posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:50 PM
That’s what I like, a get stuck in attitude.
WARNING: Dry techie post
Kilcoo, the engine thrust and wing area have been hashed through on the other thread.
All three proposals for evaluation have a Eurojet EJ-200 main engine with 13,500lbst military power and 20,250lbst with reheat. The EJ-200 is 4m long
and 0.85m diameter (the annotated image above is roughly to scale). It weighs 2,286lb giving it a thrust to weight ratio of 5.9:1 at maximum thrust.
It also features a 3d TVC nozzle which would increase weight slightly. Overall the thrust to weight ratio is significantly better than the strike
fighters it’s designed to replace.
They also have a Rolls Royce AE3007 derived lift jet which kicks out 6,764lbst (non-reheat) forwards of the COG. That has 2d TVC via post-exhaust
vanes, at 20 degrees aft through to 5 degrees forward (breaking). The AE3007 weighs 1,617lb and is 2.87m long and 1.392m diameter (max).
Talking specifically for the FSW design which is the first one, the wing area is approximately 25m² which is 17% greater than the X-29’s 21.4m²
(areas given as underwing surface).
Re Wing loading –we don’t have figures for that. But given the FSW we’d expect them to be higher than conventional designs with the most stress
at the root. Because of this we haven’t decided whether to put wing hardpoints on it (I vote no but want to at least do flow dynamics analysis on
them out of curiosity). The wing would have to be largely composite. Of note, since we have no pilot to worry about, hi g loadings are possible
–limited by weapons, airframe and systems –for this reason we do not feel confined by loadings in the same way a piloted aircraft design is. The
FBW controls (a given) could be used to limit wing loading. Since we are not actually going to build the damn thing, we can just work on the
assumption that suitably strong composites exist to form the high load structures (clearly they do).
Wing loading sources used as primary research: