Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Aviation news and discussion for anything aviation related.
Shutter

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Shutter » Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Personally I'd change the canopy up a bit. Looks pretty stumpy up in front like that, and the pilot would have no rear view at all. Otherwise looks pretty damn awesome.

User avatar
Raven
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:35 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-16
Location: Eastern, USA
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Raven » Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:18 pm

It looks cool as hell, maybe open geopoly and impliment a model.
Image
Image
"The Aggressor Order"

User avatar
plunderbird
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F5 A10 SR71
Location: Wellingborough England
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 32 times
Contact:

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by plunderbird » Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:56 pm

halberdier25 wrote:Don't they have canards?

See:

Image
XP-55 Ascender
Hmmm, looks like something from Crimson Skies. :)
Fliped out of the arena, again! :(

User avatar
Hawkstar
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:11 am
Favorite Aircraft: F-18 Hornet
Location: That Siberian husky over there with a laptop
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Hawkstar » Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:55 am

Backsword wrote: Image

Looks familiar to the F/A 37 Talon.
Image

Grigor
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:57 am
Favorite Aircraft: Ball-Bartoe Jetwing
OS: Windows XP
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Grigor » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:08 am

Nice lookin' plane you got there. I agree with Shutter about the canopy.

I too am a fan of tailless, simple-but-refined aircraft, as seen here:
http://ysfhq.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=2482

I've been trying to figure out a decent VTOL without it getting horribly complicated. The old Harrier design seems to be It.

User avatar
Dragon029
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:09 am
Favorite Aircraft: F-35A
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Dragon029 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:04 am

Grigor wrote:Nice lookin' plane you got there. I agree with Shutter about the canopy.

I too am a fan of tailless, simple-but-refined aircraft, as seen here:
http://ysfhq.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=2482

I've been trying to figure out a decent VTOL without it getting horribly complicated. The old Harrier design seems to be It.
The one thing that needs/needed to be fixed on the Harrier is it's susceptibility to hot-gas intake; it's not a massive issue, but it's something that can be fixed easily enough. The way to fix it would be to limit the size of the forward intake and increase the size of a dorsal auxilliary intake smack-bang between the wings where it has the most protection from exhaust vortices. Also, although this is done on the Harrier already, just making sure that the forward nozzles only put out compressed air (ie not air that's gone to the combustion chambers already).

Personally I'm a fan of the F-35B set-up; so long as you keep the maintenance and design tolerances good, the system will do well. It's a bit of a trade-off between single-engine, directed thrust, which limits the engine in forward flight, but gives better reliability - and the use of liftjets, which are fuel guzzling, potentially heavier, more maintenance heavy, etc, but provide secure levels of thrust and also some redundancy.
Royal Australian Air Force
Per Ardua Ad Astra
>>> Dragon Addon Pack <<<
(PAK-FA, F/A-52, F/A-36, MQ-21)

Grigor
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:57 am
Favorite Aircraft: Ball-Bartoe Jetwing
OS: Windows XP
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Grigor » Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:35 pm

Dragon029 wrote:Definitely - I think overall it'd be safer / better overall just to continue finishing up UCAV tech - we effectively already have the tools and knowledge for making a dogfighting UCAV; we just need to work on / ensure that they can operate in congested friendly airspace, work on their physical forms (airframes), make them tough and also make sure they can work in a team with humans.
This I agree with. Regardless of how much we like Fighter Planes, the UCAV seems to be the Way of the Future. I recently spoke to "someone associated with the Aerospace Industry", and this person claims most future warfare will be fought by Tomahawk missiles or UCAV's. Most so-called fighter planes of today are really just delivery systems rather than fighting machines. The development and upkeep of fighter aircraft are more about politics and prestige than rational strategic planning, part of a lingering Battle of Britain mentality. The only plane really worth having is the A-10.

Maybe the answer to all this is therefore 1) a high-speed tail-sitting UCAV and 2) a replacement for the A-10, if it really needs replacing. Advances in robotics could make a tail-sitting craft feasible.

Backsword
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:06 am
Location: Noo Yawk
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 9 times
Contact:

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Backsword » Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:47 am

So what I thought I'd do was perform a little bit of necromancy...

Image
Image
Image

Had a bit of trouble with the shaping, but I kinda finalized on the third page. Thoughts on how badly I screwed it up?

User avatar
Dragon029
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 601
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:09 am
Favorite Aircraft: F-35A
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Post by Dragon029 » Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:47 am

Looks good; the only tiny suggestion I'd make is that the main landing gears (those are what those rear doors are for yes?) should be moved about a metre forward; other wise the forces on the landing gear and/or structure will be a tad high; you ideally want them to be only slightly rear of the centre of gravity (when it's most rearward), which I feel might be about inline with the back of the bomb bay.
Royal Australian Air Force
Per Ardua Ad Astra
>>> Dragon Addon Pack <<<
(PAK-FA, F/A-52, F/A-36, MQ-21)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests