Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: Nexus1171 on September 27, 2013, 09:41:57 AM
-
I'm wondering if it would have been possible to have with the technology available at the time to have produced a VFX contender that could meet all the specs and avoid a swing-wing?
Swing wings often add excess weight which reduces the T/W ratio of the aircraft: Though their wings produce very high L/D ratios and allow lower fuel-fractions to do the job (and saving weight there); a high fuel fraction means a greater spread in weight from takeoff to combat weight. This in turn allows a pretty high T/W ratio at combat weight (I'm kind of surprised come to think of it that the USAF didn't factor that in when they designed long range escorts)
Admittedly the F-14 did have impressive performance capability provided it was fitted with the intended engine it was supposed to have
- Almost as fast as a MiG-25, and almost as fast as the design limit for the F-15A (VMax off)
- Greater range, endurance and subsonic cruising radius on internal fuel with probably a greater load
- Superior intercept radius (supersonic out, go subsonic, possibly sit there 15 minutes; then cruise back subsonic) to the F-15 at some loads
- Superior instantaneous agility in pitch
- Sustained agility was superior at lower speeds and altitudes than the F-15, at supersonic speeds; the F-15 was superior at high subsonic speeds and at altitude (middle-speed range, and at altitude)
- Higher alpha capability
That engine was however cancelled. Still, the aircraft wasn't totally unimpressive.
Consider, however the following facts and knowledge that existed as of 1968
- Certain materials already existed when coupled with good engineering techniques could produce a remarkably strong aircraft that was still light (The F-8, for example was quite light, even more so than the F-100)
- Fly by wire coupled with stability augmentation did exist: The Canadians had already employed it back in the late 1950's with their CF-105 Arrow: This could increase cruise-efficiency and improve low speed handling characteristics so long as it works
- The knowledge of blending the wing and body together, as well as blending the wing-spars with the structural frames already existed and would allow more strength for the same weight
- Leading-root extensions were already employed on planes like the Saab J-35, and the F-5: Not only did it increase high alpha performance, sometimes directional characteristics; it also did something else -- they could be shaped so as to produce significant amounts of lift while supersonic mitigating the shift in the C/P
- Double-droop leading-edge flaps already existed: They were used on the XF8U-3 to allow improved low-speed handling and maneuverability; the Boeing 2707-100/-200 SST even used a droop on the leading-edge slat (it's like a slat with additional curve)
- Flap shrouds also existed: They were actually also proposed for the Boeing 2707-100 SST to effectively improve the double-slotted flaps they used
- Close-coupled canards also were used on the Saab J-37 Viggen (1967)
-
A Monogram F-14A was purchased some time back for the specific purpose of converting it to the fixed-wing proposal. Being the slow building tease that I am, the kit lives unbuilt in a home storage box. ;D
I like your idea. :)
-
Daryl J.
1.) I didn't know somebody else thought about this idea. When you get around to it, I think everybody would love to see it
2.) The idea I was thinking of went well beyond just a Grumman 303 with fixed wings: It was basically a plane that would meet the VFX requirements with the technology of the era. It could be built by any contender (technically even one that did not submit a design -- i.e. Northrop).
3.) I'd thought of an idea awhile back which was sort of also bolstered by 3 designs I saw online
- A: Venom800TT's RB-7A Phoenix (http://venom800tt.deviantart.com/art/RB-7A-Phoenix-WIP-01-196394370) design
- B: Jose F's F-32E Silent Shooter
- C: LEGO's JAST
-
With the tech of the period, if you don't go swing-wing you'll probably be forced to
go with some form of blown flying surfaces. Take a look at the Buccaneer and TSR 2.
-
With the tech of the period, if you don't go swing-wing you'll probably be forced to
go with some form of blown flying surfaces. Take a look at the Buccaneer and TSR 2.
Or RA-5C. Hmm, wonder how a RA-5C derivative with shorter span - larger chord wing (say, something along the lines of a F-15 or Grumman Model 303E (if memory serves me correctly) would do in this role? You could carry conformal missiles and streamline the IRST/TCS/whatever pod much as the NAR-349 did.
-
Just to add food for thought, one of the competitors for VFX was fixed-wing, the North American-Rockwell NAR-323.
-
elmayerle
As I understand it, the RA-5C wasn't stressed for the g-loads desired for an air-superiority fighter...
Talos
It wasn't a bad looking aircraft but according to what was stated it didn't meet the specifications demanded of it.
-
Talos
It wasn't a bad looking aircraft but according to what was stated it didn't meet the specifications demanded of it.
Pretty much, though as there was never any finalized design and prototype, more accurately they had doubts that it would be able to meet specs on a wing like that (which, incidentally, has a similar style to NAR's FX entry too) http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,519.msg149960.html#msg149960 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,519.msg149960.html#msg149960)
-
Talos
I wouldn't be surprised if the Navy had a bias against it truthfully, bit I didn't want to say it until somebody else did.
I'm wondering what your opinion of a design like the following would fare from a realistic, non-biased perspective
Image Courtesy of Jose F
(http://i42.tinypic.com/a24tcj.jpg)
- Wing Shape, Intake and Tunnel Shape
- No stealth shapes
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2qu85di.jpg)
Image Courtesy of Venom 800TT
(http://i40.tinypic.com/2mcugyr.jpg)
- Wing shape
- Intake position
[/list]
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Navy had a bias against it truthfully, bit I didn't want to say it until somebody else did.
Where exactly does Sean (aka Talos) say that the Navy had a bias against a fixed wing?
-
I'm wondering if it would have been possible to have with the technology available at the time to have produced a VFX contender that could meet all the specs and avoid a swing-wing?
Well given that they didn't (and rest assured, the designers/program managers at the time were a lot smarter than a bunch of modellers/profilers/enthusiasts), the answer is pretty obvious.
Moreover, even if theoretically possible, the fact that they chose the VG solutions shows that the supposed disadvantages of the VG wing were more than acceptable in that they still produced the best designs. Remember after all that Grumman did consider the fixed wing solution with the Model 303F and yet decided against it in the final production F-14...
-
3.) I'd thought of an idea awhile back which was sort of also bolstered by 3 designs I saw online
- A: Venom800TT's RB-7A Phoenix ([url]http://venom800tt.deviantart.com/art/RB-7A-Phoenix-WIP-01-196394370[/url]) design
- B: Jose F's F-32E Silent Shooter
- C: LEGO's JAST
Surely it would be useful to post images of the designs you are talking about if you are going to reference them?!
-
As I understand it, the RA-5C wasn't stressed for the g-loads desired for an air-superiority fighter...
If one were designing such a creation as Evan has suggested than it could be...
-
GTX_Admin
Where exactly does Sean (aka Talos) say that the Navy had a bias against a fixed wing?
Technically he said they had doubts. I don't suppose that makes for a bias, but they would probably scrutinize a fixed-wing design more than a swing-wing design.
Surely it would be useful to post images of the designs you are talking about if you are going to reference them?!
I did post the reference images (reply 8)
-
Where exactly does Sean (aka Talos) say that the Navy had a bias against a fixed wing?
Technically he said they had doubts. I don't suppose that makes for a bias, but they would probably scrutinize a fixed-wing design more than a swing-wing design.
Define "they" - USN or Companies?
-
GTX
USN
-
Your assumption. Is that what Sean meant though?