topspeedIt took me 5 minutes to say why F-20 was a failure..the F404 engine weighs 500 kilos more than the two J-85 together…it doubled the weight in the aft CG location !
topspeedI’ll present you before long a complete analysis between two cold war era fighter and my small fighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F5D_Skylancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F4D_Skyray
…I’ll also possibly cover what went wrong and why two demo F-20s crashed.
topspeedYou should read a lot more about how shape of aircraft affect performance.
When the F5D Skylancer was developed from the F4D Skyray, it was a larger aircraft with the same engine but was two hundred miles an hour faster as stated by the engineers who built it, simply because they eliminated the flat windshield and replaced with a V shaped one.
The windshield on your aircraft alone will restrict its speed greatly.
The lack of space will restrict its ability to reach any speed due to fuel use to attain anything near a high-speed.
It would have less range than a F-5 because two engines use more fuel than one without exception.
A English Electric Lighting could shoot it out of the sky because it would have superior performance but then with the extremely limited range of your gnat it would never be a threat to anything period.A more recent small fighter, F-20, died for reasons this analyst said:
We wanted hot, light airplanes that were just as stripped-down as possible… They took an austere, stripped-down F-5 and ruined it by loading crap on it. Adding Sparrow missiles required huge complexity on the airplane. Adding air-to-ground capability ruined the F-20A.
The Tigershark gained it performance by eliminating two small J-85s for one larger engine.Your Neverland idea will never leave Neverland.
Pierre Sprey, DoD senior analyst.Your dream has even more problems that the Tigershark had.
RpR !
I enjoy all comments…also the nasty ones !
best regards,
Juke
PS: you don’t think the 6 degrees more sweep in the windshield and one deg more sweep in the wing has anything to do with the speed difference between Skylancer and Skyray ?
topspeedIn many ways I like your idea but my feedback is;
Stick to 2*J85, it will be to difficult to maintain more
Make a aerodynamically stable design, the FCS and pilot training (2nd tier or reservists) will be a lot easier
Internal or conformal bay with 2 Mica IR is more than enough+ 2 wingtip AAM
Canard design will allow slow min speed/long loiter time as well as good trans/supersonic
Go for low wing loadingNo radar or the size of a BVR missile and only to verify distance of localized targets and to aim internal gun
Internal gun 20mm?
IRSOT
IR MAVS
Decent RWR
Limited flares/chaff/ active jammer
Fixed refueling probe
Good networking
1 wet stationPerformance
Limited payload
Maximize fuel fraction and minimize wing loading
Moderately supersonic but should have low drag in the 0,8-1,4 Mach areaOperational concept
Intercept incoming enemy or loiter at high altitude over friendly territory
Well networked to ground stations and “bigger brothers”
Hang around at high altitude, slow speed and dive intercept (gain speed and reach) its main targets of attack aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles, stand off munitions, decoys, UACVS.
Its gonna be just mach 1.6 max ….maybe mach 2.0 at high?!
topspeedF135 is much more efficient than J-58, but size has also other meanings !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58
Maybe I should write a book…the size of things !
topspeedSince it’s 50 years from the first flight of the historical Kelly Johnson design..here is a comparison with it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird
BLACKBIRD has thinner wingfoil so it is faster in 24 km ( possibly ).
http://www.456fis.org/GENERAL_ELECTRIC_J85.htm
J-85 is tested to run also MACH 3 speeds !
topspeedYou can look at Bede’s BD-5 for how small a cockpit can be, but its also for a plane meant to fly around about 20 minutes per flight.
BTW – your intakes are 50% the size required. I think your aircraft is also about 50% too thin vertically. Your four engines in the diagram take less space than a single RM12. Maybe for the version in the T-38, but not the one in the F-5. The thrust is much higher in the latter due to the much larger hot sections.
J-85 is only 45 cm dia engine..it needs only small inlet ( worth 45 cm dia ) . Small engines also drink less fuel.
I agree it is not drawn right as it is now, but the room shown there is enough to do it right…this is a stealth plane.
The BD-5 has nothing to do with this in size etc.
topspeedIn many ways I like your idea but my feedback is;
Stick to 2*J85, it will be to difficult to maintain more
Make a aerodynamically stable design, the FCS and pilot training (2nd tier or reservists) will be a lot easier
Internal or conformal bay with 2 Mica IR is more than enough+ 2 wingtip AAM
Canard design will allow slow min speed/long loiter time as well as good trans/supersonic
Go for low wing loadingNo radar or the size of a BVR missile and only to verify distance of localized targets and to aim internal gun
Internal gun 20mm?
IRSOT
IR MAVS
Decent RWR
Limited flares/chaff/ active jammer
Fixed refueling probe
Good networking
1 wet stationPerformance
Limited payload
Maximize fuel fraction and minimize wing loading
Moderately supersonic but should have low drag in the 0,8-1,4 Mach areaOperational concept
Intercept incoming enemy or loiter at high altitude over friendly territory
Well networked to ground stations and “bigger brothers”
Hang around at high altitude, slow speed and dive intercept (gain speed and reach) its main targets of attack aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles, stand off munitions, decoys, UACVS.
This comment really puzzled me….at 44 kN in this size shown..just drop 2 engines ?
I think I am gonna study this..the frontal area may drop to exact half of the 82 kN powered JAS-39 but the ceiling might go to 25 km ?!..as the weight is somewhere in 3000 kg empty ( less than 100 kg/m2 lightly loaded wingloading ).
I was thinking micro iron ball paint on plywood/epoxy/glassfibre skin on it…to make it invisible.
topspeedMunchkin pilots very small, very sneaky and the aircraft uses a big bundle of cigarette lighters for fuel.
Like the enclosed USAF data above shows a pilot needs only 66 cm on space ( height in the cockpit ).
In Messerschmitt Me-109 G-6 the shoulder room was 55 cm..this A4SF-1G as shown has 58 cm shoulder room and fuse at cockpit is 1032 mm high.
I try to analyse the F-5 and Gripen pilot room need as follows…huge engine behind and large radar at front makes the Gripen pilot position to be higher in order to see above these “obstacles” to gain combat awareness thus sitting as high as possible. In F-5 the machine guns ( or cannons ) are placed front of the pilot and radar in front of them..in order to gain 11-13 degrees vision down forward for landing and take off the pilot has to sit high ( and in lorry drive position ) to see correctly…also long and heavy nose front from pilot needs a suspension and structure becomes a bit sturdier too.
topspeedFighter sizes have varied already in WW II times. A 2 metre pilot was able to fit into Me-109 G-6 in FiAF.
Of course smaller AC carries less armament and ammo.
FiAF PUUSKA only carrried one 30 mm cannon ( no MGs were intented ).
topspeedLOL
I shouldn’t drink when reading some posts. Eruption is a real danger.
You should stop drinking all together.
topspeedYour target pilot is perhaps 48″ tall?
No 6’5” like myself…all my planes are designed for big people…I hated as a kid when I was excluded from AF due to my height !
The enermous radar and ancient electronic systems are placed with new AESA and electronic systems more capable smaller processors..seen the handies size gone smaller since the days of F-5 ?
Below the smallest ( lightest ) motorized aeroplane ( hitherto ).
topspeedHalo hi !
How about now ?
Cockpit is bigger…BK-27s can be moved back a bit for the e-seat.
topspeedIn many ways I like your idea but my feedback is;
Stick to 2*J85, it will be to difficult to maintain more
Make a aerodynamically stable design, the FCS and pilot training (2nd tier or reservists) will be a lot easier
Internal or conformal bay with 2 Mica IR is more than enough+ 2 wingtip AAM
Canard design will allow slow min speed/long loiter time as well as good trans/supersonic
Go for low wing loadingNo radar or the size of a BVR missile and only to verify distance of localized targets and to aim internal gun
Internal gun 20mm?
IRSOT
IR MAVS
Decent RWR
Limited flares/chaff/ active jammer
Fixed refueling probe
Good networking
1 wet stationPerformance
Limited payload
Maximize fuel fraction and minimize wing loading
Moderately supersonic but should have low drag in the 0,8-1,4 Mach areaOperational concept
Intercept incoming enemy or loiter at high altitude over friendly territory
Well networked to ground stations and “bigger brothers”
Hang around at high altitude, slow speed and dive intercept (gain speed and reach) its main targets of attack aircraft, helicopters, cruise missiles, stand off munitions, decoys, UACVS.
I have to digest this a while…I think I already studied the two x J-85 version before.
Thanks for the input.
topspeedBK27 relies on the airframe for support. The pair in the Tornado were not small nor would it be trivial to install one let alone two in your mini-fighter.
AESA also requires cooling akin to radiators on the exterior. The more compact electronic equipment becomes the hotter the hotspot. You have to disperse the heat across a 2-dimensional plane.
This is not so mini…about Gripen sized.
Sign In
