Author Topic: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk Ideas and Inspiration (Read 138351 times)

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #75 on:** August 04, 2013, 04:50:26 AM »

Its a fake, but still might get some heart beating faster...

Click on it to see larger view

Scooterman · « **Reply #76 on:** August 04, 2013, 07:23:41 AM »

WHIFGASM!

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #77 on:** August 04, 2013, 08:09:24 AM »

I thought you might approve...

Geoff · « **Reply #78 on:** August 04, 2013, 05:00:26 PM »

OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damian · « **Reply #79 on:** August 04, 2013, 05:42:53 PM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on August 04, 2013, 04:50:26 AM

Its a fake, but still might get some heart beating faster...

Click on it to see larger view

*right click, save* guess whcih will be the next profile?

elmayerle · « **Reply #80 on:** August 05, 2013, 06:07:43 AM »

Very nice, but it looks like he's still got a diverter plate on it instead of going with a diverterless intake like the F-35 and others have.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #81 on:** August 10, 2013, 05:56:01 AM »

A different sort of Skyhawk...

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #82 on:** August 10, 2013, 05:56:35 AM »

I wonder...could we do a VTOL or STOVL AV-4 Skyhawk?

Weaver · « **Reply #83 on:** August 10, 2013, 06:42:04 PM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on August 10, 2013, 05:56:35 AM

I wonder...could we do a VTOL or STOVL AV-4 Skyhawk?

Might it be possible to rotate the centre fuselage 180 deg to get a high wing, giving space for a Harrier-style engine?

Alternatively/easier, could you graft an A-4's forward fuselage, wings and tail surfaces onto a Harrier to get much the same effect.

For STOL, how about a terminating the fuselage with a 2D vectoring nozzle level with the wing trailing edge than having a twin-boom back end?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #84 on:** August 11, 2013, 03:20:46 AM »

What if one took a two seat variant and turned the rear seat into an engine bay with say 1 or 2 small lift jets mounted Yak-38 style and then also give the standard J-52 the tilting exhaust of the original A-6 (see below)?

This wouldn't be VTOL necessarily but one could potentially get a credible Super STOL version.

Daryl J. · « **Reply #85 on:** August 11, 2013, 12:07:22 PM »

As little as the Skyhawk is, wouldn't a ZELL system work for non-Navy service?

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #86 on:** August 11, 2013, 12:11:55 PM »

That's just taking the easy way out...

elmayerle · « **Reply #87 on:** August 11, 2013, 12:15:33 PM »

Only problem with extra lift engines in place of the aft cockpit of a two-seat A-4 is that they are going to guzzle fuel and you'd almost have to do an inflight refueling soon after takeoff. I could see canards and a deflecting tailpipe for stol operations but you'd need a larger airframe for vstol operations.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #88 on:** August 11, 2013, 12:40:29 PM »

There you go again with your practicality...

You are right though. Maybe give it permanent external tanks...or also designate it a NASA trial.

Old Wombat · « **Reply #89 on:** August 11, 2013, 12:47:35 PM »

Integrated wing tanks similar to the Bucc?

Or conformal tanks like the F-16?

$:-\$

Guy

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #90 on:** August 11, 2013, 12:50:54 PM »

I was thinking underwing jugs like the Skyhawk

...just permanently fitted:

elmayerle · « **Reply #91 on:** August 11, 2013, 01:38:43 PM »

I like the idea of a NASA testbed aircraft and if you're using lift engines, I'd be tempted to go with the conformal tanks as the underwing tanks are going to catch quite a thermal load close to the ground. On the other hand, replace the J52 with a suitably more powerful core and use two shaft-driven liftfans sized to fit that area (say, a flying technology testbed for the X-35/F-35 effort).

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #92 on:** August 11, 2013, 01:40:39 PM »

I like. Maybe a F414 in non after burning config.

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #93 on:** August 11, 2013, 01:42:46 PM »

Maybe move the tanks to an overwing station?

elmayerle · « **Reply #94 on:** August 11, 2013, 01:46:25 PM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on August 11, 2013, 01:42:46 PM

Maybe move the tanks to am overwing station?

That'd work.

elmayerle · « **Reply #95 on:** August 11, 2013, 01:47:59 PM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on August 11, 2013, 01:40:39 PM

I like. Maybe a F414 in non after burning config.

I was thinking of a straight turbojet version of the F118 core to insure adequate power for the fans.

finsrin · « **Reply #96 on:** August 11, 2013, 01:50:13 PM »

First impression is incease tank size to be pontoons for Skyhawk seaplane.

Old Wombat · « **Reply #97 on:** August 11, 2013, 02:01:55 PM »

Quote from: finsrin on August 11, 2013, 01:50:13 PM

First impression is incease tank size to be pontoons for Skyhawk seaplane.

VTOL seaplane? $:-\$

I prefer the conformal tank option with a modified intake layout & an avionics hump for all the displaced internal electronics. Gives more fuel but leaves hardpoints available for ordnance & creates less drag.

:)

Guy

Weaver · « **Reply #98 on:** August 11, 2013, 04:53:03 PM »

If it's going to be a NASA test bed, rather than a service aircraft, why not just stretch it? Put a plug in behind the cockpit with lift fans/engines*, and a plug behind the engine core that puts a clang-box thrust deflector in the jet pipe. Have the bottom/inside surface of the wing tanks covered with that "pebble-dash" coating they put on USN bombs to make them more fire-resistant. It'd be draggy as hell, but it's only a testbed, right?

* You could used the lift fans/nozzles that you liberated when making an ArtModel MiG-23PD non-STOL, of course....

Volkodav · « **Reply #99 on:** August 11, 2013, 05:26:04 PM »

Why not a twin engine variant with the tilting exhausts and lift engines between the air intakes behind the cockpit for STOVL and extra fuel instead of lift jets for the CTOL. I imagine a rear fuselage profile similar to the F-5 series.


Swords to Plowshares GB Now Open!!

News:

Author Topic: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk Ideas and Inspiration (Read 138351 times)