AMX International - 'Ideas Vault'

[DarrenP2]

European Space Agency training aircraft?

RAF/FAA dissimilar air combat trainer for 100sqn and 736Sqn

[silverwindblade]

Hate to necropost, but there's already this topic, so I didn't want to start a new one for an existing aircraft.
I've got one of these in my stash, and I'm pondering what to hang under it, and what scheme to do it in.
I'm not overly beholden to national air forces and operators; I base most of my builds on the fictional setting I've developed. However, doing this as a maritime light-strike aircraft is something that sounds good. Not sure what to arm it with? Would Harpoons be out of its' weight class, especially two of them?
Ideally I'd go for Penguins, but they're like rocking-horse poo in 1/48th scale.
I have some 1/48th torpedoes from an S-3 Viking that are itching to go on something, but I think they'd look wrong.
Suggestions? Ideas? Comments?

[scooter]

Hate to necropost, but there's already this topic, so I didn't want to start a new one for an existing aircraft.
I've got one of these in my stash, and I'm pondering what to hang under it, and what scheme to do it in.
I'm not overly beholden to national air forces and operators; I base most of my builds on the fictional setting I've developed. However, doing this as a maritime light-strike aircraft is something that sounds good. Not sure what to arm it with? Would Harpoons be out of its' weight class, especially two of them?
Ideally I'd go for Penguins, but they're like rocking-horse poo in 1/48th scale.
I have some 1/48th torpedoes from an S-3 Viking that are itching to go on something, but I think they'd look wrong.
Suggestions? Ideas? Comments?

Well, considering the MTOW, according to Wiki, for an AMX is 28.66k lbs (13000kg), and a Harrier's rolling MTOW is, again according to Wiki, is 31k lbs (14000 kg), and the Harpoon wasadapted for Harrier carriage (again, according to Wiki), you should be fine.  Although torps on a modern(ish) jet would look delightfully anachronistic.

[tahsin]

Finally l found the name for a plane l had seen on the web. lA 63 Avanzado. An Argentinian project based on the Pampa trainer, it really looks like an AMX with inlets low on the hull.

[Weaver]

Don't the Italians use Kormoran AShMs on their AMXs?

[Cobra]

how about doing the AMX in the Bright/Chrome Yellow ASR Scheme Featured in Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds? Dan

[tahsin]

And let me correct myself as the full AMX lookalike is lA 68 while 63 still has two small engines, as far as l can tell.

[tahsin]

There was an F-15 or two around here?

[Zero-Sen]

Double take to show the differences between the A-1 and the canard A-2...

[Pellson]

[Boring technical mode]
You are aware that the canards and the stabilators do have the same function, i.e stabilising and controlling the aircrafts pitch. Neither contribute anything to lift - which means that the main wing, regardless of conventional or canard configuration, will have to be located/centered at the center of gravity.

Given the above, it is a bit strange to see the wing move aft as you effectively add weight forward by shifting control surfaces to the nose. It should be the opposite. This said, you are far freom alone. Most "canardisation" drawings seem to make the same blunder, so don't feel too bad about it.
[/boring technical mode]

 

[Flyer]

True that canards and stabilisers provide the same function's of pitch and stability but canard surfaces do contribute lift, the CG of a canard will also be much further forward than on a conventional layout. Example: a wing section of a conventional layout will have the CG at around 1/3ish the chord, a canard design using the same wing section will actually have it's CG in front of the main wing.

See here for an example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Longitudinal_stability_Canard.svg

[Pellson]

True that canards and stabilisers provide the same function's of pitch and stability but canard surfaces do contribute lift, the CG of a canard will also be much further forward than on a conventional layout. Example: a wing section of a conventional layout will have the CG at around 1/3ish the chord, a canard design using the same wing section will actually have it's CG in front of the main wing.

See here for an example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Longitudinal_stability_Canard.svg

True for subsonic designs but not in supersonic fighter applications. You will also find that unstable designs get their instability from having the CoG behind the lift center.

But - this is whifworld, so I won't defend this any further. My object was really more one of avoiding straight swaps of wings vs stabilisers than debating a foot here or there.. 

[thundereagle1997]

We all want to see an supersonic AMX  air superiority fighter variant
1 day when the design is fully completed.