Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 26 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 753

Thread: Size of the new 5th gen fighters...too big !?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347

    Cool Size of the new 5th gen fighters...too big !?

    Howdy !

    I have on finnish defence site developed as a hobby base this what I call 6th generation fighter.

    I call it Gekko and now later Velociraptor.

    More about it on my blog.

    It has only 7.2 kN jet engine...but in addition 2 x 18 kN rocket engines.

    J-20 for isntance is 7.26 times larger. I was able to fit 4 x MBDA MICA missiles in this concealed. Power vise it needs just 49.5 kN to be even with J-20.

    Ask me more if interested.

    rgds,


    Juke
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	gekko_model_s.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	22.9 KB 
ID:	213166   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	100JETS80.jpg 
Views:	417 
Size:	209.6 KB 
ID:	213167   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gekko-J-20_65.jpg 
Views:	321 
Size:	134.1 KB 
ID:	213168  
    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 13:02.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Wing shape is close to F-16 XL.

    It is called cranked arrow delta wing.

    Some other comparisons added.

    Frontal area is 16.5 % smaller than on a Folland Gnat that went supersonic in a dive ( level mach 0.98 ).

    It has more than half less frontal with Me-109 and Bell X-1 ( that went mach 2.25 in 27 km ).
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gekko_F-106_60.jpg 
Views:	124 
Size:	96.0 KB 
ID:	213170   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	VR_MT_9.jpg 
Views:	113 
Size:	106.1 KB 
ID:	213171   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gekko-MIG-29_55.jpg 
Views:	144 
Size:	89.3 KB 
ID:	213172   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gekko12vs_F16XL2.jpg 
Views:	151 
Size:	88.5 KB 
ID:	213173  
    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 13:18.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    I can envision something like this for future air-defence purposes for small nations. Unmanned, passive sensors only, using datalinks to coordinate with ground-based defences. I think the loadout of 3-4 MICA-class AAMs is about right also. Compared to purely ground-based air defence network you get eyes in the sky, plus mobility to engage and pursue targets outside SAM envelope.
    Last edited by Rii; 3rd April 2013 at 13:42.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    some of the problems with your fighter would be:

    - high approach speed due to the wing planform
    - lateral stability issues due to the same reason
    - low fuel capacity due to midget size (basically, you'll be bingo fuel when reaching about 2-3rds of your take off runway, or almost...)
    - rocket engines will be dead weight once used
    - little space left for electronics onboard (and you'll need lots of these in the future)
    - etc...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    +1 with Rii...

    a drone for point defence may use similar formula, as you'd save cockpit space for other useful stuff, yet, you'd need to recover it somehow

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347

    Talking ...no shots on goal !

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    some of the problems with your fighter would be:

    - high approach speed due to the wing planform
    - lateral stability issues due to the same reason
    - low fuel capacity due to midget size (basically, you'll be bingo fuel when reaching about 2-3rds of your take off runway, or almost...)
    - rocket engines will be dead weight once used
    - little space left for electronics onboard (and you'll need lots of these in the future)
    - etc...
    I agree it has speedy planform...but it is overwinged...it has only 170 kg/m2 wingloading with still punch capability.

    The model seemed to be very stable.

    Small size does not mean bingo on the runway..since the cruise engine burns only 380 liters / hour ! Compare to 50 000 liters / hr for JSF F-35 on AB.

    I agree rockets engines are dead after the plane has reached 98 000 ft altitude ( in 2 minutes )..from where it can glide 600 km !

    Buzz and Neil needed a computer size of a modern Ti-35 pocket calculator to go to moon.

    So it was a good try..but no hits this time.

    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 14:48.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    I can envision something like this for future air-defence purposes for small nations.
    I also see this as the only AC that we need in current situation...this can meet an MIG-31 with 10 000 meters altitude advantage and 0.5 mach speed advantage.

    This fits APG-67 radar...and this is supercruise AC with the smallest ever turbofan.

    Furthermore..it has 1/5th frontal area ( RCS must be less than a pin head ) of the F-22.

    --

    Folland Gnat may have been a tad smaller overall.

    Undeveloped version of VELOCIRAPTOR below.

    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 15:13.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    er, did you try to maneuver your model? for going straight and fast it's a fine shape (the X-47 had a similar one), but once you start trying to turn sharply you'll have problems. Besides, the wingload we talk about is nowhere near a paper model.

    Finally, you talk about a zoom climb on rocket power... pretty much anything flying on the next decades will have an IRST of some sort (and pretty advanced as well), which will allow for an early detection of your rocket engines climbing, even far away... and your overheated fuselage (for those modern IRST, your supersonic flight in cold air will stand out like a lighthouse in the middle of the night) will be a nice target which will rapidly see a few missiles coming its way... missiles it won't be able to outturn while coming their way during its "supersonic glide" (necessary if you want to be able to do anything other than falling @ FL980 with so little wingspan)

    last, but not least, you need to add into equation the drag it will generate at supersonic speeds... with such a small mass, it will need a high thrust to keep going, and your turbofan may experience some problems in generating it in thin air that one encounters at such altitudes... which means you most certainly won't be able to have supercruise anyway... just slowing down from a supersonic speed, and getting closer and closer to stalling

    So, in order to recapitulate: you want to make a highly visible target for the Mig31, target which won't be able to maneuver and avoid even the crudest IR missile sent its way...
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 3rd April 2013 at 15:18.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    er, did you try to maneuver your model? for going straight and fast it's a fine shape (the X-47 had a similar one), but once you start trying to turn sharply you'll have problems. Besides, the wingload we talk about is nowhere near a paper model.

    Finally, you talk about a zoom climb on rocket power... pretty much anything flying on the next decades will have an IRST of some sort (and pretty advanced as well), which will allow for an early detection of your rocket engines climbing, even far away... and your overheated fuselage (for those modern IRST, your supersonic flight in cold air will stand out like a lighthouse in the middle of the night) will be a nice target which will rapidly see a few missiles coming its way... missiles it won't be able to outturn while coming their way during its "supersonic glide" (necessary if you want to be able to do anything other than falling @ FL980 with so little wingspan)

    last, but not least, you need to add into equation the drag it will generate at supersonic speeds... with such a small mass, it will need a high thrust to keep going, and your turbofan may experience some problems in generating it in thin air that one encounters at such altitudes.

    So, in order to recapitulate: you want to make a highly visible target for the Mig31, target which won't be able to maneuver and avoid even the crudest IR missile sent its way...


    Ok now you do have a tighter grip on this.

    The plane will shut down the inlet for turbofan at 10-15 000 meters ( or at mach 1.1 )..it has 40% frontal area of Bell X-1E and less span...which did go 27 km at mach 2.25...with only 27 kN ( 75% of the VR ).

    The VR scrambles when Mig-31 is 300-400 KM away..IRST does not see it..at any stage.

    Earth will cause the plane same "thrust" as the rockets on the way up..up to 10-15 KM where the turbofan is ignited again..or not..could be ignited when the pilot overshoots the runway.

    Due to the engine installation and subsonic speed at lower the IR missiles are no good on this ( and radar cannot detect it ).

    Besides the climb takes 2 minutes..it still has so called GETAWAY power for the rockets if an AAM is fired upon it. Even AIM-120 can't touch this ( due to the speed )..if the pilots uses the assets and some "pilot ****".
    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 15:39.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    er, be my guest... anytime

    for the answer, reread my previous post... no way it does what you say... matter of physics... for example:

    - drag isn't just about frontal section, especially supersonic drag

    - your turbofan will have pretty much zero thrust at such altitudes, as there's little to no air to generate thrust from

    - your rocket boosters will be visible in IR and UV as soon as they come above the horizon (which means, basically, for a Mig-31 cruising @ 60000ft and which has its horizon some 500km ahead, as soon as they are ignited, even on the ground)

    so, you'll have to glide (no thrust to speak of), against high drag (high speed), with very low inertia (low mass), with a shape that can maintain anything resembling lift only at very high speeds at such altitudes... no way it does what you imagine, sorry
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 3rd April 2013 at 16:02.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    er, be my guest... anytime

    for the answer, reread my previous post... no way it does what you say... matter of physics... for example:

    - drag isn't just about frontal section, especially supersonic drag

    - your turbofan will have pretty much zero thrust at such altitudes, as there's little to no air to generate thrust from

    - your rocket boosters will be visible in IR and UV as soon as they come above the horizon (which means, basically, for a Mig-31 cruising @ 60000ft and which has its horizon some 500km ahead, as soon as they are ignited, even on the ground)

    so, you'll have to glide (no thrust to speak of), against high drag (high speed), with very low inertia (low mass), with a shape that can maintain anything resembling lift only at very high speeds at such altitudes... no way it does what you imagine, sorry
    You could be right mate.

    I think we have to change the tactics...we shoot the plane fast into mach 0.9 with them rockets where the fan pushes it at three top level...and goes behind the foe where its radar cannot see it..shoots down the ****** and lands for a well earned meal.

    ---

    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 16:43.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    er, did you try to maneuver your model? for going straight and fast it's a fine shape (the X-47 had a similar one), but once you start trying to turn sharply you'll have problems. Besides, the wingload we talk about is nowhere near a paper model.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

    This has nothing to do with VELOCIRAPTOR..don't even have rudders.

    How sharply did you think you can turn a different kinda flyer ?
    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 17:09.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,094
    Your aeroplane is the equivalent of the Me163, a flying coffin.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by RpR View Post
    Your aeroplane is the equivalent of the Me163, a flying coffin.
    You are right RpR there is a room to develope this.

    But there is no better jet concept than a delta wing; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FMtig6xmuI ( first part ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvz0a-sEVWo )

    Also this features the thinnest wing profile ever in an aeroplane ( percentage vise ).

    So I doubt that if your misconception comes from J-35 then it is utterly wrong. This also cannot go into superstall.



    There is a jet engine suited for this used in Hongdu L-15...also a Honeywell F125IM might come close.

    This is about the only ( western ) engine that might do for this..used in F-CK-1; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo in proportion it would have similar rating as in J-20.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell/ITEC_F124

    Mk 821 might cut it too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-R...urbomeca_Adour, but it is heavy.

    But for fast interception the rocket powered version is the cheapest to operate ( with supercruise "homing engine" ). Especially when this is also stealthy the way no aeroplane has ever been hitherto ( 1/5th to 1/6th frontal area of F-22/J-20 ).
    Last edited by topspeed; 3rd April 2013 at 18:39.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    If I may I'd like turn the conversation into the big or not dilemma.

    Here is a list of few aeroplanes and I am a bit concerned about the size of the latest so called 5th generation jet planes.

    Cri-Cri jet 0.46 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colomban_Cri-cri

    Acrostar BD-5J 1.1 kN; http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/q-branch/...nijet.php3

    Gloster E.28/39 3.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_E.28/39

    He-178 4.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178

    Temco TT Pinto 4.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temco_TT_Pinto

    SAAB 210 4.7 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_210

    Eclipse 400 4.9 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_400

    He-162 7.85 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162 ( e-seat )

    Fouga Magister 7.84 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fouga_CM.170_Magister

    Eclipse500 8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_500

    Handley Page HP.115 8.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_HP.115

    Diamond D-Jet 8.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_D-Jet

    Yak-15 8.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-15

    T-37 9.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_T-37_Tweet

    PZL TS-11 Iskra 9.81 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_TS-11_Iskra

    Soko G-2 Galeb 11.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soko_G-2_Galeb

    Aermacchi MB-326 11.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_MB-326 ( 2 e-seats )

    He-280 11.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_280

    Citation Mustang 13 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_Mustang

    XF-85 Goblin 13.3 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin

    ARES 13.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_ARES ( E-seat )

    DH.100 Vampire 14.9 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire

    SAAB 105 15 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_105

    Avro 707 16 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_707

    Hongdu JL-8 16.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongdu_JL-8

    DH.108 Swallow 16.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_DH_108

    Aero L-29 Delfin 17.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-29_Delf%C3%ADn

    Me-262; 17,6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

    Arado 234 B-2 17.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234

    P-59 17.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_P-59_Airacomet

    FJ-1 Fury 17.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_FJ-1_Fury

    Cessna Citation I 19.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_I

    Folland Gnat 20.9 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folland_Gnat

    Helwan HA-300 21.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helwan_HA-300 ( MACH 2.1 with 48 kN using AB designed by Willy Messerschmitt )

    Supermarine Attacker 22 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Attacker

    BAE_Jet_Provost 22.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_Jet_Provost

    Fiat G.91 22.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.91

    Boulton _Paul_P.111 22.7 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_P.111

    Hawker Sea Hawk 23.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Sea_Hawk

    Canadair CT-114 Tutor 23.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CT-114_Tutor

    P-80 24 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-...oting_Star

    LearJet24 26.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_24

    Alpha Jet 26.4; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault/Dornier_Alpha_Jet

    F9F Panther 26.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F9F_Panther

    Gloster Meteor 31,2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor

    Mig-15 26,5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

    F-86 26,3 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre

    SAAB-27 Tunnan 27.5 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_29_Tunnan

    BAE HAWK 29 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Systems_Hawk

    F2H Banshee 29 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_F2H_Banshee

    Dassault Mystere 29.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Myst%C3%A8re

    LearJet45 31 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_45

    Kawasaki T-4 32 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_T-4

    White Knight 32 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Comp...ite_Knight

    F-84 32.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-...nderstreak

    Mig-17 33.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-17

    T-38 Talon 34 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_T-38_Talon

    XB-43 Jetmaster 36 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-43_Jetmaster

    A4D Skyhawk 36 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

    F-9 Cougar 38 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-9_Cougar

    A4F Skyhawk 41 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-4_Skyhawk

    LearJet_60 41 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_60

    Dassault Super Mystere 44.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Su...st%C3%A8re

    F-5 44.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5

    IAR-93 44.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR-93

    Fairey Delta 44.9 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Delta

    Hawker Hunter 45.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hunter

    Grumman F-11 Tiger 46.7 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-11_Tiger

    PZL-230 Scorpion 45.6 kN; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/w...zl-230.htm

    Super Enterdard 49.5 kN; http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/super_etendard.pl

    YAK-130 50 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130

    Il-28 53 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-28

    F7U Cutlass 54 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F7U_Cutlass

    M-346 57 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_M-346

    Bombardier_300 60.7 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Challenger_300

    Bristol 188 62 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_188

    Mirage F1 70.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_F1

    F-100 71 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ameri...uper_Sabre

    F-7 64.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_A-7_Corsair_II

    Chengdu J-7 64.7 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7

    Sepecat Jaguar 65 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar

    SAAB-32 Lansen 65.3 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_32_Lansen

    Südaviation Vautour 68.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Vautour

    F4D Skyray 71 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F4D_Skyray

    Mitsubishi F-1 71.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-1

    F-20 Tigershark 76 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

    F-8 Crusader 80.1 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F-8_Crusader

    XB-51 69 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_XB-51

    Mig-21 69,6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21

    F-104 69 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter

    YAK-38 64 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-38

    F-102 Delta_Dagger 71 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-102_Delta_Dagger

    Nanchang Q-5 73.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanchang_Q-5

    Shenyang J-6/F6 73.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-6

    Kfir 79.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Kfir

    J-35 78.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken

    DC-9 109 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-9

    J-37 Viggen 121 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen

    Super Caravelle 124.6 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravelle

    A8-Harrier II 105 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8B_Harrier_II

    Mirage III 44 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_III

    Mirage 2000 95 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000

    TA-50 Golden Eagle 78.7 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KAI_T-50_Golden_Eagle

    Jas J-39 Gripen 80 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

    A-10 80.6 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II

    A-6 Intruder 82.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_A-6_Intruder

    F-CK-1 84 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDC_F-CK-1_Ching-kuo

    Hongdu L-15 84 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongdu_L-15

    JF-17 84.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JF-17_Thunder

    HAL Tejas 85 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas

    Dassault F7X 85.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Falcon_7X

    B-66 Destroyer 90 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_B-66_Destroyer

    Backburn Buccaneer 98 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackburn_Buccaneer

    IAI Lavi 91.5 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi

    Martin RB-57D Canberra 95 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_RB-57D_Canberra

    Avro Vulcan 98 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan

    F-105 Thunderchief 109 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-...underchief

    F-106 Delta_Dart 109 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart

    A-3 Skywarrior 110.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A3D_Skywarrior

    MIG-27 112.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-27

    White Knight Two 122.76 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Comp...Knight_Two

    BAE 146 ( AVRO RJ ) 124 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_146

    YAK-28 Brever 124 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-28

    Mitsubishi F-2 125 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2

    MIG-23 127 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23

    F-16 127 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dyn...ing_Falcon

    J-10 130 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10

    Mirage IV 141 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_IV

    English Electric Lightning 142,3 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Lightning

    Dassault Rafale 151.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale

    Gulfstream_650 150.4 kN; http://www.gulfstream.com/products/g650/...ations.htm

    F-101 Voodoo 150.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_F-101_Voodoo

    A-5 Vigilante 152 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ameri..._Vigilante

    Panavia Tornado 153.6 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado

    Sukhoi_Superjet_100 156 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Superjet_100

    F117 Night Hawk 157.4 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117A_Nighthawk

    F-18 158 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_D...-18_Hornet

    F-4 Phantom II 158.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_D...Phantom_II

    F111 159.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dyn...1_Aardvark

    Mig-29 162.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

    MD-82 164 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_MD-80

    Eurofighter Typhoon 178 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

    Tupolev Tu-16 186.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-16

    Mirage 4000 190 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_4000

    JSF F-35 191 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Ma...ghtning_II

    Boeing B-47 Strato Jet 192 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-47_Stratojet

    Airbus 318-100 192 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A320_family

    F/F-18 Super Hornet 195.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-...per_Hornet

    LA-250 196 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-250

    Myasishchev M-55 196 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-55

    TU-128 198 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-28

    SU-24 219.6; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24

    Mig-25 200 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-2

    Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow 209 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-105_Arrow

    F-15 220 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_D...F-15_Eagle

    F-111 224 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dyn...1_Aardvark

    YAK-141 235,4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-141

    SU-30 245.2 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

    SU-27 245,6 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suhoi_Su-27

    F-14 247.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

    SU-33 251 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-33

    J-11 262 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11#J-11

    SU-34 262 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34

    Shenyang J-15 270 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15

    TSR-2 273.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2

    B-58 Hustler 277.6 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-58_Hustler

    SU-47 284.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47

    A-12 288 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_A-12

    SU-37 290 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-37

    DC-8 298.8 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-8

    SR-71 302 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird

    Convair YB-60 304 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_YB-60

    Mig-31 304 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31

    B-2 308 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Gr...B-2_Spirit

    YF-23 312 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23

    F-22 312 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Ma...-22_Raptor

    PAKFA 314 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

    TU22 324 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22

    Concorde 338 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

    MIG-39 ( Project 1.44 ) 354 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_Project_1.44

    J-20 Chengdu 360 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

    Myasishchev M-4 372.8 kN; http://www.airvectors.net/avbison.html

    Y20 412 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_Y-20

    TU-22M 490.4 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

    DC-10 534 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10

    B-1 547.7 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer

    B-52 608 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

    Sukhoi T-4 628 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-4

    Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner 640 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner

    C-5 Galaxy 760 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_Galaxy

    XB-70 Valkyrie 768 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ameri...0_Valkyrie

    Boeing_747 836 kN; http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747

    TU-160 980 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

    Airbus A380 1360 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

    An 225 1377 kN; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya


    I can fit 4 radar guided AAMs in to a plane that is smaller than a Me-109 in size and a APG/67 radar and a 27 mm cannon. Externally carry same amount at least....and fuel for 2 hours.

    Below is the last comparison of the day J-10 ( supacruise to mach 1.2 ) !
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by topspeed; 13th April 2013 at 13:23.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by RpR View Post
    Your aeroplane is the equivalent of the Me163, a flying coffin.
    Well..I am still a bit irritated by this remark.

    The Gekko flies faster than a Me-163 Komet with just the turbofan...and 3 times faster ( assumably ) than the Komet on rockets.

    What makes it a coffin..it has Martin Baker Mk15 fitted in and all ?

    Care to specify/elaborate ?
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    er, did you try to maneuver your model? for going straight and fast it's a fine shape (the X-47 had a similar one), but once you start trying to turn sharply you'll have problems. Besides, the wingload we talk about is nowhere near a paper model.
    I have a spare Kyosho ducted fan unit...I could build an R/C model of this and provide you the info..interested ?
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347

    Pilot comfort in "small" jet !

    This needs a reclined position..and far fewer "gauges" to look onto....something new and modern. Like the mach 4.0 MICA missiles concealed inside.

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    my bad, it was X-43, not X-47, sorry

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed View Post
    Well..I am still a bit irritated by this remark.

    The Gekko flies faster than a Me-163 Komet with just the turbofan...and 3 times faster ( assumably ) than the Komet on rockets.

    What makes it a coffin..it has Martin Baker Mk15 fitted in and all ?

    Care to specify/elaborate ?
    ejection seat doesn't mean a certified safe escape (especially at supersonic speeds). Besides, the Mk15 is to be used for speeds not exceeding 300kts... about M0.5...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    my bad, it was X-43, not X-47, sorry
    There is some similarity with my papermodel yes. Engine position is also a bit similar.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    ejection seat doesn't mean a certified safe escape (especially at supersonic speeds). Besides, the Mk15 is to be used for speeds not exceeding 300kts... about M0.5...
    Right what e-seat do you recommend for mach 3.6 at 98 000 ft ?
    Last edited by topspeed; 4th April 2013 at 07:55.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    With my unabashed logic I get 250 kg for 18kN rocked engine ( and fuel ) of this type developement enclosed ?!

    Any real rocket scientists here ?

    Please advice can I make ( could it be made rather ) it under 250-300 kg/unit to get Gekko/Velociraptor into 25 km altitude ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobee

    Apollo mission used these; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_Propulsion_System

    12 kN 230 kg; Altair 3rd stage in Deltas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(rocket_family)

    Even these ( 2 ) could bring Gekko into mach 2.5 ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT4A1M2peFc

    Rocket plane cannot become simpler than this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC05YkzIrY4
    Last edited by topspeed; 4th April 2013 at 12:18.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    178
    There's a little bit more science to designing an actual VLO stealth fighter than merely drawing up a model with a few facets and applying the word "stealth".

    Think angle and role.

    With those side fuselage angles (main fuselage surface at 82.5 degrees cant angle) it's side faceting is entirely pointless.

    The very large 83 degree side surface will allow it to be tracked in a networked environment for extended periods of time (TIP: the longer the range at which it can be detected, the longer it can be tracked as it passes a radar) allowing engagement from missiles from quite a long range.

    The missile doesn't have to come from the the vehicle that spots you on radar any more. Being seen from the side makes you just as dead as being seen from the front.

    There's a reason why stealth fighters tend to be wide, its not just a matter of preference or whimsy. It's because to create shallow side angles to increase the angle of incidence of RADAR beams illuminating the surface from relevant depression angles ( 0 to 30 degrees below horizontal for medium altitude aircraft and 0 to 40 degrees for high altitude aircraft), you need to increase the width (subsequently the cross section) of the aircraft.

    Contrary to some grossly uneducated and uninformed opinions, materials will not compensate for bad shaping and with the enormous (and mobile) X-Band radars now being put into operation by the US (and maybe China in the next few decades), every little compromise is a killer.

    Oh yeah, wing and fuselage intersection on this design is a MASSIVE dihedral corner reflector.
    Last edited by ActionJackson; 4th April 2013 at 13:23.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by ActionJackson View Post
    There's a little bit more science to designing an actual VLO stealth fighter than merely drawing up a model with a few facets and applying the word "stealth".

    Think angle and role.

    With those side fuselage angles (main fuselage surface at 82.5 degrees cant angle) it's side faceting is entirely pointless.

    The very large 83 degree side surface will allow it to be tracked in a networked environment for extended periods of time (TIP: the longer the range at which it can be detected, the longer it can be tracked as it passes a radar) allowing engagement from missiles from quite a long range.

    The missile doesn't have to come from the the vehicle that spots you on radar any more. Being seen from the side makes you just as dead as being seen from the front.

    There's a reason why stealth fighters tend to be wide, its not just a matter of preference or whimsy. It's because to create shallow side angles to increase the angle of incidence of RADAR beams illuminating the surface from relevant depression angles ( 0 to 30 degrees below horizontal for medium altitude aircraft and 0 to 40 degrees for high altitude aircraft), you need to increase the width (subsequently the cross section) of the aircraft.

    Contrary to some grossly uneducated and uninformed opinions, materials will not compensate for bad shaping and with the enormous (and mobile) X-Band radars now being put into operation by the US (and maybe China in the next few decades), every little compromise is a killer.

    Oh yeah, wing and fuselage intersection on this design is a MASSIVE dihedral corner reflector.
    Well I am glad we got these minor defects at this stage fixed. Thanks Action Jackson !

    It was more stealthy earlier before I started to enhance/address the drag issues.



    Also the rudders are massive deflectors of the radar beams rights and pilots helmet ?

    I should have seen this beforehand; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BHu0iYC6bw
    Last edited by topspeed; 4th April 2013 at 15:24.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,880
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed View Post
    Right what e-seat do you recommend for mach 3.6 at 98 000 ft ?
    none, you'd need a detachable (very solid) capsule at such speeds...

    Zvezda K36 would be pretty much the best (or one of the two best) seat out there allowing supersonic ejections... but still, not at M3.6

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    none, you'd need a detachable (very solid) capsule at such speeds...

    Zvezda K36 would be pretty much the best (or one of the two best) seat out there allowing supersonic ejections... but still, not at M3.6
    Okay...I think the fuselage design has to be as follows..at a major airframe failure the pod where pilot sits has to stay in one piece at all times...and this pod has to have a BRS for 400 KG load deployable at 10 000 meters or below at any speed to slow down the pod, then it has to have jump seat to be deployed..in case of fire etc.

    Here is the new stealthy fuselage....frontal smaller than previous. APG/67 still fits in the nose.

    I think for the aerodynamics sake this needs only 2 x 12 kN rocketengines with 7-8 kN turbofan.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    flying high
    Posts
    4,614
    Those engine inlets won´t like much fuselage movement in relation to the airflow or high angles of attack.
    Member of ACIG

    an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F."

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by seahawk View Post
    Those engine inlets won´t like much fuselage movement in relation to the airflow or high angles of attack.
    Ok..bear in mind the craft has very small turbofan that is operated under mach speed. It has at this stage 2 rocket engines for interception.

    There is a bit of a strakes that may direct more air at higher alphas than you can see right now from the pic.

    I see to it.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,094
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed View Post
    Well..I am still a bit irritated by this remark.

    The Gekko flies faster than a Me-163 Komet with just the turbofan...and 3 times faster ( assumably ) than the Komet on rockets.

    What makes it a coffin..it has Martin Baker Mk15 fitted in and all ?

    Care to specify/elaborate ?
    Three times faster?

    Hmmm, with a turning radius defined by tens of miles.
    Read sometime about how the S-71 handled at high mach.

    High mach means high altitude, which mean little atmosphere for controls.
    Your aircraft will not be doing high mach at low altitude and if it goes high it will be looking for a filling station or airstrip.

    The Me163 once its fuel was spent was a threat to no one. Your aircraft cannot carry enough fuel to be a threat except maybe on a one-way such as the 163s did.
    The smaller an aircraft the more susceptible it is to damage from cannon fire or a missile warhead.
    The small Mirage fighters in the Falklands suffered the same fate your aircraft would.
    Destroyed aircraft, dead pilot.

    The F-106 had extremely long legs at a high speed cruise, over three hours, yet at continuous Mach 2, twenty minutes and you had better find a tanker now.

    Let's see yours has an eight minute throttled rocket?
    Does such a rocket exist?
    How much space does it take?
    How much does it weigh?
    Where will you put internal fuel for the jet?
    Where will you put weapons?
    External weapons greatly limit airspeed, internal weapons need sub-systems to lower and retrieve launch rails. System must be capable of expanding and contracting due to temp. changes with out binding or causing loose slap.
    Such systems are heavy.
    A cannon with enough rounds not to be just an after though will weigh around a 2,000 lbs. with cartridges.
    Where will you put it.

    Your reclining seat.
    Go sit in a chair that reclines as far as yours is supposed to and try to look over you shoulder.
    You cannot.
    The reclining pilots seat seems like a good idea until real world physics and how the human torso functions are considered.

    If you want to check into ejection capsules read up on the B-58 Hustler and F-111.
    They had capsules and an a airframe large enough to carry them.

    High speed ejection is easy to talk about but in the real world is a fifty-fifty proposition at best.
    An aircraft with high-speed system has to be large to handle the superstructure involved and as they found out with the F-106 system, they require more sub-systems which increases the possibility of a sub-system failure, and a dead pilot.

    A twenty millimeter cannon would chop your aircraft into small pieces in short order.
    F-86 pilots in Korea said that the Russian 37 mm cannon could destroy a Saber with one round and a Saber was larger and made out of metal more able to withstand cannon fire than your aircraft.
    Metals withstand projectiles not by being stiff like cast iron but by bending like mild steel.
    Modern alloys create, in a way, the solidity of iron with bending of soft alloys.
    Any metals that would break into pieces like a carbon fiber composite does, is worse than worthless.
    Metal is still heavy in the amount required to protect a pilot from the rear.

    If you do a net search you will find several instances of where an F-106 in an air to air collision lost the entire nose from the base of the windshield forward, yet the pilot safely landed the aircraft.

    What would happen if your aircraft suffered such an incident, beyond the probable funeral for the pilot?

    The U.S. Air Force had an official edict--SPEED IS LIFE.
    Another would be-- Size capable of withstand heavy damage and continue to fly is life.

    Yours is a flying coffin.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES