It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:37 PM
Who says that we don't want to launch this bird from a carrier? Why not? If we are going to go lets go big.

Waynos, beautiful job on that model.

[edit on 30-12-2005 by JIMC5499]

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 10:58 PM
because we dont have a carrier

any other ideas for the eats-1
by the way why dont we find a beter system than the correct letter plus ats
still no coment on the box wing. how about something like boeings new sst concept.

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 06:29 AM
No, we don't have a carrier. But neither does Northrop-Grumman, Boeing and Dassault. Dpesn't stop them catering for one though does it?

We don't have an air force either.

Thanks for the kind words on the model, everyone

[edit on 31-12-2005 by waynos]

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:27 AM
Thats true... I guess. well anyway lets think of what we'll do with whatever design gets picked

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:06 AM
Finaly I found description of my proposals:

ATS-1: The last third of wing has in its standard position angle 45 degrees for so called compression lift. Conical body underneath the center of a wing would push the air to the side, increasing pressure under the wing section, thereby increasing lift with far less drag than simply increasing the size of the wing itself. During slow speed, take off and landing it has angle 0 degrees for maximal lift and it can use mechanized leading edge. Position at 75 degrees is ideal for close air combat, when it can be used as ruddervator and manoeuvre jet nozzle can help with radical pitch moving.

Jet manoevring system consist of air intake under fuselage next to front gear leg, electricaly or fuel powered fan, air flow splitter and jet nozzles. It weights more than standard manoevring surfaces, but it is more stealthy and can operate independently on aircrafts speed.

ATS-2: It has many maneuvring surfaces for better control, some degree of primitive thrust vectoring and separable cockpit for crew and also expensive avionics. Fuel is carried in center of the gravity so no transfer system will be needed. We can also easilly move center of the gravity by resizing sectors between cockpit and fuel tanks and between fuel tanks and engine. The full-glass cockpit (made from plastic, not glass) will be difficult to manufacture, but the flight in it.....

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:40 AM
The US Navy is in the process of looking for a new aircraft. They want to combine the AWAC, tanker and Maritime Patrol functions into different versions of the same airframe. They are also looking for a replacement for their P-3 aircraft.

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 08:56 AM
More info and some "concepts" can be found at EATS-1 Thread
-The end of commercial-

posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 05:55 AM
If you're trying to design a fighter, I suggest looking to the 5th generation design for inspiration. Some feature you might want to look at are:

Fly by Light controls
long range sensors and weapons

Has anyone though of a modified version of the Northrop YF-23 Black Widow II? I think it would be a great starting point.


posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by pennyforyourthoughts
maybe we don't have to decide what the fighter will do.
external image

Someone needs to build that. Just because it would be the toughest looking thing in the sky.

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 07:47 PM
Throwing my hat into the ring a bit late, but I'm throwing it in anyhow. Let me at the fighter project!

Things I can help with:
enough knowledge of radars (specificly phased array) to be useful
enough general aircraft knowledge to provide some help screening the feasable from the completely unrealistic.

[color=880000]*deleted due to inconsistant and quite possibly delirious opinions on aircraft design.*
**the most useful things just deleted above were opinions that a twin F-136 engined aircraft with a large canard area and full vectored thrust could have good enough STOL properties and low speed performance to make lift fans unneccisary. Oh, and we don't neccisarily need verticle stabilisers for control purposes if we use a full vectored thrust.**

On a more practicle note, I'd like to suggest we seek out or develop a conformal phased array antenna, which will avoid the nasty radar signature aspects of most other antenna types.

okay, I'll go seek out and report to my ATS assigned thread now...

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Travellar]
Second edit: I call dibs on designing the radar! what's my budget? can I get a theoretical $7Mil? (okay, what I want to do will probrably cost 3 times that much...)

[edit on 12-1-2006 by Travellar]

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:46 AM
So, is this thread basically defunct now, or can more designs be posted, obviously not for voting, but just because?

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:57 PM
Interesting thread.
It's been a while since I worked on an aircraft.
Put some current designs, some wing warping, a little Rutanisms and press puree! See what comes out.

I'm thinking manned unmanned combo.
What's a good nick for a main craft and its sub craft counterpart?

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 08:40 PM
Argh can't edit my previou thread.
I have little time to model something from the ground up.
Doesn't quite hold up..but oh well.

posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:38 AM
Just a thought... One way to test peoples ideas and how well they come up with design is to have them come up with a design to past requirement, say, to the American WS-303A or the British F.155T. I do a lot of aircraft drawing and often think about designs for such requirments and what would I design. One design I should post covers a strike aircraft to replace the Buccaneer. In keeping with when it would be developed and other requirements at that time, the design was to be an aircraft with similar performance to the TSR.2, but for the RN. To my knowledge, no such requirement existed, but I felt was a perfect 'what-if' project. The end design was a twin engine aircraft, about 70ft in length, wings mid mounted and similar to the Buccaneer's but with better supersonic capability. The engines would be about 15t thrust and mounted in pods on the rear fuselage. The tailplane would be T-type, with an all moving elevator. The tail would have the same split cone airbrake as the Bucc, as well as having blown flaps and an internal bomb bay below the wing spar. Crew of two sat in tandem. Once I am able to post the design you'll understand it better.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 10:22 PM
My entry would be using the design from a fictional aircraft called the x-02 which is in acecombat 4 and 5. The design looks usable except the part where the wings go frombeing back then forward to being almost like a delta wing and the oblique stabilizers become horisontal stabilizers at high speeds to reduce drag. That doesn't seem like it would work well. although we could put in all kinds of cool goodies.

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 05:47 AM
Ok, I've finally created an ATS-1 Concept called the Assassin. I made it from a modified YF-23. I hope it uploads right. Some of the features I've added/changed specs include:

Thrust Vectoring
30mm Cannon
Helmet mounted display and sighing system
Vocie Operated weapons

If I ever get the point to upload the picture, I will!


[edit on 27-1-2006 by ghost]

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 11:40 AM














This is the plane I was talking about It looks awesome!!!

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:01 PM
Ahh yes, the AESA X-02 Stealth Concept.

Concept, that's about it. But it is a pretty looking plane, oo all the planes I shot down with it in Ace Combat 4.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:05 PM
That told me absolutely nothing...

what I am asking is if it was built would it fly well

posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 02:18 PM
Sounds great, me personally I would like a manned, ultra expensive & looking not too dissimillar to this.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in