Designing the ATS-1...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Harlequin, the YF-23 is hardly a concept.

Shattered OUT...

well technically it is , as its not a production aircraft (yet) is it

and FMF - check your firewall - the url is fine thank you

external image

Well here it is, the final addition to the 3 view aircraft, I hope that this is good, if not I can always go back and add some stuff.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 27-12-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

My vote would be for...

2 interdiction/strike
1A heavy (F-22/Su-27/F-15)
manned
cheap.

I'll have to start some doodling now I guess.

I have some of my own designs somewhere on paper. Would like to show images but not sure how to insert them on a thread.

Designed some ATF's Stealth aircraft, Black project Aurora type planes n some other stuff too.

Modified the YF-12 by shortening the fuselage leaving it more triangular and installing an Avenger gun system.

A Lifting body fighter.

Modified F-7 Cutlass

A Three engined Delta winged Mirage type fighter.

And an Interceptor/Fighter version of the XR-7 Thunderdart

Ill try n find them as soon as possible





[edit on 27-12-2005 by Browno]

Intelgurl,
The early JFS configurations are interesting –particularly that several of the proposals have single vertical tail fin rather than twin outward canted ones. This suggests weight concerns since vertical tails are harder to stealth. Funnily enough I first got onto thinking about using lift fans for STOL (as opposed to the V/STOVL application on the F-35) after seeing this late eighties Lockheed proposal:

In general this can be seen as a precursor to the JSF. It also is curious because Sukhoi seem to be evolving the same cut-off tips in their S-54/55 designs (and I believe the T-50 “PAK-FA”):

The Lockheed design principle is clearly stealthy –something which hints towards post-Flanker Sukhois having low RCS.

The configurations I’m putting forward here differ greatly from the JSF in that they are twin engine and less stealthy (although the triangle forms are influenced by stealth concerns). But I am influenced by contemporary common thinking so some similarities with JSF are inevitable.

Here’s another. The twin engine to single fan issue is solved by having two smaller fans in tandem –which also increases weight but decreases width of the fuselage. The engines are mounted far apart to increase the roll influence of TVC. The canard is geared towards high lift (slats and flaps, think Vigen) rather than agility although the aircraft would still be quite agile (TVC mainly).
external image

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 28/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Planeman -
Please understand that I was not saying you copied the design, only that it was very similar.

Ok I'm not much of an aircraft designer, but I'd like to offer a few suggestions.

Just so you all know, I'm voting for a heavy, expensive, manned air superiority fighter.

First thing we'll want is something with supercruise, I can see that as becoming a requirement for all aircraft in the next ten years or so. Being able to do such a thing decreases the time it takes to rapidly intercept aircraft, plus it also allow allows aircraft to more rapidly leave the combat zone. And best of all, it usually means an efficent engine which in turn increases range. So a supercruise capable engine is a must, along with an aerodynamic form to keep the engine within reasonable output during supercruise. Just remember, without fuel you're stuck with nothing more than a glider.

Next thing is something that could carry a long range A2A missile such as the AIM-54 (although that's currently retired). Ever since the USN retired the AIM-54 and started retiring the F-14 nobody has had anything operational with such range.

Also another idea is one that I heard concerning the Russian Berkut. It's some sort of internal revolver like system within the fuelsalage. That could in theory increase payload without lowering lift, and making the craft more stealthy. I believe that the B-1 uses's a similar system for it's payload.

And my final suggestion for now is variable geometry wings, such as those on an F-14. Although these may be maintenence intensive, most interceptors aren't deployed that often anyhow. So I think that for an air superiority fighter you'll want to get the most lethal fighter in the air as possible.

Perhaps we should design a second, cheaper multirole aircraft to compliment the air superiority fighter. Sort of like the USAF's F-15/F-22 and F-16/F-35(JSF) combonation.

Originally posted by pennyforyourthoughts
I've been really bored too. Just like you boys.

I'm not really much into aircraft, so this is more like a normal fighter with a radar dish, extra fuel tanks and special paint to make it invisible to radars maybe.

[edit on 27-12-2005 by pennyforyourthoughts]

could u please tell me what software u use to make those designs

We need to run some polls so that we can agree on roughly what we are aiming at. Questions like:

Role: –Air-superiority,
JUST BECAUSE

Size: heavy (F-22/Su-27/F-15(LCA, F-5E, FC-1, Mig-21).
SO WE CAN HAVE neat features

manned
for the extra challange

DEAD STEVE
'cause if you're not living on the edge you are takin' up too much room



Cheap or Expensive?

No worries Intelgurl, I never thought you meant that.




Ok, this is my final and preferred first round submission: the Whirlwind heavy fighter.

Following the general mood here, it is a top of the range heavy air-dominance fighter with secondary strike capability. It is designed around the Super-Short Take-Off and Landing (S-STOL) concept with tandem lift fans in the fuselage behind the cockpit. The lift fans would be powered by the jet engines (as on the F-35) and the tandem layout means that if one fails, the aircraft is not chronically off-balanced. The aircraft would rely on care-free fly-by-wire controls to make transition from normal flight to super-slow decent safe and practical. Basically S-STOL means that the aircraft has a landing speed so sow that it almost sits on the runway, but cannot hover like a true V/STOVL aircraft. This allows it to be far bigger and land with heavier weapons loads than the Harrier/F-35 using VL. The short field performance means that the Whirlwind is not tied to conventional runways however, which increases survivability. The tactic of operating from roads is common but the S-STOL aircraft would be far better at it than existing designs (even the Saab Vigen/Gripen!).

It has canards, forward swept wings and thrust vectoring control to further enhance STOL characteristics.

The aircraft would have a typical avionics fit including IIRST, ASEA radar and datalinks. The primary air-air missile would be 6 Meteor BVR missiles with 2 of either AIM-9X, ASRAAM, IRIS-T or Python-5 short range missiles. Weapons would be carried in a large bomb bay, big enough to carry two anti-ship missiles or cruise missiles, between the engine nacelles.



VOTE WHIRLWIND!!!!! Lol,

could u please tell me what software u use to make those designs

I use 3dmax. I'm not an industrial designer. So these are just from my imagination, made "to look cool", not to actually work or fly or etc.

Do you people think this craft should be armed?

[img]

I Hope this came with an image attached

TWIN engined , three rotary bays (one for large missle, two interlocked ones for smaller missles) They would al exit above the wing sneaky holes that appear and diappear.

the rorary bay may need to shift forward and back in flight to balance the aircraft

NOT shownin this view is inward canted tallfins. not for control but provide IR protection for the engines

Just noodling


[edit on 27-12-2005 by dead steve]

Aircraft Projects
Discussion on anything From UAVs To Secret Spaceplanes.



Designing the ATS-1...
This is going to be the best thread on Aircraft Projects
I vote for WHIRLWIND Planeman sweet plane

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Jezza]

I created a little image in a 3d modeling program I have. It is as follows.

i vote for this one since its pretty much like the same thing i drew but all better looking

We are not voting for any planes just yet. I must admit that I never expected this to become as great as it did. You have done great designs, but I think that we should still leave a couple of days for other peoples to post thier ideas. After this, I'll copy all planes, and put them in one post at this thread. Then we will vote, and see who will be the lucky designer to get his/her model to become the ATS-1. After this we will start to work more with the winning model.

May I remind you, there are no loosers...!!!! If we agree to make two fighters, that is quite allright too. But at the moment, let's concentrate on one model... You have made very nice suggestions, and the voting will take place in two days, Friday. I was thinking about a sytem where there is no one vote to be given, but five. the best plane in your opinion gets five points, the second four etc. etc. I will inform you when the voting will start...

I thought that the objective of this project was to design an aircraft that could actually be built. All of these pictures of superplanes are currently on the edge of what the professionals are capable of let alone a scratch crew such as this. Realistically this group could probably come up with a decent aircraft with the capabilities of a Cessna 172. This is not ment to be a put down. Does anyone have any idea of what it actually takes to design an aircraft? Right now we could come up with a decent airframe, add a standard engine and avionics and have a neat stable little airplane. Anybody know how to design a lift fan? Anybody got a degree in Material Science? What effects will the gyroscopic forces generated by that lift fan have on the aircraft? What size does that fan have to be? How much fuel can this aircraft carry? What is the fuel consumption of the engines? Is there enough wing area to let this aircraft fly? What airfoil profile do we use? Anybody see what I am getting at? Right now we have a pretty picture contest going on. How about we analyze our capabilities and then decide what we are capable of? If this is to be a research project then it needs to be treated like one.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by JIMC5499]

LOL, I doubt there is a single person with expert knowledge on any of the design parameters you mentioned JIM. What your talking about requires some serious time and effort especially as no one here knows jack about it.

I think we should design a plane which is 10-20 years more advanced than what is available today. Otherwise what's the point, it'll just be another F-15, SU-27, Eurofighter look alike. What's the point of that ? Hardly exciting.

Who cares if nobody knows how to design a lift fan, I'm sure it took aerospace engineers thousands of man hours on CAD to design one for the F-35. See my point ?

Also, we shouldn't look to deep for the specs, as I doubt anyone has the expertise in CAD to actually build a proper one. What are you going to do design thousands of parts ?

So IMHO, everyone keep on designing those nice looking pictures. Pick one that looks good and flesh it out

PS. I don;t mean to design something completely outlandish. For example having an AWACS style radome on a plane would completely destroy any chance it has for supersonic flight.
But you could incorporate something like a plasma of laser spike no the nose of an aircraft to reduce friction etc.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by mad scientist]

^ i agree first plan a small simple craft and when thats done work on makeing a fancy one

Also why are we all thinking of Jet powered aircraft props are still useful also their easyer to find info on

Originally posted by mad scientist
LOL, I doubt there is a single person with expert knowledge on any of the design parameters you mentioned JIM. What your talking about requires some serious time and effort especially as no one here knows jack about it.

I think we should design a plane which is 10-20 years more advanced than what is available today. Otherwise what's the point, it'll just be another F-15, SU-27, Eurofighter look alike. What's the point of that ? Hardly exciting.

Who cares if nobody knows how to design a lift fan, I'm sure it took aerospace engineers thousands of man hours on CAD to design one for the F-35. See my point ?

Also, we shouldn't look to deep for the specs, as I doubt anyone has the expertise in CAD to actually build a proper one. What are you going to do design thousands of parts ?

So IMHO, everyone keep on designing those nice looking pictures. Pick one that looks good and flesh it out

PS. I don;t mean to design something completely outlandish. For example having an AWACS style radome on a plane would completely destroy any chance it has for supersonic flight.
But you could incorporate something like a plasma of laser spike no the nose of an aircraft to reduce friction etc.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by mad scientist]

I have designed thousands of parts. I do CAD design for a living. The original intention of this project was to design a viable aircraft, if we want to change that to concepts I have no problem with that. I would like to see what we could come up with as a viable design though. I figure with some work and research we might hit the equivilent of an F-5. When I build a machine I don't worry about things like motors and hydraulic pumps, I define my specifications and then look for an existing component that meets my specifications. I don't expect us to design a jet engine someone else had done that for us. This is why I feel that if we want a serious aircraft we should stay within the limits of proven technology.