It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feasability of this design

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I have designed an aircraft a while ago, it's just a linedrawing, and I was wondering if this would be a useful design or if it's just junk...

I would like to see people who work in the aviation industry reply...

Here is the picture:



This is not a serious attempt or designed with computers, this is purely fictious and I am just curious...would this atleast be good for a small country's indigenous fighter project or something?

Any criticism is appriciated...




posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
wheres your cg (gravity center) and wheres your complete lift vector, sometimes you must change your design by this two factors, i t look nice, but in this industry everything look nice, put that stuff in a wind tunnel (or an pool with colorant
)

[edit on 7-12-2004 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:24 PM
link   
LOL for starters, explain what is the Gravity Center and the Lift Vector, I am not educated in designing aircraft or how they are designed lol...

thanks for the feedback though...



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Lol Zero, your situation is quite an odd one. I dont mean any of this in a mean way cuz i probably know about as much as you. It seems like your trying to design a plane with no knowledge of it. Ive tried it to. like trying to do Calc when you cant pass Algebra. I came up with something simmiliar to yours, look really cool.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
3 bad things

Tail plane attachment to fuselage is very weak, they would shear off under high g loads like an AB inside turn or full power vertical hammerhead rollout.

"deck height" is too severe, the location of the control "deck" to the bottom of the aircraft to too far. The pilot would have a hard time judging distance to ground and the forward carriage would be too tall and take too much stress on landing. Height to cockpit would be difficult for ground crew requiring stair access units further limiting its ability to be deployed in the field without the needed stair access ramps adding more time for deployment to action theaters.

Wing design and tail plane design have non-complementary angles, high speed stability and manuverability would suffer. Main wing desing would inhibit High Mach numbers making these a realatively low speed aircraft.

Since the forward fuselage is realatively short there is no need for the front canards, they are placed at the same level of the main wing and would deplete the amount of lift force being generated by the inner wing and could have adverse affects on the trailing edge control surface on the main wing.


Your design looks like one of the x-16 test beds when they played with the idea of forward canards, but they found they could not improve the handling much with the 3 surface control layout (canard, main, tail). Latter they made a delta wing X-16 with forward canards that did inprove in dogfight agility but lacked some of the G handling of the F-16 airframe and lost some stability in high mach runs.


[edit on 7-12-2004 by robertfenix]

[edit on 7-12-2004 by robertfenix]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Im not in the aviation industry but Ill give my two cents.

Im sure it could fly if they could make the F-117 was able to fly that design could for sure.

What were the goals of your design Stealth,Speed,Manoverability,payload,range?

I notice the front canards and engine design seems to have alittle Sukhoi influence in there.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
you know vectorial maths?????, look man is complicated, the lift vector depends of all the elements that make lift over the plane, wing, fuselage, control surfaces etc.., lift is also relative, if it is induced by compression or presure relative decrease,lift change by speed etc...so you can aproximate the position of the TOTAL RELATIVE LIFT (considering the compounds by the all elements and speed), is basically the same concept with the gravity center (obviusly without speed), then you must consider the engine weight, fuselage,structure, fuel tanks (full and empty) etc.....

all the details will bore you, anyway your plane look fine, looks like an son of f18/mig29, btw the f18 wing have some problems at transonic speed, maybe the reason is the leading edge poor angle



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
If I was playing the NATO guessing game of the 1950's, where pictures of secret Soviet types were allocated roles and performance figures just by looking at the available fuzzy pictures and with nothing else to go on, then I would say you have designed a highly agile light tactical fighter in the 1.0M to 1.6M speed range, if slightly underpowered



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   
originally I designed this AC to look "cool" and I was working on it with nothing else in mind but the looks, in some extend I barrowed concepts from modern aircraft, LEX, Canards, VT...

Even though I made the linediagram recently, it was based on something I drew about 3 years ago...

Now you mention it, the Canards are a bit redundant but they were for looks, kinda to make it look like a Su-33/37.

I will make a revision to this diagram and I will try to base it loosely on current designs like the MiG-29, F-22 etc...

Thank you for your responses, I dream of designing aircraft in the future, if this is attainable I don't know but you guys sure can help me get a step up.

Maybe one day I will be the next Burt Rutan?
I doubt it but I can try



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 05:16 PM
link   
If I were you, and if my random assessment of the design was correct of course, I wouldn't delete the canards, I'd move them slightly forward and change the angle of the trailing edge so it was perfectly straight rather than swept forward and get rid of the ventral nose fin, then I'd make the horizontal tail just a little bit shorter in chord and finally perhaps replace those two small engines with a single EJ200 with 3D TVC.

Then I would buy it for my air force from the other thread in place of the Yak-130D

But I am not you and you must do as you see fit


[edit on 7-12-2004 by waynos]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Here is the second revision lol, perhaps this makes more sense, It looks like some weird F-16 clone now with small canards, the big engine is the AL-37FU vectored-thrust afterburning turbofan equipted on the Su-37...I just figured the EF-2000's engines are too specialized in the EF-2000 design, so I took 1 powerful AL-37 engine instead...



As for the Gravity Centre and Lift Vector, my knowledge isn't good enough to deterime the right placement, I figured the Turbofans are located fairly centralized so that the weight dispersion should be fairly ballanced, if not, well let's just put some deadweights in there and pray


and If I were gonna make this design more Stealthy, how would I do that?

And to answer shadow's questions:


What were the goals of your design Stealth,Speed,Manoverability,payload,range?


The emphasis will probably lay in affordablity so countries like New Zealand, The Netherlands, Canada etc can have a decent aircraft without going over their budget, but Stealth and Manauverability would be a plus but unlikely in this design, it should be able to be atleast 10% better than the F-16...



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I think, and I am still seeing the design as a light tactical aircraft which may differ from what you intend, that the AL-37 might be too big and heavy, modern engines are located right at the tail because of the afterburner nozzle and this engine could push the CG too far aft, I suggested the EJ200 as a smaller powerful engine with TVC, it could certainly be used in other types but the F404 might prove a suitable alternative, though less powerful and without TVC.
I actually liked the original wing shape as it looked like it would be really agile at low level and near sonic speed but I agree that now it looks like an F-16 lol.

If you want it to be more stealthy well the smaller engine would make the lower rear fuselage less deep and you could have shallower intakes perhaps without the MiG 29 profile, you could perhaps a adopt Raptor style 2D nozzle on the engine and adopt a one piece canopy?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix

Wing design and tail plane design have non-complementary angles, high speed stability and manuverability would suffer. Main wing desing would inhibit High Mach numbers making these a realatively low speed aircraft.


[edit on 7-12-2004 by robertfenix]

[edit on 7-12-2004 by robertfenix]


Hi
I can figure out and relate to all the other comments made. Can you provide me withe readers digest explaination of the 'noncomplimentary angles". This is for my understanding

thank you



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Well, here is another attempt, it's more of a stealth design based on the F-22 design, it has the 3DTVC EJ200 as you suggested, I don't know about the air-intake's position but I could figure out a better way, the only other way I could think of was placing 2 smaller instakes on each side of the fuselage.




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Yes, I'll have 200 of those please. Sod Yakovlev and the Yak 130



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
'noncomplimentary angles'

The first version of the main wing and tail plane had angles that would have adversely affected the airflow the squared ends on the tail plane vs the forward swept trailing edge of the main wing would cause quite a bit of air turbulence.

Look at the F16 and the minimal amount of "straight edge" on the tail planes and look at the distance from the tail planes to the trailing edge of the main wing.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Ok, will do, thanks for the input!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Hi i think this would be a cool new topic area, SOmething for like aricraft design like this cause i liked, plus its kinda hard to gte harsh and mean in a thread like this. Unlike most of the rest of ATS.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Yeah very true, I can only learn more on this topic


I guess the only thing people could say: MAN your AC is ugly! but I wouldn't really take offense...

I encourage other people to make designs like I did becuase i'd love to see what other people think of...



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
lets speculate, cannard, su27 wing, no tailplanes, without many details, only the basic concept........well.......how the hell can i insert an image!!!!!!!!






[edit on 9-12-2004 by grunt2]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join