Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Franco-German next generation fighter

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Marcellogo
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2014
    • 1838

    They have several point in common (general Layout) but at the same time they look different.
    While Eurofighter and rafale were derived by a common preliminary design, however, those ones have not any point in common.
    They are however just mock-ups, given the time both would require to develop both of them would change radically IMHO.

    Comment

    • edi_right_round
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Nov 2005
      • 266

      Looks like YF-22,YF-23 and T-50 had a threesome!

      Comment

      • halloweene
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2012
        • 4350

        Originally posted by Marcellogo View Post
        They have several point in common (general Layout) but at the same time they look different.
        While Eurofighter and rafale were derived by a common preliminary design, however, those ones have not any point in common.
        They are however just mock-ups, given the time both would require to develop both of them would change radically IMHO.
        As Trappier says, "a kit is there to make buzz"

        Comment

        • eagle1
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Feb 2011
          • 1125

          NGF looks more "pointy"/sharp to me with a greater emphasis on speed than the Tempest. Engine looks massive from behind. Just on looks I much prefer the NGF. One seems more inclined towards AtA and the other AtG.

          Comment

          • halloweene
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2012
            • 4350

            The "pointly" look comes from conformal radar modules (df Mancuso conferences)

            Comment

            • Wanderlei
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Oct 2005
              • 486

              It is obvious that Franco-German design incorporates design features for possibilities of much higher speeds than TEMPEST. I dont see Tempest flying above Mach 1.8..Probably F-35 equivalent in that area. Just look at the profile angles on the side view of both. SCAF design is in comfortable high MACH 2 range, and materials/ coatings used will be only factor in limiting the speed with these engines. It will be able to fly way faster than TEMPEST if general shape remains as now on both.
              Last edited by Wanderlei; 18th June 2019, 14:33.

              Comment

              • XB-70
                Rank 4 Registered User
                • May 2018
                • 350

                Wanderlei - It's got a DSI. So it's not likely to go much higher than Mach 2. That said, the point of a stealth aircraft is stealth. You won't be going faster than that anyways because heating becomes too much of a concern.

                Comment

                • Wanderlei
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Oct 2005
                  • 486

                  Originally posted by XB-70 View Post
                  Wanderlei - It's got a DSI. So it's not likely to go much higher than Mach 2. That said, the point of a stealth aircraft is stealth. You won't be going faster than that anyways because heating becomes too much of a concern.
                  You gotta good point about DSI, but why exclude possibility of movable DSI where at higher speeds it accommodates the position slightly for less drag, and increases air flow. Yes.. while decreasing frontal stealth. Heating becomes much less if you reduce air resistance which is what they did in this design. Otherwise, why make it that slim and elongated at all. It reduces pilot visibility and options for internal storage of ..anything. But if you want higher speed, then its physics in air. Im not expert, just the way I see it.

                  Comment

                  • XB-70
                    Rank 4 Registered User
                    • May 2018
                    • 350

                    A DSI just won't produce good airflow past Mach 1.9-2.0. So it isn't going to be possible to go much beyond that because you are working your engines harder than you would have if you had used a diverter.

                    The project is brand new, and so I don't know why they opted for the sleekness. (Maybe they thought it looked cool - I do.) A guess would be that they want a high supercruise together with stealth (a DSI is more complimentary to stealth than a diverter). Maybe it's a design to supercruise at Mach 1.8 and it redlines at Mach 2.1. You get great stealth, a high and fuel efficient supercruise, and although the afterburners don't give you much you won't use them much anyways. It's all speculation though until we hear what performance targets they are shooting for.

                    Comment

                    • Wanderlei
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Oct 2005
                      • 486

                      Good point. Its got very big intakes. Yes, we will see what happens..

                      Comment

                      • halloweene
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2012
                        • 4350

                        Originally posted by XB-70 View Post
                        Wanderlei - It's got a DSI. So it's not likely to go much higher than Mach 2. That said, the point of a stealth aircraft is stealth. You won't be going faster than that anyways because heating becomes too much of a concern.
                        i may be wrong, but i think DSI equipped F-16 reached mach2

                        Comment

                        • FBW
                          FBW
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Dec 2011
                          • 3295

                          Originally posted by halloweene View Post

                          i may be wrong, but i think DSI equipped F-16 reached mach2
                          It did, the CFD analysis paper showed optimal ranges for that particular DSI/inlet shape, Spillage increased approaching Mach 2. Youre going to optimize the DSI, inlet shape, BLC for efficiency across the widest range of relevant speeds.
                          Last edited by FBW; 18th June 2019, 20:12.

                          Comment

                          • LMFS
                            Rank 4 Registered User
                            • Feb 2018
                            • 518

                            Originally posted by XB-70 View Post
                            A DSI just won't produce good airflow past Mach 1.9-2.0. So it isn't going to be possible to go much beyond that because you are working your engines harder than you would have if you had used a diverter.

                            The project is brand new, and so I don't know why they opted for the sleekness. (Maybe they thought it looked cool - I do.) A guess would be that they want a high supercruise together with stealth (a DSI is more complimentary to stealth than a diverter). Maybe it's a design to supercruise at Mach 1.8 and it redlines at Mach 2.1. You get great stealth, a high and fuel efficient supercruise, and although the afterburners don't give you much you won't use them much anyways. It's all speculation though until we hear what performance targets they are shooting for.
                            True, the more engines are optimized for supercruising (be it due to low or variable bypass), the less reheat is going to add on top of that, specially at high speeds (unless we talk about very special VCEs devised to work as ramjet). None of the newer supercruising designs seem to care much about going beyond their cruising speed and I would even doubt it is intended to use the afterburners for top speed but rather for acceleration when going slower or in manoeuvring combat.

                            In any case I understand an adjustable intake would optimize the airflow at high speeds better than fixed or DSI ones / oversize the intakes further and hence attain higher supercruise performance

                            Comment

                            • halloweene
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2012
                              • 4350

                              LEt's remember it is just a model. demo should fly within 4 years (expected) and may be changed again for final configuration.

                              Comment

                              • totoro
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Apr 2006
                                • 1026

                                Was there an announcement that this was the definitive configuration for the demo plane?

                                Comment

                                • halloweene
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2012
                                  • 4350

                                  No. Absolutely not, quite the opposite. this is a proposed general layout in 2019. flying demonstrator is expected within 5 years.
                                  Take a look at this video

                                  https://youtu.be/CqpeiiFtJR4
                                  Last edited by halloweene; 19th June 2019, 11:46.

                                  Comment

                                  • Wanderlei
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Oct 2005
                                    • 486

                                    Yes, in 5 years we will be able to comment more :-)
                                    However, we should keep in mind that this is not project design to catch up with 5th generation as quickly as possible. It is supposed to be replacement for future old guys such as 4+ generation and F-22/F-35 class. Keeping open mind and not designing mainframe with todays limitations is very important. Meaning, in my opinion, there is no reason to plan speed limit to mach 2.00 due to stealth coatings or DSI, or similar technology we think we know limits of today. This frame will likely be designed to not only be best in 2035-40, but also not be limiting in 2050-2060 for mid life upgrade engine, and new materials that will likely overcome limitations of today, as well as limitations of 2030-40 technology. Only early versions of this bird will be entering service around 2040
                                    Last edited by Wanderlei; 19th June 2019, 14:21.

                                    Comment

                                    • Trident
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2004
                                      • 3965

                                      You can design a DSI for whatever speed you like in principle, out to Mach 3.0 and beyond (though at such high speed you'd probably be better off adopting an inward turning intake for lower cowl drag). As it is a fixed geometry type however, off-design performance of a DSI will suffer at Mach numbers appreciably different from that optimum condition, like FBW says. If you were to select a design point high enough to enable efficient operation at Mach >2.0, pressure recovery at lower speed would be compromised which is no good for a fighter that will spend a lot (if not most) of its time at Mach <1.6.
                                      Last edited by Trident; 19th June 2019, 17:57.
                                      sigpic

                                      Comment

                                      • haavarla
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2008
                                        • 6695

                                        Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                        No. Absolutely not, quite the opposite. this is a proposed general layout in 2019. flying demonstrator is expected within 5 years.
                                        Take a look at this video

                                        https://youtu.be/CqpeiiFtJR4
                                        Some programs gets a healty sprinkle of cost/Risk reduction as demonstrator transcended into a viable design.
                                        Just sayin..

                                        Better do something like enlarge Airintakes. If you want lots of hot air out the nozzles, you need lots of cold air into the Fans.
                                        Blended Elevators, Verticals makes for very tricly recovery once you depart controlled flight. Computers can only fix as much, you need large and noumerous control surfaces, in order to avoid nasty surprises and stay nimble on a fighter.
                                        Last edited by haavarla; 20th June 2019, 04:39.
                                        Thanks

                                        Comment

                                        • Jō Asakura
                                          多聞天
                                          • Jan 2011
                                          • 1302

                                          Dassault NGF looks absolutely amazing! Major kudos! Look forward to seeing how Northrop's effort compares aesthetically, will they go tail-less?

                                          Will be interesting to see the Generative Design solutions implemented on both:

                                          https://www.autodesk.com/customer-stories/airbus
                                          sigpic

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X