Author Topic: Apophenia's Offerings  (Read 905827 times)

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2700 on: December 22, 2020, 12:07:20 PM »
Doesn't look silly. Looks pretty cool! 8)
+1

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2701 on: December 26, 2020, 07:59:25 AM »
Thanks guys! But I'm pretty sure that this one is silly ;)

I based this on a wind tunnel model: https://digital.klnpa.org/digital/collection/wcuburke/id/84/

This 1944 photograph was taken by E. Burke Wilford who designed pretty much exclusively for the Pennsylvania Aircraft Syndicate. A number of those designs were based on existing airframes. That said, I fairly sure that this one was just an old wind tunnel model that was kicking around - after all, who'd want to further develop the P-39 in 1944?

Nevertheless, I chose to do my version as an operational type - courtesy of a 1/48 Monogram P-39 built by Scott Van Aken. Wing surfaces have been reduced (as befits a convertiplane, I suppose). The big change was that stoppable (and asymmetrical) rotor blade.

There's no details of how that rotor was supposed to work but it seems to have been some form of tip-jet (with an intake on the short end). So, was the aircraft's engine also meant to act as a gas generator for the rotor? Who knows? What I'd really like to know is how that rotor mast was to be braced to the top of the V-1710. That would been tricky  ;D

I based the reduced wing shape on the wind tunnel model. But inset are original artwork which show some detail differences. The sketch on the right shows square-cut wing surfaces and (possibly) a fixed undercarriage. The 'short' arm of the rotor also looks proportionately shorter. On the sideview (left), the rotor proportions look the same as the wind tunnel model. But, whereas that latter clearly had a P-39 tailplane, the sideview's tail has a revised outline including a forward raking of the fin/rudder which also has a ventral extension. I'm not sure which, if any, of these variants represents a 'final' design.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/wilford-pennsylvania-aircraft-syndicate-projects.21368/#post-416457

________________________

Feliz Navidad folks ... or Happy St Stephen's Day, Date Line depending   :D  :icon_beer:
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2702 on: February 27, 2021, 11:57:21 AM »
I've posted a story I'm calling Senkaku Sentinels - Air War over the East China Sea
-- http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9681.0

But, that won't be everyone's cuppa. So, for those who prefer their profiles 'straight up', here is a Japanese Air Self-Defence Force UCAV (based on surplus USAF F-16A airframes) and a manned development aircraft leading to those UCAVs.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2023, 06:19:33 AM by apophenia »
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2703 on: February 27, 2021, 11:59:04 AM »
This second installment on the Senkaku Sentinels - Air War over the East China Sea thread features different designs.

At the bottom is a post Mid-Life Upgrade Mitsubishi F-2M Kai (which incorporates elements of the earlier A-16AJ UCAV modifications). This F-2M Kai strike fighter is carrying Mitsubishi ASM-3 Kai anti-shipping missiles under its wings.

At the top is the unrealized concept for the Subaru Aerospace AXS UCAV and its dorsally-mounted Kawasaki XASM-5 Kobanzame (Remora) payload. Insets show the operating phases of the Kobanzame anti-shipping missile - top right, the XASM-5 igniting its hybrid rocket booster motor for launch; top left, the Kobanzame in level flight using air-breathing ramjet propulsion and vectoring nozzles for attitude control.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2023, 06:26:07 AM by apophenia »
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2704 on: March 21, 2021, 09:51:18 AM »
This was a notion that came to me for the Scale-o-rama GB ... but it seemed like cheating. So I present it here.
_______________________________

In July 1939, the Air Ministry purchased the experimental Martin-Baker MB.2 prototype. However, it was clear that there would be no further major modifications nor any chance of a production contract for the Napier Dagger-powered fighter. James Martin was encouraged to continue work on his next design - a larger, more powerful fighter with a retractable undercarriage and cannon armament. This fighter was to be powered by the Rolls-Royce Griffon V-12 or Napier Sabre H-24 engine (the Rolls-Royce Vulture X-24 having been quickly rejected). This new MB.3 used typical Martin-Baker construction techniques to ensure ease of production.

With the outbreak of war, the Ministry saw higher value in readily-producable fighters. James Martin was ordered to rescale his MB.3 design for the available Rolls-Royce Merlin engine. [1] No longer an experimental, technology demonstrator, the revised MB.3 was to be a full production 'emergency fighter'. The initial concept was quickly redrawn to approximately 70% of the original size. As per Ministry orders, the cockpit incorporated the canopy of the Supermarine Spitfire. The engine cowling was also loosely based upon that in-service fighter. The rest of the design was entirely original - including the triangular fin-and-rudder reluctantly accepted by James Martin.

Armament for this new MB.3B was to be the four 20 mm Oerlikon cannons planned for the revised MB.2 prototype. This concept was accepted by the AM and Ministry of Aircraft Production as the Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.I 'emergency fighter' [2] and ordered into immediate production under the 'Shadow Factory' scheme. Almost at once, production plans hit a snag - there were only small numbers of Oerlikon aircraft cannons available (with priority being given to naval AA gun production). Accordingly, the cannon-armed Buzzard Mk.I was passed over in favour of machine gun-armed Buzzard Mk.IIs.

The Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.II was armed with a dozen .303-inch Browning guns firing outside the propeller arc. Alas, there were even shortages of Browning machine guns at the height of the Battle of Britain. As such, production was quickly shifted to the eight-gunned Buzzard Mk.IIA. The first Mk.IIAs (including some Buzzard Mk.II adaptations) entered service with No.238 Squadron at RAF Middle Wallop at the beginning of November 1940. [3]

Bottom Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.IIA eight-gunned fighter newly-delivered to No.238 Squadron RAF at Middle Wallop, early December 1940.

Ordered straight off the drawing board, the Buzzard had no prototype as such. Several of the early production Buzzard Mk.IIs remained with the RAF's Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down. Another 'non-standard' Buzzard Mk.II, R2494, was returned to the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company for experimental and development purposes. One change introduced was a revised, Martin patented cockpit hood. Slightly larger than the Spitfire-style canopy, it slid open and closed in a similar manner. However, frame for the sliding hood and 'quarter light' panels also had a pivot point at the extreme rear. In an emergency, the entire hood could be ejected by the pilot to simplify bailing out.

With its revised canopy, R2494 was intended to act as a prototype Buzzard Mk.III. However, that machine gun-armed variant was passed over for the Oerlikon-armed Buzzard Mk.IV. The Mk.IV entered service with No.174 Squadron which had formed on Hurricanes at RAF Manston on 03 March 1942. The Buzzard Mk.IVs arrived in time to participate in the raid on Dieppe in August 1942. In September and October of 1942, most of No.174's Buzzards were fitted with bomb racks to prove the type as a fighter-bomber.

Top Martin-Baker Buzzard Mk.IV of No.174 Squadron at RAF Manston during the Dieppe raid. Note that, at this stage, AA436 has yet to be fitted with its belly bomb rack.

________________________________________

[1] Ironically, it had been the Rolls-Royce Merlin that James Martin had wanted for his MB.2 fighter. At the time, no Merlins could be spared for an experimental fighter. Now the engines unavailable to Martin-Baker were first the Rolls-Royce Griffon and then the delayed Napier Sabre II.

[2] This name originated with the Air Ministry not with Martin-Baker. Although it has never been officially confirmed, it is believed that the popular name was prompted by the Martinsyde F.4 Buzzard fighter of WW1.

[3] No.238 Squadron had been reformed at RAF Tangmere on 16 May 1940. It became operational on Hawker Hurricanes from RAF Middle Wallop in July 1940 before transitioning to the Buzzard Mk.IIA.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2705 on: March 25, 2021, 03:54:06 AM »
Intriguing.  :smiley:

70% size seems very small as that'd be a roughly 24' 9" span and 24' 6"
length.

The MB 2 was almost the same size as MB 3; 34' span, 34' 9" length vs.
35' 4" span, 35' length. The Spitfire is 36' 10" span, 29' 11" length, and
the Miles M.20 was pretty much Spitfire size.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2706 on: March 26, 2021, 03:26:00 AM »
Thanks Jon. You're probably right about excessive scaling. I had a span of 7.54 m (24.73 feet) and length of 7.48 m (24.54 feet) ... the nose of my Buzzard being slightly longer than a purely scaled MB.3.

Partly, I may have overemphasized the scale-o-rama. But I was also trying to maintain the brutish appeal of the RW MB.3. I probably should have made an exception for the cowling (for example, were the cowling made more tapered, I could have gone with an 80-85% scaling).

One thing that struck me in numbers scaling was the wing area. The RW area was 262 sq ft (24.3 m2). So, at 70%, that becomes 183.4 sq ft (17.04 m2) ... which actually compares rather nicely with the opposing Bf 109E's 174 sq ft (16.7 m2).
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2707 on: March 26, 2021, 03:46:57 AM »
One thing that struck me in numbers scaling was the wing area. The RW area was 262 sq ft (24.3 m2). So, at 70%, that becomes 183.4 sq ft (17.04 m2) ... which actually compares rather nicely with the opposing Bf 109E's 174 sq ft (16.7 m2).

I may be wrong, but I don't think the reduced area would be 70% of the original number.

A rectangle measuring 5 X 3 has an area of 15; 15 X .70 = 10.5

however going back to the original dimensions of 5 X 3:
5 X .70 = 3.5; 3 X .70 = 2.1; 3.5 X 2.1 = 7.35
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2708 on: March 27, 2021, 07:13:53 AM »
Thanks Jon. Alas, I think I've just created the Martin-Baker Emu! It may look imposing but is incapable of flight  :-[
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2709 on: March 27, 2021, 11:04:31 AM »
Thanks Jon. Alas, I think I've just created the Martin-Baker Emu! It may look imposing but is incapable of flight  :-[

The wing area would be 128.38 ft2(11.93 m2).

So about 49% of the original.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2710 on: March 27, 2021, 11:13:18 AM »
I think a span of around 27' would be in the 184 ft2 neighbourhood.  :smiley:
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2711 on: March 28, 2021, 04:39:40 PM »
Basic area scaling equation:

Given a rectangle of x x y dimensions at 1:1 scale,
Then modifying it to 1:a scale is;

(1/a x x) x (1/a x y)

= 1/2a x x x y

= x x y
    2a


So, for example, a rectangle of 10m x 5m = 50m2 at 1:1 scale
Therefore at 1:2 scale we get;

(1/2 x 10)m x (1/2 x 5)m
= (1/(2 x 2)) x 10m x 5m
= 1/4 x 50m2
= 12.5m2
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2712 on: April 02, 2021, 03:17:49 AM »
 :o  What is straightforward and comforting for one, instills befuddlement and panic in another!

My new formula is: (d/t x e) ~ (Sc/a) = a

or: (don't) x ever (Scale) area = again !
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2713 on: April 12, 2021, 08:53:00 AM »
Another stab at using the MB.3 ... kind of (but, this time, no scaling!).
______________________________________________

'The Hucclecote Horror' - Hawker Typhoon F.Mk.X

On 27 March 1942, deputy-chief test pilot Michael Daunt was above rural Gloucestershire, 'wringing out' R7625, a Gloster-built Typhoon IA. It was a fine day and the test flight was going well until the Napier Sabre's high-pitched scream abruptly cut out. With its engine seized, Daunt dropped his powerless 'Tiffie' down for a belly-landing in a field outside of Gloucester. Unfortunately, the crippled fighter passed between two mature trees which swept the thick wings from the Typhoon. Those shorn remains were later collected and carted back to the Gloster Aeroplane Co. at Hucclecote.

Glosters were instructed to rebuild Typhoon R7625 in preparation for a new type of wing. The damaged fuselage centre section tubing was both repaired and adjusted for revised wing attachment points. The ruined wings were then replaced with experimental panels supplied by the Martin-Baker Aircraft Company. These wings - originally intended for a new Martin-Baker fighter design - were considerably thinner in profile than the Hawker originals. It was hoped that, along with strengthening of the tail section join, the Typhoon's structural problems would be resolved.

The resulting prototype conversion was designated Hawker Typhoon Mk.X. After trucking to Brockworth Aerodrome, the revised airframe was re-assembled for flight on 14 May. Taken aloft by Gloster's chief test pilot - F/O Gerry Saye - the revised fighter suffered none of the Typhoon Mk.IA's 'flutter' problems. However, the Sabre engine still gave more than its share of trouble. Saye brought R7625 back to Brockworth with smoke issuing from the cowling. Another Sabre with foaming oil and prematurely-worn sleeve-valves! Still, the airframe conversion could be declared a success.

Gloster Aeroplane Co. assembled remaining wing components into Typhoon Mk.IAs while tooling at Hucclecote was switched over to the Martin-Baker designed wing. Back at the parent firm Hawker's Kingston design office, the modified Typhoon Mk.X was derided as 'the Hucclecote Horror'. Under Sir Sydney Camm, a new 'Thin-Wing Typhoon' concept was already being designed. But Gloster's 'Horror' was a bird-in-hand. And, in any case, Glosters was acting under direct instruction from the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Meanwile, R7625 had been brought up to Typhoon Mk.XA standards by the installation of a wing armament of four 20 mm British Hispano cannons.

The rest, as they say, is history ...
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2714 on: April 14, 2021, 11:03:25 AM »
In the Autumn of 1942, Republic Aviation was informed that the Army Air Force was no longer interested in the firm's latest fighter design. Chief designer, Alexander Kartveli, had designed the AP-18 fighter to meet the USAAF's Type Specification XC-622 for a high-altitude pursuit. But the resulting AP-18 -  tentatively designated XP-69 by the military - was a very large and complex design. [1] With America's entry into WW2, it had become apparent that it would take too long to develop the AP-18. Instead, the USAAF elected to focus on developments of Republic's existing P-47 Thunderbolt turbocharged pursuit. The AP-18/XP-69 was dropped.

The military designation for the abandoned AP-18 was shifted to a new design - the AP-21 low-altitude fighter-bomber. For this new XP-69A, the USAAF envisioned a P-47 derivative optimized for low-level work. But Alex Kartveli knew that the Thunderbolt's fuselage had effectively been designed around the P-47's massive turbocharger system and its bulky duct work. Instead, he proposed a heavily revised design using only the wings and tailplane of the Thunderbolt. This was agreed to by the USAAF and detail designs were drawn up. Kartveli and his assistant, Murray Burkow, produced an initial AP-21 design by March of 1942. It was effectively a 'turbo-less' Thunderbolt with large fuel tanks in the rear fuselage.

After review, a USAAF panel recommended a smaller, lighter airframe. Another suggestion was shifting from the high-demand Pratt & Whitney R-2800 to the Napier Sabre H-24 engine which was just about to enter production in the US. [2] Most of that Sabre production was for British end-use but the USAAF also saw an opportunity to take some pressure off of Pratt & Whitney. The scale of Kartveli's revised AP-21B was reduced by eliminating the wing fuselage attachments and simply joining the wing panels along the fuselage centreline. The tailplane remained standard P-47 components but the fuselage was redesigned to both shorten its length and accommodate the new, liquid-cooled powerplant. This AP-21B design was accepted for service as the P-69A Reaper.

Bottom Republic XP-69A Reaper prototype (AP-21B-01) when employed on USAAF armaments tests at Wright Field in late September 1942.

The first Republic XP-69A prototype was completed in late August 1942, flying from East Farmingdale, NY, on the power of an imported Napier Sabre IA. Production US H-2240-NK-1 'Saber' engines were not received from makers Nash Kelvinator until the middle of September. Because of the re-use of some Thunderbolt parts and components, production was acheived quickly but, due to P-47 priority, most of the early model P-69 Reapers were actually license-built by Curtiss in Buffalo, NY. The majority of Republic-built P-69As went to the Army Air Corps as trials aircraft. No cannon-armed P-69B-RE-2 Reaper would ever be completed.

The first service Reapers were P-69C-CU-4 models armed with an M4 37 mm Automatic Gun and a .50-cal Browning machine gun in each wing. The latter had 320 rounds per gun, the cannons only 40 rpg. The 37 mm cannon was potentially hard-hitting but its rounds had a totally different trajectory from the .50-calibre machine guns (complicating aiming). In the field, results with the P-69Cs were indifferent. Some units swore by the autocannons, others replaced the big guns with 20 mm British Hispanos where available. At home, production quickly shifted to the P-69D-RE-6 and Curtiss-built P-69G-CU-8 - both eight-gunned fighters powered by 2,250 hp Nash Kelvinator H-2240-NK-3 Sabers.

Top A UK-based Curtiss-built P-69C-CU-1 Reaper armed with twin 37 mm Automatic Gun, M4 cannons. The RAF-style yellow surround to the fuselage star was a recognition feature. The Insignia Yellow swastika markings on the forward fuselage represent ground attack missions (rather than aircraft 'kill' markings).

__________________________________________

[1] The AP-18/XP-69 was to be an enormous fighter - 15.70 m long, with a 15.75 m wingspan. A 2,500 hp Wright R-2160-3 Tornado - a 7-bank, 42-cylinder engine - would drive contra-rotating propellers. Empty weight was to be half again that of the Thunderbolt.

[2] When Napiers ecountered problems producing Sabre sleeve valves, several US Sundstrand centreless grinders were diverted to the UK. All of these high-value machines were lost to U-Boats. It was then decided to simply machine and harden the Napier sleeves in the US. Eventually, that scheme escalated to full-scale production of the Napier engines in Detroit.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2715 on: April 16, 2021, 06:45:27 AM »
A last kick at a Sabre-engined Thunderbolt derivative ...

Top Republic Reaper F.Mk.III prototype under test at Boscombe Down. This one-off was testing a Typhoon-style rear-vision quarterlight and Malcolm canopy. The improved rearview was welcomed by test pilots, the sideways-hinged Malcolm hood was not.

This aircraft has factory-applied paintwork - with an abnormally wide rear 'Sky' band and camouflage polished to an 'RAF Fighter Finish' (the latter hardly being representative of frontline conditions).

Bottom Republic P-69E-CU-11 Reaper of the 81st Fighter Squadron. The P-69E introduced a sliding Malcolm-type hood and improved review panel. Like the preceeding P-69Ds, all 'E models were delivered with a 'natural metal' finish.

42-9336 has a freshly-applied OD anti-glare panel (likely replacing its Bronze Green original). The 'Down Lo' & Dirty' personal emblem also looks new but the 78th Fighter Group 'checkerboard' motiv has been somewhat spoiled by a replacement lower-cowl panel. 'Down Lo' & Dirty' carries twin 500 lb AN/M64 GP bombs on its underwing racks.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2716 on: April 16, 2021, 05:35:25 PM »
I like the latter two! 8) :smiley:
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2717 on: April 18, 2021, 01:32:11 AM »
Love the Reapers!

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2718 on: April 18, 2021, 03:10:43 AM »
Thanks folks!

Ever wondered what a Mustang would look like fitted with a Sabre? A bit porky, as it turns out  :o

I deepened the fuselage (except for the separate aft, tail section), enlarged the radiator bath and fin, and fitted a P-47-style height-increasing telescoping main gear. But, otherwise, the NA-73X remains unchanged.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2719 on: April 18, 2021, 03:47:00 AM »
I would imagine that the Napier Sabre fitted into an XP-72 airframe would look really good.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2720 on: April 18, 2021, 05:29:42 AM »
Thanks Robert ... that (and the XP-47H) was the general vibe I was going for with that deep radiator  :smiley:
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Small brown dog

  • Dwelling too long on the practicalities of such things can drive you mad.
  • Yappity woof grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2721 on: April 18, 2021, 05:04:23 PM »
That P69 concept is really hot.
I might be troubling you for permission to do something in 3D.
Its not that its not real but it could be that its not true.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2722 on: April 28, 2021, 10:09:58 AM »
... I might be troubling you for permission to do something in 3D.


Cool! Cheers SBD  :smiley:

Elsewhere, dy031101 was talking about bizjets as possible stand-in interceptors. The idea was for the ROCAF to use lower-performance aircraft to take the stain of frequent intercept missions off of Taiwan's frontline fighters. The 'targets' would be PRC Shaanxi Y-8s recce aircraft and Xian H-6 bombers.

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=3668.50#msg183874

I'd already been pondering the 'bizet-to-beer cans' fate of the early generation Learjets. Mightn't those airframes provide a cheap-and-cheerful option? Sure, the early Learjets are old, noisy, and fuel-hungry. But so too are the ROCAF's aging fleet of Northrop F-5Es.

I mention the Tiger IIs because their J85 turbojets are really just afterburning CJ610s. So, there's an element of engine commonality between the F-5Es and early-model Learjets.

So, here is a conceptual ROCAF Learjet 24 which I'm calling the 'Lier Lánjié Ji' (or 'Lear interceptor Aircraft' if Google Translate is believed). This aircraft has a crew of two - pilot in the cockpit [1] and a radar-operator in the cabin. The aircraft was twin underwing pylons, here mounting R.550 Magic II missiles.

The radar is mounted in the nose of the portside wing tip tank - inspired by the radar installation in Japan's U-36A. The set is a Thales RDY-2 as used by the ROCAF's Mirage 2000-5. The RDY-2 was chosen primarily for is size - ~500 mm - which happens to fit nicely into the tip tank (diameter 600 mm). [2]

_______________________________

[1] I am aware that, under FAR Part 25, the Learjet 24 didn't qualify as a single-pilot aircraft. However, the lighter Learjet 23 did. The ROCAF mightn't care if the aircraft met civil standards but, here, I'm assuming a reduction to Learjet 23 weights - by stripping out bizjet accommodations and frills.

[2] dy031101 mentioned possible "surplus APG-66V(3)" radars. Alas, those measure ~660 mm which would necessitate bulging the tip tank structure.
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2723 on: April 28, 2021, 12:11:27 PM »
Engine commonality between the F-5E and Learjets covers all the 20-series Learjets.  It would cost a bit more, but the Learjet wing could be modified to take up to six underwing pylons (I've seen concepts from their AD folks - and this was long ago).  One other thought, if you have radar in one enlarged tip tank nose, you could put EO capability in the other.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Apophenia's Offerings
« Reply #2724 on: April 29, 2021, 07:57:39 AM »
Engine commonality between the F-5E and Learjets covers all the 20-series Learjets.  It would cost a bit more, but the Learjet wing could be modified to take up to six underwing pylons (I've seen concepts from their AD folks - and this was long ago).  One other thought, if you have radar in one enlarged tip tank nose, you could put EO capability in the other.

Thanks Evan. I was hoping that you'd weigh in  :smiley:

I was wondering how to balance the tip tanks and was thinking ICM. But an EO turret would widen the number of roles you could undertake.

Out of curiosity, what happens (aerodynamically) if you replaced those wingtip tanks with missile rails (à la the F-104). I'm thinking that there's now plenty of room in the fuselage for fuel tanks.

I'm seeing the ROCAF underwing armament as more of a "We could if we wanted to" deterrent. But Taiwan's situation may be unique. Lots of other, smaller air forces could benefit from those extra pylons  :smiley:
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."