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.

 

Designing the ATS-1...

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by theshadowknows





What is this a Lego Plane?




posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
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.


OK, I stand corrected. How about this then, something along the NASA X-29, maybe a little bigger with the new F-35's F-135 P&W 43,000 lb thrust engine.



www.fas.org...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Well this all got interesting. o.O

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
if its gonna be a concept..i'm not sure but..what kind of engine do we wanna use/work with? single or dual? or design our own engine in there too?



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
It's a concept so put what ever you feel necessary.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
My vote would be to walk before we run. Let's keep it simple. Nothing says that we can't try one now and something more advances later. My vote would be something with the capabilities of say an F-5


I couldn't agree more.

KISS

Keep It Simple Stupid - that is the way to go.

I've done some conceptual design work before, please do keep it simple guys or you'll just end up in a dead-end. I've seen others try to be smart about it before and run head first into the brown stuff.

I think the best bet would be to look at existing components and building around these as best as possible.


If needs be I could maybe generate a few CFD sims if someone supplies the geometry (but keep it simple, I don't have access to a supercomputer... well, not for this anyway!!).



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Yeah... The I agree too, If we keep this simple, we don't screw up this thread...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   






posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I remember this pic... When it was posted a couple of months ago... Pity it isn't real...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
O com on stealth, not that picture again.



Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I am sorry if this has already been addressed, but the very first thing that needs to happen is we need to determine what we expect this craft to do and its performance requirments. What its mission is.

Then we figure out the best way to achieve the result. I.e hardware specifics.



[edit on 28-12-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I'd suggest something along the lines of:

- Single engined (off the shelf unit)
- Strictly subsonic, with slightly swept wing (15-20 deg @ MAC)
- Aerodynamically stable
- No canards
- Two-crew (reduce avionic complexity and allow service as trainer)
- Trike landing gear (again off shelf if possible)

But I'll leave that up to others here to decide




Once you guys have finalised your design brief (what you want the aeroplane to do), next step is to get as much data on contemporary, comparable machines as possible, things like:

Wing area,
Engine thrust (or power if its prop driven),
MTOW,
EmptyW,
Range,
as much general data as possible for more accurate predictions on the initial sizings of the ATS-1.




[edit on 28-12-2005 by kilcoo316]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I assumed this whole thing was about coming up with a concept design. Trying to design an aircraft to the point that someone could actually build it is far beyond the vast majority of site members and at any rate, people seem more interested in fast jets than motorized gliders.
If the “real plane” guys want to start the ATS-2 project then cool, but I suggest that we keep ATS-1 as a concept aircraft.

Fighter Master FIN, maybe when you have all the suggestions in you should put the poll as a new thread. Each submission could have a 200 word description to explain the basic design ideas.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
I assumed this whole thing was about coming up with a concept design. Trying to design an aircraft to the point that someone could actually build it is far beyond the vast majority of site members and at any rate, people seem more interested in fast jets than motorized gliders.
If the “real plane” guys want to start the ATS-2 project then cool, but I suggest that we keep ATS-1 as a concept aircraft.

Fighter Master FIN, maybe when you have all the suggestions in you should put the poll as a new thread. Each submission could have a 200 word description to explain the basic design ideas.


We are just doing a concept design!!!

The KEEP IT SIMPLE advice still applies. Once everyone knows what works and the processes behind just generating a concept design, then they'll know what to look for in a more complicated future design.


If anyone thinks this is going to production...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I'd suggest something along the lines of:

- Single engined (off the shelf unit)
- Strictly subsonic, with slightly swept wing (15-20 deg @ MAC)
- Aerodynamically stable
- No canards
- Two-crew (reduce avionic complexity and allow service as trainer)
- Trike landing gear (again off shelf if possible)

But I'll leave that up to others here to decide




Once you guys have finalised your design brief (what you want the aeroplane to do), next step is to get as much data on contemporary, comparable machines as possible, things like:

Wing area,
Engine thrust (or power if its prop driven),
MTOW,
EmptyW,
Range,
as much general data as possible for more accurate predictions on the initial sizings of the ATS-1.




[edit on 28-12-2005 by kilcoo316]



Might I recommend something along the lines of the A-37 Dragonfly.





posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Kilco, with what you want, we might as well go with a trainer jet.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Kilco, with what you want, we might as well go with a trainer jet.

Shattered OUT...


Yeah, exactly.

Well, it depends on exactly how far you lot want to take this?

Just sketches, well, go for starwars designs and work away



But, if you want to do some basic performance calcs and even look at aero/structures/stability & control/engines etc in some detail, then I strongly suggest doing something very, very simple to start with, just so you know what works and what doesn't.

How many here have done conceptual/parametric aircraft design before? Is my caution necessary? Or is a crash course needed?


jra

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
So are we going to vote for what kind of fighter we want to design first, then come up with concepts? That would seem to make the most sense. No point in coming up with a concept if we don't even know what the parameters for the aircraft are going to be.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
For those amongst us more interested in less advanced ideas….



Really basic aerofoils with tandem cockpit and small jet engine mounted under the fuselage. that position, plus being 'pod' mounted, offers many advantages for a small jet aircraft but the problem surrounds FOD injestion, particularly from the forward undercarriage.

(this was also borrowed from the A.TT where it is the most basic configuration put forward for the “Sports jet” project, which is currently on a back burner).



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
For those amongst us more interested in less advanced ideas….



Really basic aerofoils with tandem cockpit and small jet engine mounted under the fuselage. that position, plus being 'pod' mounted, offers many advantages for a small jet aircraft but the problem surrounds FOD injestion, particularly from the forward undercarriage.

(this was also borrowed from the A.TT where it is the most basic configuration put forward for the “Sports jet” project, which is currently on a back burner).




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join