Quote from: jcf on February 12, 2024, 03:57:07 PMWright R-3350-32W (Lockheed P2V-7)
Rating SL (hp/rpm): 3700/2900 (t/o); 2800/2600
Weight: 3,560 lbs
Length: 91.8 inches
Diameter: 56.59 inches

A-S Python 3 (Westland Wyvern S.4)
Rating SL (eshp*/rpm): 4110/8000
Weight: 3,450 lbs
Length: 123.2 inches
Diameter: 54 inches

The biggest issue is the difference in length, the Python 3 being thirty inches longer.

*In simple terms an eshp (equivalent shaft horsepower) rating is determined by adding together measured
shaft hp and the residual thrust divided by 2.5. Where 1 lhp = 2.5 lbs of thrust.
Which we can state simply as ESHP = SHP + (RT/2.5).

The 4,110 eshp rating is the total power rating for the engine, it is not 4,110 hp + 1,180 lbs of thrust, it's
3,638 shp + 472 hp from residual thrust.

4,110 eshp = SHP + (1180 lbs. thrust/2.5); 1180/2.5 = 472; 4,110 - 472 = 3,638 SHP.

Ah, thanks Jon - I didn't have time the other day to dig into it deeply. 

The Python STILL looks so much cooler.................... 

Quote from: Rheged on February 13, 2024, 01:15:23 AM

Quote from: Rick Lowe on February 12, 2024, 11:30:04 PM

Quote from: Steel Penguin on February 12, 2024, 01:15:23 PMTake over the world,  nope, not a chance      have you thought how much paperwork that would involve,  it would wipe out any chance of bench time. 

This is true, I had not thought that through - you make good sense.
I've never been keen on the spotlight (or paperwork) anyway; but we could always get minions to 'run' things while we stay in the background, at the bench...?

Some decades ago, I earned my Boy Scout  "World   Domination "  badge....................which was all very well, but then I took up whiffery because it was more fun!

  

Brainwave:

1. The only realistic competitor to the Jaguar, in the same timeframe, for the Japanese requirement for a single-seat strike aircraft and two-seat supersonic trainer on the same core airframe, would be the Northrop F-5E/F-5F, right?

2. The problems with using the F-5E in the "anti-landing-craft" role would be that the low ground clearance would make the use of long, large-span ASM-1s dodgy if not impossible, and that the radar is not geared towards ASV work and is possibly too small, right?

3. We know that the F2 is basically an unbuilt General Dynamics "Super F-16" proposal taken over by the Japanese, right?

SO, what if the Japanese applied the same principal as the F2/F-16 to the F-5E, but a decade-and-a-half earlier? There was a real, unbuilt, proposal by Northrop for a shoulder-winged F-5E with fuselage-mounted undercarriage. You can find it in Secret Projects - US Jet Fighters and it was, in fact, the first Whiff I ever completed after finding this place. It was effectively the first step in the evolution from the F-5E, through the P-530 Cobra, to the YF-17 and F/A-18 (the primary idea was to separate the undercarriage from the wings, so that the airfoil section of the latter weren't determined by the thickness of the former). You might imagine Mitsubishi picking up on this design as the ideal basis for a Japanese project, since the high wing would give ground clearance for the ASM-1s, and the fact that the undercarriage would have to be a new design anyway would mean that it could be longer. The lower fuselage could be given a rounded shape for more internal fuel amidships, a Vulcan under the cockpit, and a bigger radome for a bigger, locally-developed radar. The extra weight would be  compensated for by a slightly bigger wing, just as the F2 has a bigger wing than the F-16.

Modelling-wise, F-16 wings might be the right size (I haven't checked), and moving them to the shoulder position is easier than you'd think (well I managed it...). Bulging the underside would probably be a matter of scratchbuilding, but at least the flat underside of the F-5 airframe makes for a relatively easy starting point. You could even make the bulge flat-bottomed and end up with a countour around the intakes similar to that on the Jaguar.

The A-4 might be a good fit for Japan in that time period. Maybe an A4D-6 style upgrade but not quite as large. A later Avon may provide a performance increase over the J57. Or if you wanted to go the size of the A4D-6, a TF-41 Spey might work over the TF-30.

Quote from: Steel Penguin on February 08, 2024, 10:11:50 AMfor the anti surface role  perhaps a buccaneer version, but not too certain what / how. 

Been there, done that, although the role of my 'Kaizoku' Japanese for 'pirate' is reconnaissance to counter Chinese naval incursions in the sea of Japan



Miko

Quote from: Dizzyfugu on February 09, 2024, 04:34:02 AMBut I like the idea of a Japanized Hawk, should look cool in bright fligght school colors and with hinomaru. 

I have Blue Impulse Fuji T4 and Red Arrows Hawk T1a, a paint colours and decal swap might be an interesting project

Miko

Quote from: MikoLee on March 15, 2024, 05:06:34 PM

Quote from: Steel Penguin on February 08, 2024, 10:11:50 AMfor the anti surface role  perhaps a buccaneer version, but not too certain what / how. 

Been there, done that, although the role of my 'Kaizoku' Japanese for 'pirate' is reconnaissance to counter Chinese naval incursions in the sea of Japan



Miko

That Buccaneer looks striking (pun intended) in that colour scheme.

Quote from: MikoLee on March 15, 2024, 05:06:34 PM

Quote from: Steel Penguin on February 08, 2024, 10:11:50 AMfor the anti surface role  perhaps a buccaneer version, but not too certain what / how. 

Been there, done that, although the role of my 'Kaizoku' Japanese for 'pirate' is reconnaissance to counter Chinese naval incursions in the sea of Japan



Miko

The only problem with that is that the Japanese Constitution doesn't allow for aggressive actions so a Strike or Anti-Shipping role for an aircraft is not allowed. However, Anti-Landing Craft roles are allowed, and if a conflict happens then the rules change.

Gondor

Quote from: Gondor on March 16, 2024, 03:23:13 AMThe only problem with that is that the Japanese Constitution doesn't allow for aggressive actions so a Strike or Anti-Shipping role for an aircraft is not allowed. However, Anti-Landing Craft roles are allowed, and if a conflict happens then the rules change.

Gondor

Precisely, which is why I wrote the Kaizoku is a reconnaissance platform, the pod that can be seen under the wing is an air sampler for detecting radiation levels after the Fukushima Diaichi nuclear disaster and North Korean nuclear tests . . .  (a role actually carried out formerly by JASDF F-4 EJ and currently by an Fuji T2)

However, Article 9 of the post war Japanese constitution does allow for the deployment of weapons for the purposes of self defense.

Miko

What about a Japanification of the Northrop F-20. Moving the wings up for weapons clearance and moving the wing wheel base towards the aircraft centre line.

Robert

The "anti-landing craft" mission is pretty much a paper-thin euphemism for "anti-ship". It's hard to draw a meaningful line between a Mitsubishi F1 with ASM-1s and a Super-Etendard with Exocets.

Quote from: Rolead on March 16, 2024, 03:50:02 AMWhat about a Japanification of the Northrop F-20. Moving the wings up for weapons clearance and moving the wing wheel base towards the aircraft centre line.

Robert

That's a good idea!

Quote from: Weaver on March 16, 2024, 03:59:56 AMThe "anti-landing craft" mission is pretty much a paper-thin euphemism for "anti-ship". It's hard to draw a meaningful line between a Mitsubishi F1 with ASM-1s and a Super-Etendard with Exocets.

With on going belligerent stance from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran and encouragement from the US the two thirds majority needed in a referendum in order to alter 'Article 9' to adopt a more aggressive defense posture seems inevitable, which is maybe why further development of the Mitsubishi  ASM-3 a mach 3+ anti ship missile with land attack capabilities is on going to increase it's range beyond 300kms.

So JASDF aircraft with long range offensive weapons will be less of a 'what if' and more of a 'when it'

Miko (Japanophile)