Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: GTX_Admin on February 06, 2012, 06:17:28 PM
-
Hi folks,
A thread for your Saab Viggen Ideas and Inspiration.
To start with, a Viggen inspired Business Jet:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/ca15/SaabSSE.jpg)
Regards,
Greg
-
Egads! It looks like something out of a Gerry Anderson thing. Where's the marionettes!
Regards,
John
-
How about a navalized Viggen? Especially if they managed to modulate the thrust reverser to control approach path without jockeying the throttle.
-
A neater two seater:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/Viggentandem.jpg)
Unmanned:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/ViggenUCAV.jpg)
-
How about a navalized Viggen? Especially if they managed to modulate the thrust reverser to control approach path without jockeying the throttle.
Most definitely - long term plan is to do one as a SAAB JA-37N Cyclone as per Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=66.0)
-
I was recently looking at this 1972 Dornier fighter concept:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/dv.jpg)
And was wondering how one would go creating it. Maybe the rear of a Panavia Tornado? The idea of a twin engined Viggen is intriguing.
Regards,
Greg
-
How about turning an F/A-18 fuselage upside down ?
-
That might work. Will need to confirm dimensions though.
-
Role for the two seater above: Wild Weasel. Perhaps for service with the French in Africa.
-
We have discussed and even modelled Big, developed Drakens, so what about the same for the Viggen? Could one develop a big, long range, twin engined Viggen? Maybe as a restart of the A-36 program?
-
^ A real-life scale-o-rama, then? ;D Like the Mirage IV is a sort-of scale-o-rama'd Mirage III?
-
^ A real-life scale-o-rama, then? ;D Like the Mirage IV is a sort-of scale-o-rama'd Mirage III?
Yep!
-
How about for 1/72, start with a 1/48 F-5, with Mirage III wings and maybe F-18 forward of the intakes?
-
Some inspiration from Sentinel Chicken:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps83232e37.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps2d0ee49f.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsad6c6843.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsb01a29f1.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zps00f66a9a.jpg)
-
I've often thought that the Viggen would serve well as a point defense interceptor in the Cascade Mountain range. That SeaTac and PDX would be gone is obvious and with the geology of this area, something like a Viggen would serve well in the woods, valleys, and volcanos.
-
Does anyone have any ideas how the proposed Rolls Royce RB.177 Medway might have shown itself in external details on the Viggen?
As it was proposed for the Viggen, I can't imagine any changes would include major reworking of the contours in that area of the aircraft. Or am I wrong in that assumption?
-
Does anyone have any ideas how the proposed Rolls Royce RB.177 Medway might have shown itself in external details on the Viggen?
As it was proposed for the Viggen, I can't imagine any changes would include major reworking of the contours in that area of the aircraft. Or am I wrong in that assumption?
No idea - how would its dimensions have compared to the RM8? Maybe some different air intakes???
-
Interesting question. There appears to be no data available online as to the Medway's diameter.
-
To find any good data, you need to find a library with Aircraft Engines of the World: 1964/1965 still on their shelves. Jane's for that time period might also cover it.
For modelling purposes, I'd reckon that a 1/48 Spey front face would work as a 1/72 Medway front face. I'm plotting to do a re-engined TSR.2 with Medways using the Spey exhaust nozzles from Revell''s 1/48 F-4K kit; the aren't accurate for 1/48 Spey nozzles, being sized to fit the same base as 1/48 J79 nozzles, but I reckon they'll be "close enough" for 1/72 and a low bypass-ratio turbofan would work and be rather more efficient in most flight regimes than a straight turbojet like the Olympus 300.
-
Some more by Sentinel Chicken:
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/ViggenV2_Austria1993.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/ViggenV2_Austria1997.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/ViggenV2_Switzerland1983.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/ViggenV2_Switzerland1985.jpg)
-
This could make an interesting diorama:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9TMTPd47lUI/U4xpT629kxI/AAAAAAAA9Y4/hjjGNBPQZAs/s1600/e19d2ef9d3e95c898214c6177f70ef1e.jpg)
-
This could make an interesting diorama:
([url]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9TMTPd47lUI/U4xpT629kxI/AAAAAAAA9Y4/hjjGNBPQZAs/s1600/e19d2ef9d3e95c898214c6177f70ef1e.jpg[/url])
Just imagine what it would look like with folding wings to compliment the folded over vertical tail component. The smaller size would get you something the size of a railroad tunnel entrance and that would be even more difficult to spot on any kind of surveillance system.
-
I rather think the approaches would still give it away, Jeff. One of the things you cannot hide, except by misdirection are the taxiways and runways on an airstrip, even if they are disguised to look like roads.
-
Paint the entrance pavement to look like RR tracks.
-
I rather think the approaches would still give it away, Jeff. One of the things you cannot hide, except by misdirection are the taxiways and runways on an airstrip, even if they are disguised to look like roads.
Umm! they are roads Brian ---
There was an article in one of the military aircraft magazines a couple of years ago or so which was about an exercise that had happened around there. A bunker that was allowed to be photographed was just hacked into the mountain side along the highway
-
the one I saw in Switzerland was a black hole in the mountain side - Mirage landed on the autobahn & taxied off into it. Guess they covered it with a landscaped door - you could disguise it as a petrol-station but you'd probably get too many people pulling off to fill up :-)
-
I rather think the approaches would still give it away, Jeff. One of the things you cannot hide, except by misdirection are the taxiways and runways on an airstrip, even if they are disguised to look like roads.
Umm! they are roads Brian ---
Yes and no. They are runways made to look like roads. Their construction is much heavier than the standard road.
There was an article in one of the military aircraft magazines a couple of years ago or so which was about an exercise that had happened around there. A bunker that was allowed to be photographed was just hacked into the mountain side along the highway
Still need approach taxiways. Aerial photography would reveal side roads that run into mountain sides, very suspicious...
-
Umm! they are roads Brian ---
Yes and no. They are runways made to look like roads. Their construction is much heavier than the standard road.
Not as heavier as you might think, the roads are built to handle transport trucks which have a maximum of 48 tonnes and 60 tonnes for articulated trucks, a Viggen has a max take-off weight of 20 tons. Coincident perhaps -----
Anyway, the photos in the article showed what might have been no more than a roadside turnout, or layby, and the camoflaged bunker doors were no more than a 100 feet from the roadside
-
Yes and no. They are runways made to look like roads. Their construction is much heavier than the standard road.
Still need approach taxiways. Aerial photography would reveal side roads that run into mountain sides, very suspicious...
Also, runways USED as roads.
Finding out where the runways are cannot be all that hard.
Wrecking a tunnel and 50 runways is just harder work than wrecking 5 runways and some aircraft sitting on an apron.
-
Back on topic again.
The Viggen is a remarkable aircraft, especially when you realize that it is designed to be maintained in the field by ground crew that could be as talented as a gas station attendant refueling your car or checking your oil and windshield washer fluid levels.
What other engine could fit inside the Viggen?
-
RB.141-3 (for Caravelle 7).
Max dia: 41.3"
Basic length: 130"
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202806.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202806.html)
So the diameter of the basic RB.177 Medway (w/out afterburner) proposed for the Viggen
would probably be in the same ballpark.
-
This could make an interesting diorama:
([url]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9TMTPd47lUI/U4xpT629kxI/AAAAAAAA9Y4/hjjGNBPQZAs/s1600/e19d2ef9d3e95c898214c6177f70ef1e.jpg[/url])
Looking at that pic, I'm struck by how similar the side of a Viggen, from the intake backwards, is to the underside of an F-16. I wonder if you could exploit that to make a twin-engined "uber-Viggen" from a pair of F-16s (maybe scaleorama'd)?
-
This could make an interesting diorama:
([url]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9TMTPd47lUI/U4xpT629kxI/AAAAAAAA9Y4/hjjGNBPQZAs/s1600/e19d2ef9d3e95c898214c6177f70ef1e.jpg[/url])
Looking at that pic, I'm struck by how similar the side of a Viggen, from the intake backwards, is to the underside of an F-16. I wonder if you could exploit that to make a twin-engined "uber-Viggen" from a pair of F-16s (maybe scaleorama'd)?
nice catch
-
Looking at that pic, I'm struck by how similar the side of a Viggen, from the intake backwards, is to the underside of an F-16. I wonder if you could exploit that to make a twin-engined "uber-Viggen" from a pair of F-16s (maybe scaleorama'd)?
Maybe something akin to the Dornier fighter back on page 1 of this thread?
-
What other engine could fit inside the Viggen?
Well, start with the RM8B specs and go from there when looking at alternatives:
Length: 6.23 m (20.44 ft)
Diameter: 1.03 m (40.55 in)
Dry weight: 2,350kg (5,180lb)
Given these dimensions, just about any other engine will fit inside easily. The RM8 is a big engine physically!
Don't forget that you probably want something with at least roughly comparable (or better) performance:
Maximum thrust: 72,2kN (16,200 lbf) dry, 125kN (28,100 lbf) wet
Remember that the RM8 is basically just a licensed-built version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D with a Swedish-designed afterburner. BTW, apparently the TF30 ( from F-111, F-14 and A-7 fame) was originally wanted by the Swedes but wasn't available.
-
This could make an interesting diorama:
([url]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9TMTPd47lUI/U4xpT629kxI/AAAAAAAA9Y4/hjjGNBPQZAs/s1600/e19d2ef9d3e95c898214c6177f70ef1e.jpg[/url])
Looking at that pic, I'm struck by how similar the side of a Viggen, from the intake backwards, is to the underside of an F-16. I wonder if you could exploit that to make a twin-engined "uber-Viggen" from a pair of F-16s (maybe scaleorama'd)?
nice catch
I had to look at it for a minute but you are right. Aerodynamics would be the same if mounted vertically or horizontally. Would you keep the Viggen engine or go with F-100 or F-101s.
-
What other engine could fit inside the Viggen?
Well, start with the RM8B specs and go from there when looking at alternatives:
Length: 6.23 m (20.44 ft)
Diameter: 1.03 m (40.55 in)
Dry weight: 2,350kg (5,180lb)
Given these dimensions, just about any other engine will fit inside easily. The RM8 is a big engine physically!
Don't forget that you probably want something with at least roughly comparable (or better) performance:
Maximum thrust: 72,2kN (16,200 lbf) dry, 125kN (28,100 lbf) wet
Remember that the RM8 is basically just a licensed-built version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D with a Swedish-designed afterburner. BTW, apparently the TF30 ( from F-111, F-14 and A-7 fame) was originally wanted by the Swedes but wasn't available.
Based on published reports (AW&ST, 1967) an afterburning TF41 would do nicely there in both size and power. Both the F100 and F110 are of larger diameter and would be tight fits. If Britain had proceeded with it, an afterburning Medway might have been suitable as ISTR that the dry one was very equivalent to the JT8D (have to wonder if that was the engine Capt. Eddie turned down for the original 727 design, which sent Boeing scurrying and resulted in the JT8D).
-
The overall length given for the RM8 is misleading as that is the length of the engine
plus the separate afterburner and reverser assembly. So any basic engine of roughly
JT8D dimensions is an option.
Evan, as the RB.141 Medway was proposed for the original DH.121 design, it's likely that
it was the 727 engine option Cap turned down. The scaled down RB.163 was developed from
the RB.141 after BOAC panicked and forced the downsizing of the DH.121.
-
The overall length given for the RM8 is misleading as that is the length of the engine
plus the separate afterburner and reverser assembly. So any basic engine of roughly
JT8D dimensions is an option.
True - the basic JT8D lengths range from 120.0" / 3048mm - 154.1" / 3914mm
-
Odd thought for a "simple" RM8 replacement. Since the original RM8 was derived from a comparatively early JT8D, which, in turn, derives from the JT8B/J52, start with the aerodynamics and other improvements of the JT8D-200 series, crop the fan to fit the maximum airflow the Viggen intakes can handle (or can be easily modified to handle), and add the existing RM8 afterburner and thrust reverser.
-
An old one by Chris:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/imagejpg14_zps4a5ec161.jpg)
-
Whats the height of the Viggen with the fin folded?
-
Whats the height of the Viggen with the fin folded?
4.0m...why?
-
The hanger height of Implacable and Indefatigable was 14'. Too close though, as it wouldn't be possible to open the canopy, let alone remove the ejection seat while in the hanger.
-
Vigsader = Viggen-Crusader
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/j37_f8.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/j37_f8.jpg.html)
-
Um, no.
-
Change the layout from canard-delta to tailed-delta.
-
A proposed Post Stall Manoeuvring Viggen development including a model someone created of it.
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/IMG_7349.jpg~original)
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/IMG_7350.jpg~original)
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/IMG_7372.jpg~original)
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/IMG_3881.jpg)
-
That looks very interesting
-
Vigsader = Viggen-Crusader
([url]http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/j37_f8.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/j37_f8.jpg.html[/url])
That looks great!
How about doing the same thing with Phantom wings and tailplanes (flat, not anhedral) since that would give you undercarriage bays in the wing?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n547/CF-101B/Modelling%202016/Viggen-G2-3.jpg)
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n547/CF-101B/Modelling%202016/Viggen-G2-1.jpg)
-
A proposed Post Stall Manoeuvring Viggen development including a model someone created of it.
Um...... rocket-boosted...... :icon_beer:
-
Israeli.
:)
-
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?
-
Desert Viggen anyone? ;)
(https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/10257313_768159743217587_391023395900496002_o.jpg)
-
Interesting...
-
It makes you wonder how an afterburning Medway would have fit.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Vigsader = Viggen-Crusader
([url]http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/j37_f8.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/j37_f8.jpg.html[/url])
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 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-fighter-attack-projects.683/post-5417)
(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/Saab_AJ-3X.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/Saab_AJ-3X.jpeg.html)
... and complement.
(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/SaabMac.jpeg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/SaabMac.jpeg.html)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/9aa/v4.jpg)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/b90/Viggen%204.JPG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/da1/Viggen%207.JPG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/838/Viggen%201.JPG)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e38/01%20J-6100%20Airborne.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/fc4/screen1.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/1ae/SampleImage_01.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/4a4/SampleImage_05.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/ce8/SampleImage_02.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/6cd/SampleImage_06.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/56a/SampleImage_03.jpg)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/443/Screen_170216_145704.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/bf9/Vig-5.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/d83/Vig-3.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/3a0/Vig-6.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/fce/Screen_171206_195149.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/986/Screen_171206_215003.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/4d8/Screen_170714_095425.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/311/Screen_170714_095449.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/58e/Screen_170714_103318.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/97b/Screen_170714_103326.jpg)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/a09/Screen_170624_010449.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/9e3/Screen_170624_010426.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/ccd/Screen_170626_113327.jpg)
-
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/230/1.jpg)
(https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/2c6/2.jpg)
-
^^^^^ Beautiful. :smiley: :icon_alabanza: :icon_alabanza:
-
^^^^^ Beautiful. :smiley: :icon_alabanza: :icon_alabanza:
Any in particular?
-
Every Viggen. :D ;)
-
Saab Jagare (destroyer in Swedish)
(https://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/SaabJagare.jpeg) (https://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/SaabJagare.jpeg.html)
-
Well that has just about covered most scheme options.
Great pixel work
-
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. ;)
-
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".
-
I know other types were in the mix and the Skyhawk won its just an assumption on my part that the Army was already stretching things kicking off in the first place and that even if they got it over the line no way on earth would a foreign type be tolerated.
-
Well, Hawker got a US licensee and I could see SAAB doing the same thing at a later date. Wonder who they would pick?
-
Wouldn't it be the same licensee ? I've read that Hawker (HS) and SAAB were/are closely associated ---
-
Off topic but that's an idea, after the initial comp the Army initiates a more formal one (following the USAFs continuing failure to provide the sort of support the USMC takes for granted), Hawker enters an evolved FGA Hunter and wins. When the Hunter comes due for replacement the Hunter team enters the Viggen.
-
What if a Viggen powered by F100 or F110?
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Saab_AJ-37_F110.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/eb9006bc-1018-4e7c-a826-f8806f2d4ed9)
-
It might be possible (length, weight and thus wise) except the diameter gets in the way - the RM8 is 1.03 m in diameter whereas the F100/F110 have a max diameter of 1.18 m.
-
New canopy and tail fins for Viggen
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Viggen-2000_cs.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/7f42bad9-0ac5-4d90-9ace-7b6ba11824e0)
-
:smiley:
-
Was there another potential turbofan engine that Saab could have included in the Viggen's design, which could have curtailed the issues of its export potential thanks to its use it's American Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine (Volvo RM8)
(P.S. I'm aware of the original favoured turbofan being the Rolls-Royce Medway engine...)
MAD
-
Was there another potential turbofan engine that Saab could have included in the Viggen's design, which could have curtailed the issues of its export potential thanks to its use it's American Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine (Volvo RM8)
(P.S. I'm aware of the original favoured turbofan being the Rolls-Royce Medway engine...)
MAD
Possibly a RR Spey version or TF41? Another that might have happened would have been the P&W F100 but this gets you back to the US issue.
Of course changing from 1 engine to two might have opened up other possibilities.
The Rolls-Royce Olympus was actually proposed as well.
-
A while back there was an article in Air-Britain's AeroMilitaria about alternative power for the Viggen. IIRC, the Spey was a straight swap, the Olympus required a fuselage stretch along with some rear fuselage modifications. The article had some 3-Views of the lot. It was banded because the aircraft was offered to the RAF (IIRC)
A sample pic:
-
Thanks GTX and kitnut627 👍
The RR Spey sounds more straight forward and logical in terms of R&D and engineering. I'd also assume Britain isn't as 'hats on, hats off' geopolitically and commercially like the U.S.....either.
P.S. thanks for the line drawings kitnut617
MAD
-
M.A.D, the information in the article was discovered by the researcher at Kew (National Archives) while he was actually looking for something else.
-
M.A.D, the information in the article was discovered by the researcher at Kew (National Archives) while he was actually looking for something else.
Nice, in which case everyone benefits because of that "something else" 😉👍
MAD
-
Whilst on the topic of the Saab Viggen, does anyone know how many potential Viggen's were part of the Indian Air Force assessment? 🤔
MAD
-
Whilst on the topic of the Saab Viggen, does anyone know how many potential Viggen's were part of the Indian Air Force assessment? 🤔
MAD
I would presume similar numbers as eventually for the Sepecat Jaguars.
-
M.A.D, the information in the article was discovered by the researcher at Kew (National Archives) while he was actually looking for something else.
Nice, in which case everyone benefits because of that "something else" 😉👍
MAD
It seems to be a common theme lately, a story about something appears in Air-Britain came about because it was found in a file box while the researcher was going through it looking for what he was looking for, basically they have to check every bit of paper in each box because it's not in order and the snippet of info isn't on the box contents record sheet.
-
M.A.D, the information in the article was discovered by the researcher at Kew (National Archives) while he was actually looking for something else.
Nice, in which case everyone benefits because of that "something else" 😉👍
MAD
It seems to be a common theme lately, a story about something appears in Air-Britain came about because it was found in a file box while the researcher was going through it looking for what he was looking for, basically they have to check every bit of paper in each box because it's not in order and the snippet of info isn't on the box contents record sheet.
Found another version. Translated from a Swedish book on the Viggen.
(https://i.imgur.com/A9q0ZIJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/TOO0uvO.png)
More information here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/169599-viggen-in-the-raf-its-more-likely-than-you-think
-
M.A.D, the information in the article was discovered by the researcher at Kew (National Archives) while he was actually looking for something else.
Nice find Carl.
I've just been on SPF and there happens to be something added to the Viggen thread there this morning too. I noticed I had made a comment about where the above file was found.
So a correction: it was found at Rolls Royce Heritage Trust Filton by Clive Richards who then passed it on to Tony Buttler, who then published it in the 2016 Summer AeroMilitaria quarterly.
-
:smiley:
Would be interesting to attempt to build the XE-3 version.
-
Would be interesting to attempt to build the XE-3 version.
A couple of Viggen kits mashed together with the back-end of a Tornado perhaps?
-
Would be interesting to attempt to build the XE-3 version.
A couple of Viggen kits mashed together with the back-end of a Tornado perhaps?
I think the rear end of an Arrow would be better. You could even use the air intakes too ---
-
I think the [insert x] of an Arrow would be better...
I think we've got the start of a good, universal macro here ;)
-
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/HornetViggen(1).png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/HornetViggen(1).png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
-
Role for the two seater above: Wild Weasel. Perhaps for service with the French in Africa.
I am thinking similar but just with the Flygvapnet. Maybe base upon the SK 37E variant:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WESVDC7RQT4/WseKk9T8mjI/AAAAAAAAPF8/J4WxDAkZ0RsSeZHJoa12fRsmf2zDzojlwCLcBGAs/s1600/DSC_0269.JPG)
And give it say, two AGM-88 HARMs and two RB 75 (AGM-65 Maverick) plus appropriate EW pods.
-
Tandem fighter/bomber (no training) Viggen
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/ViggenF1.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/ViggenF1.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds")
-
Ooooh... sexy! :-*
-
^^^^^
Thanks!
-
That's very nice.
It now looks like it should have French air force markings on it and French weapons hanging under it.