Saab Viggen Ideas and Inspiration

[kitnut617]

Chris Gibson is now the editor of Air-Britain's Aeromilitaria and he's been finding some really interesting stuff. The latest is from the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust where some reports have been found about a proposed RR powered Viggens for the RAF as a possible replacement of the Anglo-French VG project. Three arrangement drawings were found called 37 XE-1, 37 XE-2 & 37 XE-3.

37 XE-1 was to have a Spey RB168-62R (uprated)
37 XE-2 was to have a Bristol Olympus 22R (this proposal would have had a fuselage plug in between the canard and wing)
37 XE-3 was to have 'two' RB 193's (the tail pipes extend way out beyond the wing trailing edge)

This article appears in the Summer Issue, 2016 of Aeromilitaria

[The Big Gimper]

Chris Gibson is now the editor of Air-Britain's Aeromilitaria and he's been finding some really interesting stuff. The latest is from the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust where some reports have been found about a proposed RR powered Viggens for the RAF as a possible replacement of the Anglo-French VG project. Three arrangement drawings were found called 37 XE-1, 37 XE-2 & 37 XE-3.

37 XE-1 was to have a Spey RB168-62R (uprated)
37 XE-2 was to have a Bristol Olympus 22R (this proposal would have had a fuselage plug in between the canard and wing)
37 XE-3 was to have 'two' RB 193's (the tail pipes extend way out beyond the wing trailing edge)

This article appears in the Summer Issue, 2016 of Aeromilitaria

Are there any drawings of what they would have looked like?

[Volkodav]

Very interesting , thankyou.

The Viggen was on the ludicrously long list of types considered to replace the Mirage III in the RAAF, a RAF buy of the type may have seen it given more serious consideration than it was, as would have been the case had the Draken been selected instead of the Mirage III.

[The Big Gimper]

I have been slowly designing and building my Next Generation Viggen. I still have to update a few items but I am making progress. I still need lots of "Idea tape".

So far I had added:
- new intakes. About 25% more airflow
- F-16XL like cranked wing. Will add missile launch rails to the wing tips
- new canards. About 10% larger surface area

[dy031101]

A proposed Post Stall Manoeuvring Viggen development including a model someone created of it.

Um...... rocket-boosted...... 

[Daryl J.]

Israeli.

 :)

[upnorth]

The "Post Stall Manoeuvering Viggen" is a strange beast.

My understanding of canards is that one of their jobs is to cancel out stalls. They're put ahead of the wing so that they stall first and the wing can't stall, or so I've been led to understand.

Is my understanding all wrong about that aspect of canrds?

[GTX_Admin]

Desert Viggen anyone? 

[GTX_Admin]

Interesting...

[elmayerle]

It makes you wonder how an afterburning Medway would have fit.

[perttime]

The "Post Stall Manoeuvering Viggen" is a strange beast.

My understanding of canards is that one of their jobs is to cancel out stalls. They're put ahead of the wing so that they stall first and the wing can't stall, or so I've been led to understand.

Is my understanding all wrong about that aspect of canrds?

Canards can do that - if you design the aircraft for it. I think the Vari-eze family is that way, for example.

But there's a different reasoning too. When the pilot pulls "up", conventional surfaces push the tail "down", so you lose some lift. On a canard, pulling "up" makes the nose go "up", so you gain a little lift. You can make a canard turn more efficiently.

[Kelmola]

Interesting...

The Olympus modification seems deceptively simple - a fuselage plug and an extended afterburner (would probably lose the thrust reverser though).

The "Post Stall Manoeuvering Viggen" is a strange beast.

My understanding of canards is that one of their jobs is to cancel out stalls. They're put ahead of the wing so that they stall first and the wing can't stall, or so I've been led to understand.

Is my understanding all wrong about that aspect of canrds?

Canards can do that - if you design the aircraft for it. I think the Vari-eze family is that way, for example.

But there's a different reasoning too. When the pilot pulls "up", conventional surfaces push the tail "down", so you lose some lift. On a canard, pulling "up" makes the nose go "up", so you gain a little lift. You can make a canard turn more efficiently.

In stock Viggen, the canards were non-moving (though they did have flaps at the trailing edge) and were intended as vortex generators, primarily functioning as high-lift devices at slow speeds to allow shorter take-offs and landings (though delaying the stall and maintaining control in high-alpha manoeuvres was indeed a byproduct).

[ysi_maniac]

Vigsader = Viggen-Crusader

Let's continue with this line of ... illness.

My proposal for a Saab tactical/nuclear bomber that could be used as a fighter.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fighter-attack-projects.683/post-5417



... and complement.

[GTX_Admin]

[GTX_Admin]

[GTX_Admin]

[GTX_Admin]

[GTX_Admin]

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^^ Beautiful.

[GTX_Admin]

^^^^^ Beautiful.

Any in particular?

[ysi_maniac]

Every Viggen. 

[ysi_maniac]

Saab Jagare (destroyer in Swedish)

[Buzzbomb]

Well that has just about covered most scheme options.

Great pixel work

[Volkodav]

The 1961 US Army combat aircraft demonstration results in the adoption of either the A-4 or F-5 (maybe both) as Army Aviation light attack / CAS and Fast FAC types that continue in service through the 60s and 70s.  Proven in Vietnam and an integral part of US Army European capability they are replaced by ………………. in the late 70s early 80s. 

[elmayerle]

The 1961 US Army combat aircraft demonstration results in the adoption of either the A-4 or F-5 (maybe both) as Army Aviation light attack / CAS and Fast FAC types that continue in service through the 60s and 70s.  Proven in Vietnam and an integral part of US Army European capability they are replaced by ………………. in the late 70s early 80s. 

It wasn't just variants of the A-4 and F-5 evaluated, they also evaluated the Fiat G.91 and the Hawker P.1127.  I do like your scenario, though.  'Twould definitely need a different Key West accord, though, that would transfer the CAS role to the US Army from the USAF.  I suspect that would face a lot of opposition in Washington, DC, both from elements of the US Congress as well as some elements within the "Five-Sided Squirrel Cage on the Potomac".