Straft Engine Concept

If the government ever thought of this, planes would be more agile than helicopters! And it is my concept, my idea! And the last time I checked, Ihad a mere IQ of 116 and I am only a 15 year old girl!
Now to get down to business of this tread.
The straft engine is basically three engines in one. Two smaller engines are connected to a larger main engine. The smaller engines can be erected in order to fire a quick thrust of fuel. A fighter with just two straft engines not only go forward, up, down, and left to right, but can move side to side without turning and up and down without gainig altitude or distance. But in order to gain altitude, the fighter would have to flip over on its belly. This is where four strafts are handy. Two engines will be laid on top of each other on each side of the plane, the sides without the connected secondary engines facing each other. In a sense, the fighter will not have to roll on its belly in order to activate the top straft engines and will get double the push on the left and right sides.
Straft engines will be very helpful in dogfights and evading missiles. With two pairs of strafts, a F-4 could do a cobra maneuver with ease. Straft engines will make today's maneuvers better and even create more maneuvers.
Although this does not exist yet, we have the technology to build one. Strafts can be made out of various engines, such as but not limited to: scramjets, turbojets, ramjets, and turboshafts.
Now picture this, Aurora outfitted with four straft ramjets. Now it can win any dogfight!
I am the only one here that UNDERSTANDS it and KNOWS how to make a working model. I would like to show the President and Lockheed my concept. I have a lot more to show them, too.
I also have the concept sketches with patent.
But next time I'll post a link to a video of straft engine maneuverability in a dogfight.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by DarkStars Aurora]

Originally posted by DarkStars Aurora
The straft engine is basically three engines in one. Two smaller engines are connected to a larger main engine.

That sounds like a who lot of weight to me. The engines are (to my knowledge) probably one of the most serious contributers to empty weight. Planes are already pretty heavy without adding more on there. Not to mention expense.

but can move side to side without turning and up and down without gainig altitude or distance.

Are you sure about that?

Straft engines will be very helpful in dogfights and evading missiles.

How large would they be? I don't actually have the number, but it would have to be at least a foot in diameter to have any noticeable effect on the aircraft. And if they're that big and massive you'd need huge support struts to get them erect. And if they're that big, then you'd have to be at a really low speed to safely erect them without ripping them off, same as landing gear.

Now picture this, Aurora outfitted with four straft ramjets. Now it can win any dogfight!

I thought the Aurora was a more or less unarmed spyplane that travels much higher than any dogfighting aircraft.

I would like to show the President and Lockheed my concept. I have a lot more to show them, too.
I also have the concept sketches with patent.

Unlikely. I don't mean to dump on your idea or anything, but this idea has been toyed with already. The execution (with the straft engines) is new, but the effect is not. The AV-8B Harrier (more commonly known as the Harrier Jumpjet) does this by using puffer jets and thrust vectoring. Also, the F-35B uses a large fan for STOVL operations. However, those designs falter in the same areas yours does. The F-35B's device should only be used at low speeds and is not entirely effective. The Harrier was a good idea but ultimately it didn't live up to the hype IMHO.

I would, however, like to see how your design works before I criticize it any more because it's totally possible that you've fixed those problems with the help of more modern tech and ideas.

I think that this is a good idea but I think that the motion of literally blasting an aircraft from side to side is only suitable for UAVs or else the pilot will suffer some whiplash.

You should look into rockets instead of conventional engines or ramjets.

Gs also have to be considered. An aircraft can only be so maneuverable before it literally folds itself in half in mid air.

Ramjets will be VERY VERY VERY difficult to use in this concept. Ramjets have to have air moving directly into them at very very high speed to work. That is impossible with a foward moving aircraft, by the time that air has "turned" and gone into the ramjet section it will be moving a bit too slow.

I think the engine concept is great. I think that you will run into serious trouble designing an aircraft that can efficiently utilize it.


[edit on 14-1-2007 by BlackWidow23]

I concept I've kind of explored that kind of compliments your idea is the use of vents on the aircraft to replace thrust (not to function in its place, but rather move it elsewhere on the aircraft).

For example.

If you had an aircraft that was otherwise normal, but somehow were able to divert some thrust to the wingtips, you'd have a bit of advantage if you could control it a bit. Allowing the thrust nozzles on the wingtips to tilt slightly would give better roll rates, for example. The idea here being that if it were an F/A-18 Hornet, you could have the engines in a tight, central formation while translating some of the thrust to the wingtips. This would boost the roll rates. Also, as a cheap substitute for thrust vectoring it might be possible to move the thrust over or through the elevators (so long as they could withstand the stress) and gain some more maneuverability that way.

I'm not sure about this, but I think the F-15 S/MTD used a similar system, but not as elaborate. I think it had some "thrust veins" that could direct its thrust forward and stop suddenly.

Hmmm.... As someone pointed out weight would be an issue: so would maintenance, stresses, logistics(ie: what are you sacrificing to include this system), fuel consumption, etc... I wouldn't run off to Lockeed just yet. BUT you have shown the inventive spirit of an engineer and it should be commended that someone your age is showing this kind of initiative and inventiveness. My advice would not be to hope this idea goes anywhere now but to turn your obvious interest into a passion that leads to career... which cold lead to some ground breaking idea. Get good grades, go to a decent college that offers aeronautical engineering and don't let go of your ideas. I couldn't even begin to describe the crazy bridges and such that I dreamed up in when I was young. College will hone those far fetched ideas into the engineering mind and give one a practical base from which to operate. Keep it up. as someone suggested, the solution to the flaws in your plan probably lie in thrust vectoring, though what those are for fully three dimensional vectoring i do not know as I am no aeroeng. (as a civil-structural engineer I really despise things that move and all the problems that brings, which is why we have mechanical engineers).

Here's some more info:
For the ramjet, the smaller engines have a valve that erects inside to divert the airflow into them when erected. The smaller engines are also connected right before the igniters and fuel injectors, preventing the valves from burning. When activated, the plane would slow down any way because the smaller engines are attached to air spoilers.

If you had an aircraft that was otherwise normal, but somehow were able to divert some thrust to the wingtips, you'd have a bit of advantage if you could control it a bit. Allowing the thrust nozzles on the wingtips to tilt slightly would give better roll rates, for example. The idea here being that if it were an F/A-18 Hornet, you could have the engines in a tight, central formation while translating some of the thrust to the wingtips. This would boost the roll rates. Also, as a cheap substitute for thrust vectoring it might be possible to move the thrust over or through the elevators (so long as they could withstand the stress) and gain some more maneuverability that way.

Originally, I had a similar idea connected with the straft engine systems. It could help with satelites and the space shuttle for sure. I do use a similar system in science fiction spacecraft in my books, for sure.
(That could explain the X-wing's excellant maneuverability in space)
I will thus thank you for this trouble-shooting. I didn't know some of that, but I'll take it for consideration.

Originally posted by DarkStars Aurora
Here's some more info:
For the ramjet, the smaller engines have a valve that erects inside to divert the airflow into them when erected. The smaller engines are also connected right before the igniters and fuel injectors, preventing the valves from burning. When activated, the plane would slow down any way because the smaller engines are attached to air spoilers.

But the problem is you'd have to slow down to a very low speed to use them properly. If they function as you describe (allowing a hover and so forth), you'd have to be at a very low speed in the first place. Near-stall, likely. If you were at these speeds and still managed a hover, you'd have a very large problem in a WVR and a BVR situation. BVR you'd simply be missiled to death with lack of airspeed to do anything about it. In WVR it'd be the age-old Cobra debate, with which I have to say is a good idea, but only works in very limited circumstances.

Originally, I had a similar idea connected with the straft engine systems. It could help with satelites and the space shuttle for sure. I do use a similar system in science fiction spacecraft in my books, for sure.
(That could explain the X-wing's excellant maneuverability in space

)
I will thus thank you for this trouble-shooting. I didn't know some of that, but I'll take it for consideration.

Being a Star Wars geek, I have to reply to this. The X-Wing has no moving surfaces on the wings (except for the whole wing itself, which moves for extra cooling of weapons systems). The X-Wing is controlled only by retro-thrusters on the front as well as thrust vectoring on its 4 ion engines at the back, which is performed only by the very small engine outlets. The intakes on the front are only for cooling in atmospheric environments, I think. Yeah, I like seeing how and why things work. I've had my fun .

Anyway, the straft engine is an interesting idea, I'd just like to make some suggestions to perhaps improve the design.

I'd have to see diagrams to compare the large engines to the smaller strafts. However, I'll assume that they're anywhere from a quarter to a third the size of the engines (which is still big enough to contribute some serious weight). The engines that I think might work best would be ones approximately 2 feet long, around there. It's not very big, that's right. It's to keep the weight down and the space required down.

The second would, instead of having erectable engines sticking out, I would embed them in the fuselage (or maybe even in the wings if you can fit them and afford the weight) in areas as far away from the COG as you can get for greatest effect. This was you avoid increased drag, and with a bit of engineering kung-fu you can even use them at any speed. You can add a straft engine outlet facing as forward as you like, but the lip at the frontward section of the outlet must be lower (assuming that the outlet is on the bottom of the aircraft) than the lip at the rearward section. So in this way, the airflow "jumps the gap" of the straft engine outlet, making a sort of retro-thruster, but for aircraft.

Third, I would advise that these be ramjets to decrease the weight in these suckers as much as possible. As you've already suggested, a vent in the intake will pull this off quite nicely. They're simple, can be made small, and don't need really big intakes.

That's about it for now, I'll probably think of more later.