Page 2 of 2

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:44 pm
by Shutter
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.

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:18 pm
by Raven
It looks cool as hell, maybe open geopoly and impliment a model.

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:56 pm
by plunderbird
halberdier25 wrote:Don't they have canards?

See:

Image
XP-55 Ascender
Hmmm, looks like something from Crimson Skies. :)

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:55 am
by Hawkstar
Backsword wrote: Image

Looks familiar to the F/A 37 Talon.

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:08 am
by Grigor
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.

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 10:04 am
by Dragon029
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.

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 8:35 pm
by Grigor
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.

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:47 am
by Backsword
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?

Re: Tailplanes - Who needs 'em?

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:47 am
by Dragon029
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.