topspeedOne version with delta wing and 1970ies microfighter program inlet.
Radar and just 4 STINGERS concealed ( no cannon ) and E-seat…and PW530A.
topspeedX-51 reached Mach 6? Didn’t another test flight brought it up to Mach 15? Not to mis-mention that, I forgot if it reached a Mach 15 record. Anyways why is it always U.S. Airforce things that get to do all of these wierd things?
No it flies only at 70 000 ft..max was 5.1 mach..another crashed.
I think you ought to go to 120-150 000 ft and first fly a zoom flight with turbofan to 70 -100 000 ft and there after ignite the rocked boosters to really get it going in thin air.
topspeedIndeed I do not.
How could I? It is, afterall, your design. You are missing the point though. Modern aircraft are not what they seem to the naked eye.
All you have shown here is some ratios in relation mostly to obsolete WW2 planes.
Do you even know for example how much force would be required to one of your control surfaces for it to move at given areas of its flight envelope? I guess not.
You do not know if you have space for servos to help with that. Cooling ? pumps for the hydrolics? Is it even possible to have a supersonic plane of this size fly without hydrolic or electric power controls?
Will your canopy be strike resistant? It will have to be. You don’t want a duck bringing it down! That canopy weighs a hell of a lot. Balance?
You have internal bays for MICA’s. Will the plane be balanced without them?
You said the plane will fly high, OK, oxygen for the pilot? His anti G-suit ? where will all this equipment go?
You can’t know if the stabilizers are enough for this craft, plus it’s entire upper surface is one huge reflector for planes that fly above it! so in Look down shoot down mode, (which is the most likely scenario with the tiny engine it has) most other fighters, including legacy types would have a turkey shoot with your design.
Have you seen videos of fighters launching missiles? The jerk is some cases is unbelievable. Can your plane handle that, or will it fall into a spin?
To be honest, using a private jet engine to power a fighter jet might be problematic. Those engines have a completely different operation cycle. Acceleration times are different. You will not know how fast your plane is going to be responding to throttle commands.
so many variables.
I wish I had some spare depron to try your model, but I don’t ..
Ok Falcon Dude…
I hope I don’t have to use computers to control this….better ?
For F-18 they went from 1.6 cm thick to 1.7 cm thick in canopy.
Reason I have so little plexi on this is that I have increased the armour…the sides are 1 cm kevlar and 5 mm steel plate. Canopy is around 1 in thick.
G-suit of course..at least g-pants.
I know the stabilizers are ok..I read Raymer. See the moment arm ( also the span and wing area affect )..GM has longer moment arm.
See how much just a Sidewinder is bigger than MICA. Yes plane has very wide CG range…and is balanced.
The 1/72 scale model upper side is not 100% scale there is a sharp edge in the middle in the real plane…and next model…radar signature halfs.
I prefer wood ( plywood and balsa ) for the models.
topspeedThe Brahmos 2 would be a reusable system that would launch warheads and return? It would require an interesting solution as the design based on the pictures posted above seems to be too small for a landing gear…
How could one possibly weoponize these..isn’t the speed just too much in the atmosphere that it would explode..or be easy pray for SAM of some kind if is a tad slower in re-entry.
X-51A went mach 5.1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet
topspeedThere are plenty of models that fly, but a full scale blow up would never and vice versa.
A scale model of an F-16 flies for example, but as you go up the scale, the unstable design of the plane means you need more and more avionics and a hell of a lot of mathematics to make it fly !!
I said, I admire your persistence but you are chasing a naive dream here.
You seem to possess no real grasp of reality concerning my kites flight caracteristics…..unfortunately.
My plane is a stable flyer unlike modern jets usually… I would not have wanted it any other way.
topspeedMy question is whether F100/110 is at the same tech level of F414/M88/EJ200 and their proposed developmental variants, or whether it would require significantly more investment from Turkey to bring it up to that level, if that is even possible.
F135 in its present form would seem foolish given that it is a very different design tailored for F-35B lift system. Might F119 be available?
Why is the F119 dry thrust such a big secret ?
:confused:
Ever tought about the fact that bigger SCF like 0.9 in F-135 need then double amount fuel to be carried to an SCF 0.45 engine with just 37% more of the dry thurst power to weight ratio ?
topspeedwheres the room for air intake and engines?
Just testing the feasability of the wing and tail feathers. I decided to stretch the forward fuselage 200 mm after seeing this “3D model”.
Several stealth features along with engine and their inlets are not in this yet cause the engine is not running it would have disturbed the really low reynolds number model flying caracteristics beyond recognition. Wing here is also around 2% thick only.
This was a flying model…next is the 1/8 scale ducted fan flying r/c model with intakes.
topspeedHonestly I don’t want to call any names, but there are still a few which think – or even insist – that the J-20 is a F-111-size or even larger (some pretend even 23m) bird.
That does not include that they might in facthave more volume and as such maybe more weight – even if I can’t think of 37-38t – , but telling the J-20 and T50 larger (and esp. longer) birds as a Flanker is simply wrong.
How You again come to that “37-38 000 kilos….and thrust 350-360 kN” estimation is again way beyond my understanding … but maybe in this case You could show us Your calculation, since I’m willing to learn !
Agreed, but since this image shows a J-15 with the shorter sting it’s maybe not as relevant as for a J-11/Su-27.
Deino
Well actually if you take the size comparisons that I made for GM1 with all thse biggies it is evident that F-22 has 312 kN and those PAKFA and J-20 are bigger with AL-41 or chinese derivative and that AL-41 is projected to have 180 kN each. All data on wiki does claim so..PAKFA 36800 kg at one site. Also AL-41 sized F-135 does produce 191 kN on AB.
topspeed..small corrections..
I corrected the tail feather ( rudders ) to the intented size and bend some of the surfaces…and voila it starts to glide right side up even after a violent stall when thrown straight up ( more or less ). Mission accomplished…I have a sound platform for a small compact and economical stealth fighter for the future ( 2040-2050 ) after we have oil no more.
topspeedYes, but some here still don’t get or simply don’t want to see the facts !!!
For instance who ?
These big stealth jets are a 1-2 metre shorter than the gigantic SU-27 and alike but weigh more …37-38 000 kilos….and have massive thrust 350-360 kN..much much more than a Concorde or SR-71.
topspeedHey Ja. Unfortunately, it’s hard to get people on this forum to reply to a thread unless it is about the F-22 or JSF or maybe some new Block 789 F-16 variant and some other off-the-wall project that will never happen or didn’t happen (Tomcat 21….aah!). Anyway, I too have a great interest in this little jet. It is such a good-looking fighter I don’t know why it isn’t better known. The F-8 is probably the reason. the F-8 came along and made the F-11, Skyray, and others just obsolete. Here’s the “basic” info I’ve got on her.
Aircraft: F-11A Tiger (F11F-1)
Contractor: Grumman
Type: Single-seat fighter
First Flight: 1954 (YF9F-9)
Crew: One- Pilot
Powerplant: One 10,500-lb. st Wright J65-W-18 afterburning turbojet
Dimensions: Length- 46 ft. 11 in.
Height- 13 ft. 3 in.
Span- 31 ft. 7 in.
Weights: Empty- 14,300 lb.
Max T/O- 24,100 lb.
Performance: Max Speed (High)- Mach 1.1 (755 mph)
(Low)- Mach 0.9 (725 mph)
Maximum Ferry Range – 1,600 mi.
Service Ceiling- 41,900 ft.
G-Limits- +8/-3 Climb Rate- 5,200 ft./min.
Armament: Four 20-mm cannons with 200 rounds each.;
Up to 2,800-lb. of ordnance on four hardpoints.
Weapons List: (2) 150-gallon external fuel tanks
(4) AIM-9 SidewinderP.S. That range stat could be wrong, it is difficult to find good “average” range stats on an aircraft, as everything involved with how far an aircraft can fly is relative on weather conditions, load-outs, etc.
I counted the topspeed mach 1.85 from here; http://www.aviastar.org/air/usa/grumman_tiger.php
topspeedYup, but I have heard the term BS more often and there is a lot of it supporting your aircraft.
But my planes 1/72 scale model has flown..in a heavy wind…I am still analysing…seems that it was too hastily built. It flew from the first hand throw around 10 meters and completed 2 ( fairly large dia ) barrel rolls fluently. It has a metal hook for some serious catapult action in calmer weather for supersonic equivalent speeds ( not supersonic ).
There is in the same scale my 12 years old unlimited Merlin powered Reno-racer Able Duck in the background ( a joined wing pusher design ).
The model is mostly plywood so I just bend the surfaces to get some better data about its stableness and flight caracteristics..it is pretty stable already..there were few outstanging flights too..what bugs me a bit is that few times it went inverted and was also very stable flying upside down..with a higher sink rate.
topspeedOnly in your mind and if anyone wasted the money to build it, it might actually fly but would have just enough range to get back in line with the airstrip and land before crashing out of fuel.
Kind of like the Me 163 only instead of reaching 30,000 feet it might reach 300 ft.
Funny isn’t it when I replaced some of the ribs with more stiff skin and reduced the size and make it mach 3 mover all this armor is like just 50 kilo extra weight and I need no ballast in the nose..funny also how the whole fuselage skin was just under 200 kilos from 1 cm thick kevlar…size reduction works both ways. Pilot armour addition to this was just 135 kilos from 5 mm steel plate.
You may have a point in fuel consumption..this Citation Bravo with similar engine burns more than SFC predicts; http://jetav.com/cessna-citation-bravo-performance-specs/
It indicates 860 kilos / hr..this would make it just 1 hr 30 minutes on cruise and just under 3 hrs on drop tanks.Unless this sized plane actually manages to cruise faster with even lower consumption…I think just may do so.
RpR..ever heard the term vortex lift ?
topspeedF-2 always impressed me with its ability to carry 600-gallon jugs
F-2 is bigger than F-16.
topspeedThat would make very little difference. Once the rocket engine cuts off, you are a high speed glider. So every second you are either loosing speed or altitude. And what is the purpose of the high speed dash anyway? This is not Me163 that had to rely on its guns.
Is the fighter length still 29 feet? If so, you are exagerating the wing area a bit. From the posted diagrams I get about 8 m2. 12 if you are very generous and count the horizontal tail, which you can only do if it is aerodynamically unstable, and it does not appear to be. And the fuselage most certainly does not count.
How about a relevant comparison?
Cessna Citation Ultra uses the same engine, but it has two of them. It is a beautiful glider with cruising speed of 400 knots. While its thrust is 100% higher, its MTOW is only 55% higher.[ATTACH=CONFIG]216233[/ATTACH]
PS: Looking at the picture, I still think your air intakes are far too small. And so is the vertical tail.
I actually counted the verticals like Daniel Raymer suggests in his books and increased them a bit..they are right on the money..see the forward moved engine also shifts the CG and the MAC25% position more forward and thus allows to do much smaller verticals than on a regular fighter…transports always need bigger verticals..and multiple engine planes in general. Intakes are just fine too..I can make’em smaller with smaller engine now.
Sign In
