posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:27 AM
I’ve put a vertical spacer between the wings on D-0014 (below
). Although we can refine it further, I think this illustration will act as the
main one before we go into the 3D modeling and (hopefully) ray-tracing (airflow analysis) stage.
Another more subtle refinement is that I’ve had the rear fuselage made fatter to allow more fuel. We could also consider a belly tray for even more
fuel if the concern remains later in evaluation. Something that might not be apparent in this illustration is that I envisage all the necessary
navigation and targeting devices to be built in rather than carried externally. The chin position is where the main targeting sensors/designators
would be housed –such as straight off the Rafael Lightning pod or something.
We should definitely attempt to model twin weapons carriage at the wingtips if we can get some ray-tracing done.
Another problem I’ve just thought about is the position of the air intake for the lift jet –directly above the fuselage where it would be shadowed
by the nose at high angles of attack. I propose that this could be overcome simply by having twin intakes ‘pop-up’ at 45 degrees from the same
position (rather than a single door). This refinement would apply equally to all our designs.
Re the ‘full-diamond’ wing idea – I drew it with F-18 shaped main wing and canards –any comments on that? We need to put a ‘conventional’
wing design in the options package before comparative analysis.
As well as the S-STOL version we are coming up with, I’d also propose a STOL version for medium carries which have arrestor gear and catapults (or
at least longer ski-jumps). The only major difference would be removal of the lift-jet –that would allow a significant increase in internal fuel
–win-win. In that guise the conventional version would have even greater advantage over the bi-diamond and FSW versions (pity).
Kilcoo. Thanks for the pointers. Re the airflow analysis –is it pie in the sky to hope that we could realistically model these proposals in CAD or
3dMax and use free/open source programs to do credible (not up to industry standard necessarily, but not flawed) airflow analysis?