines, 118 kN (27,000 lbf) thrust each
Performance
  • Maximum speed: 1,050 km/h (650 mph, 570 kn)
  • Cruise speed: 768 km/h (477 mph, 415 kn) / 0.75M
  • Range: 6,000 km (3,700 mi, 3,200 nmi)
  • Combat range: 1,800 km (1,100 mi, 970 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 12,800 m (42,000 ft)
  • Wing loading: 460 kg/m2 (94 lb/sq ft)
  • Thrust/weight: 0.24
 

gelgoog

Major
Registered Member
Well that data is likely most likely a copy paste of the data on the Tu-16. Also unlike with the Tu-16, or the original H-6, the H-6K will likely never be exported. It may be a really long time until we get accurate data. In particular the empty weight should be lower given that it is made with composites. The range should also be higher. To get an estimate you would need to look at the weight savings in other aircraft and given the known fuel tank size compute the range with the new engines given their fuel consumption is known too.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well that data is likely most likely a copy paste of the data on the Tu-16. Also unlike with the Tu-16, or the original H-6, the H-6K will likely never be exported. It may be a really long time until we get accurate data. In particular the empty weight should be lower given that it is made with composites. The range should also be higher. To get an estimate you would need to look at the weight savings in other aircraft and given the known fuel tank size compute the range with the new engines given their fuel consumption is known too.


But maybe we can make a guess at least on what we know ... dimension-wise, for range and payload?
 

gelgoog

Major
Registered Member
Well for one composite made aircraft can achieve up to 20% weight savings in empty weight.
These weight savings could directly be used to carry more payload.

The original turbojets had 93.2 kN thrust and the new turbofan has 118 kN thrust. The aircraft has two of those engines.
The extra thrust would increase the maximum takeoff speed given a length of runway and would increase max takeoff weight accordingly.

Wikipedia claims the Mikulin AM-3 engine has a specific fuel consumption of 93.2 kg/(kN•h) and the D-30KP-2 has a specific fuel consumption of 0.715 kg/kgf hr.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
93.2 kg/(kN*h) is 0.914 kg/(kgf hr). 0.914/0.715 = 1.278. So the new engines should have ~28% less fuel consumption.
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well for one composite made aircraft can achieve up to 20% weight savings in empty weight.
These weight savings could directly be used to carry more payload.

The original turbojets had 93.2 kN thrust and the new turbofan has 118 kN thrust. The aircraft has two of those engines.
The extra thrust would increase the maximum takeoff speed given a length of runway and would increase max takeoff weight accordingly.

Wikipedia claims the Mikulin AM-3 engine has a specific fuel consumption of 93.2 kg/(kN•h) and the D-30KP-2 has a specific fuel consumption of 0.715 kg/kgf hr.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
93.2 kg/(kN*h) is 0.914 kg/(kgf hr). 0.914/0.715 = 1.278. So the new engines should have ~28% less fuel consumption.


Wow ... and in what range increase will this result?
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Wow ... and in what range increase will this result?
Shouldn't the simplistic guess being 28% increase of range?

The fule consumption is mass of fuel consumed by providing the same thrust for an hour. So if the shape does not change, the air friction does not change, the thrust needed to maintain the same air speed does not change. That means the newer variant would use 28% less fuel for the same range. In other words, same fuel volume gives 28% more range. Considering other factors, a conservative estimation is anything from 20% to 28% increase of range from the baseline.
 

Richard Santos

Senior Member
Registered Member
That seems difficult to estimate. For example, exactly which parts were reengineered with composite, is the aircraft now stressed for greater takeoff weight? If so the radius can increase considerably beyond a straight scaling based on fuel consumption. How much structural weight is added by stressing the wings to accommodate a number of new hard points designed to carry substantially weight, and how about the new underbelly hard points?

A number of original features of the tu-16 have been eliminated. For example the gun Turrets and gunner position and glazed bomber nose are gone. That saved weight. The requirement to pressurize these formerly manned compartment is gone, so more structural weight can potentially be saved. Were these used up by new equipment or are they available for carrying more fuel?

the wing root is a major source of drag, tu-16’s wing root engine pod have changed substantially to accommodate the new engine. What’s the impact on drag?
 

Top