Read the forum code of contact
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i like mike spice, it add body lift and generally just look better
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 08:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-14 got it right on all counts. The intakes dont blend in with the fuselage and take up fuel space. Angle of intakes handles high AoA and is low drag. The upper part of the intakes blend in with LERX. The engines are not part of the fuselage and so the fuselage forms a lifting body that greatly stabilizes the a/c in high AoA. The space between the engines form a channel that prevents side slipping. And of course the russians copied all of this with their Mig-29 and su-27 series.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 08:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-14 got it right on all counts. The intakes dont blend in with the fuselage and take up fuel space. Angle of intakes handles high AoA and is low drag. The upper part of the intakes blend in with LERX. The engines are not part of the fuselage and so the fuselage forms a lifting body that greatly stabilizes the a/c in high AoA. The space between the engines form a channel that prevents side slipping. And of course the russians copied all of this with their Mig-29 and su-27 series.
yes, definitely.
Honestly, I've always thought the Pak-fa looks like a 5th gen F-14, with its large lerx, somewhat similar intakes and arrangements.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 08:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DSI:
cons: not good at supersonic regimes
This is an internet "urban legend". The F-23 proposal had DSI and it could go Mach2+
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 09:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is an internet "urban legend". The F-23 proposal had DSI and it could go Mach2+
some time ago, Obligatory or JSR made a model of the F-23 based on the production model blue print
it was concluded it wasn't a DSI but more like a shock cone.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 09:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DSI improve stealth by tenfold. that is why most stealth designs will use it.
F-22 doesn't need it since it has very complicated s-ducts.
j-20's s-ducts may not likely bend as much as the f-22 but it will have the DSI to compensate
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if you apply a 'one size fits all' solution like DSI, then all but one condition is sub-optimal,
it then depend on how wide a range need to be covered, and how important performance is vs cost.
DSI has a weight advantage tho so it may even gain some back in agility/acceleration at some speeds
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 10:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it was concluded it wasn't a DSI but more like a shock cone.
um, The only difference between a shock cone and a DSI is the lack of a diverter & movement with DSI.
F-23 is DSI, pure and simple.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 11:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DSI improve stealth by tenfold. that is why most stealth designs will use it.F-22 doesn't need it since it has very complicated s-ducts.
j-20's s-ducts may not likely bend as much as the f-22 but it will have the DSI to compensate
F-22 has diamond-shaped ramps allegedly. I doubt they'd get M1.8 supercruise with pitot intakes.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 12:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
External expansion fixed inlet can be used from takeoff roll to hypersonic flight. It was planned for the Blacksmith hypersonic demonstrator and can be seen in artist drawings of SR-72.
ETA. auto-correct error. "Expansion" should be "compression"
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
External expansion fixed inlet can be used from takeoff roll to hypersonic flight. It was planned for the Blacksmith hypersonic demonstrator and can be seen in artist drawings of SR-72.
What do you mean by 'external expansion'? A pitot intake suffers fairly dramatic dynamic pressure losses near M2.0.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 14:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are other types of inlets. You didn't mention the F-105's type.
You have to see the forward swept inlet of the F-105 at a few angles to appreciate it's flexibility.
And not all shock cones work the same.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Autocorrect on my Samsung Galaxy. "Expansion" should be "compression"
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what is an external compression intake? Ah okay, Googled it, basically an inlet cone.
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 16:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are other types of inlets. You didn't mention the F-105's type.You have to see the forward swept inlet of the F-105 at a few angles to appreciate it's flexibility.
S-ducts!! And an internal weapons bay. The world's first stealth fighter-bomber?
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I like this one
By: - 22nd October 2016 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i bet it fly well inverted, other than that, fugly
By: - 23rd October 2016 at 00:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ATD-X has interesting intakes, too...
By: - 23rd October 2016 at 00:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
See-through nosecones...
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 22nd October 2016 at 08:16
1. Gaping mouth type (ex: Sabre, Mig-15, Tunnan, Ta-152, etc)
pros: sexy as hell
cons: no radar
2. shock cone type (ex: Starfighter, Mirage 3,5,f.1,2k,4k, mig-21)
[img]https://www.pakwheels.com/forums/attachments/aircrafts-trains/632878d11…]
pros: useful for supersonic performance
cons: lasted longer than it should, still survives in Brahmos
3. side tiago splitter types (ex: F-4, J-8, MiG-23)
pros: great for reducing boundary layers
cons: we had a member named F-4 Phantom II (be wary of users named after airplanes like F-4, Y-20, etc). Big fan of splitter plate airplanes. Hung around the Chinese aviation thread for a very long time since they were the last ones pushing splitter plates. When the jf-17 and j-10 came out, he was so upset, chinese posters got fed up with him not allowing the Chinese aviation industry to move on. can't blame him. F-4 was sexy, so was the mig-23.
4. Chin Chin types (ex: f-16, Lavi, Eurofighter, Eastern Eurofighter, etc)
pros: somewhat similar to above, but placed under the chin, Great for subsonic and transonic regimes. Always smiles when you have a bad day
cons: not so great for supersonic. Also prone to eating copilots
5. Mike Spick type (ex: A-5, F-15, F-14, Flankers, foxbat etc)
pros: more flexible than the chin chin at various regimes due to use of ramps
cons: RCS. This was really the best looking design of it all because the next one is boring as hell
6. DSI (ex. F-35, every Chinese aircraft after 2000)
pros: removes need for splitter plate, simpler and less complex
cons: not good at supersonic regimes