they be building it now
looking at that cross section built so far, it looks like it could potentially hold one center bay with 2 missiles or 3
Looks like the final version would have a larger canopy compared to the mock up
such a baby of an aircraft compared to the huge fighter bombers like J-20
It's a technology demonstrator, not a fighter. It isn't for any kind of defence, & it certainly won't be carrier capable.
A real fighter developed from it would probably be bigger, though not necessarily in the F-22/T-50/J-20 size class.
Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
This is slightly off-topic but it does have to do with single versus twin engine abilities.
Why are you guys comparing airframes ? They are built to accomodate specific operational requirements for a give threat and era. A comparison of F-106 amd MiG-31 doesn't make any sensel.
Compare the engine or engines alone of equal technology.
A single engine will have a given frontal cross-sectional area for a given thrust and fuel use. This area determines frontal area and finesse ratio of the aircraft.
To get double the thrust you can either double the engines, giving double the frontal cross sectional area and the resulting drag increase to the airframe because of 'boxier' cross section , or increase the diameter of the engine by 1.4 times. This will also double the frontal cross sectional area but will lead to a lower increase in drag because there will be less effect on the finesse ratio.
All things being equal I would suggest that speed and efficiency are best acheived with a single engine, but if you are carrying stores ( internal bay ) or using the body as a lifting surface the twin engined 'boxier' body may be better suited.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)