Super Crusader

[rallymodeller]

Sorry, Archie -- my bad. J-75 is absolutely correct. In my defense I typed that at 0500 local time, and really should have been in bed.

 

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

The model would be more than 3 cm shorter !!!

Well... There is no obligation! Indeed, you could choose to put your engine back and have no difference in the size of the plane. It could even be a better choice speacking about the center of gravity of the aircraft!

For my part, I will probably have a shorter F-8, but not so shorter!! 1,5cm is too much I thing.

But the good news is that with 800kg less (and probably 1000kg less if I put some composit structural elements and is I delete the variable incident system) I will have more possibilities for additional fuel, ECM, armor etc etc...

A very good news indeed!!



@ Shasper:
I really enjoy what you did with your F-8! I thought myself about a longer nose and a dorsal spin for ECM and communication systems...  

[Shasper]

Re: Engine length

In order to save the time on figuring out the CG w/t airframe shortened, put a spacer between the last stage of the engine & the nozzle (like on the F110 powered F-14s), you'll retain the same CG position and you wont have to chop-job the fuselage, and then have to recompute the CG.


Shas B)

[Archibald]

Sorry, Archie -- my bad. J-75 is absolutely correct. In my defense I typed that at 0500 local time, and really should have been in bed.

What happened ? I've aready forgotten ^_^  (and I was under cafein when I made the calculations for the length of the engines).

Well this is an old debate
If I put a shorter and lighter engine...what mods ?
a shorter and lighter aircraft, OR
the same aircraft with more fuel, electronics and the like ?

I prefer the first solution, albeit there's CoG problems.
But I want to move the wings forward... (a kind of A-7 / F-8 hybrid!)

[Lawman]

How would a Spey engined Crusader compare? Presumably it should be possible to add extra hardpoints, but would the variable incidence wing interfere with this? Given that the whole wing needs to be raised and lowered, any enhanced warload would potentially cause problems for the mechanism.

A Spey engined F-8, possibly with UK radar and avionics, and enhanced ground attack capability might be a good choice for a single-type CVA-01 airwing. Even better, modified to carry a pair of Sparrows semi-recessed underneath, and the four side mounted Sidewinders, plus four wing hardpoints, would make a good multi-role fighter for the UK. Even better, it might even have been developed in place of the Jaguar, potentially with France, meaning no Super Etendard. A Franco-UK built Super Crusader would have been great - the Clemenceau and Foch could have carried two dozen modern multi-role fighters! Even better, the Super Clemenceau idea for a mid '50s CVA-01 (four or five, ordered '56, '58, '60 and '62, with a final one possibly in '64) would have been able to carry somewhere around 35-40 Super Crusaders. With a French or UK radar, Spey engine, and built in the UK and France, that should be enough home content to satisfy most people.  

[Zen]

Mirage G looks better IMO. That flew and really did interest the French Navy.

Some of what you want is feasable though, but such a machine does not meet RN requirements of the time, not OR346 or AW406.

[Lawman]

The problem is that the Mirage G ended up being a very expensive, and complex project, that wouldn't be ready before the late '70s, by which time the VG technology had fallen out of favour again.

As for the requirements, the problem is that none of the aircraft were able to fully meet OR 346, but a Crusader would come close (it should be able to meet the air to air requirements, and could carry a suitable warload). As for AW.406, I suspect the Crusader would come close, and when the modifications are being made, it should be possible to come very close to meeting the requirements, even if it can't fully meet them.

The reality is that the Crusader would be ready, on time, and probably on budget, whereas a lot of the late '50s and early '60s British projects were very questionable. Arguably far too much emphasis was placed on trying to come up with 'gimmicky' aircraft like the SR-177 and P1154, rather than emphasising realistic types, like the French Mirage III. In the end, the UK ended up without its own practical fighter, where the French ended up with a real export success, and sadly, not all of it can be blamed on the Sandys review of '57...

[Lord Darth Beavis]

Wow! Changing the J-57 for a modern turbofan would gave an aircraft 800 kg lighter! Nearly a METRIC TON!!!

And 1.10 shorter... (roughly 1.5 cm in 1/72 scale) no need for the VI wing! But CoG would become a problem...

Pollux, I think I'll cut the rear part of my Crusader (even if I have to move the tail, I don't give a damn about that!)

CG wouldn't be an issue, Arch...go full-on unstable, and add a complete FBW system, possibly lifted from the Rafale.  Then, watch those Turkish dogs go spiraling to their deaths!  

[Archibald]

The problem is that the Mirage G ended up being a very expensive, and complex project, that wouldn't be ready before the late '70s, by which time the VG technology had fallen out of favour again.

Dear Lawman... the Mirage G and G8 are different aircrafts!

The G had a single TF-306E, flew in November 1967 (very well!). It could have been ready in 1969, and as Zen mentioned, the French navy was interested. But all of this went to naught, and the SE was selected in 1973, leaving the Crusader for fleet defense until 1999.  

the G8 had two Atar 9K50 engine, flew in May 1971 and was abandonned in 1972 in favor of the ACF (basically, a fixed wing G8 with M53 turbofans).

FBW Crusader is a fabulous idea. Just ask NASA!    

Another interesting whatif would be a Crusader with the Atar 9K50 (engine of the Mirage F1 and Mirage 50). Maybe less power, but also much less weight and seize...

concerning the VI wing... if the engine is shorter (and the J-57 was 6.2 meters long, when modern engines are roughly 5 meter long) the rear fuselage is shorter, ok ? so there's no need for the VI wing!
Nose-high landings on the carrier become possible without breaking the rear fuselage on the flight deck...  

[Archibald]

when you land on a carrier, landing speed has to be the lowest possible. To obtain the lowest landing speed  you have to fly at the highest possible angle of attack (without stall of course! ).

The Crusader had a long rear fuselage because of its bulky J-57. The main undercarriage was also short (on the side of the fuselage).

Result was, at the best angle of attack for landing on a carrier, the rear fuselage would have touched the deck... before the undercarriage!

Two solutions
- diminishing the incidence at landing. this would give a higher landing speed... not desirable.
- changing the incidence of the wing... without changing the incidence of the whole aircraft. This was the solution adopted in the form of the variable incidence wing...

A third solution would have been a shorter rear fuselage. This imply a shorter engine... such as late 50's turbojets (atar, Avon, J-79) or "modern" turbofans (Spey, M53 and the like)

The Drakken had a similar problem because of its delta wing : the rear fuselage would have touched the runway before the main undercarriage. SAAB simply added a fourth undercarriage below the tail! Same thing for concorde later  

[elmayerle]

Only problem comes from moving the tail forward relative to the wing and possibly having some control authority problems.  I think I'd rather accept the existing fuselage length and work with it rather than try and shorten it.  I rather suspect you'd need to check the fuselage aerodynamics, too, if you shortened it.  I think I'd rather put that extra fuselage volume to good use.

[Zen]

OR346 required an aircraft of superlative peformance.
Effectively a TSR.2 level of capability plus some fighter elements. limited to 50,000lb in all up weight.

ROA was to be 1000nm with one TMB (Red beard) or four 1,000lb bombs.
Endurance on CAP 100nm from the carrier was to be 4 hours.
Engangments upto a mach 3 target at 80,000ft.
Operable from Eagle and Arky Royal as well as CVA-01 landing speed minus WOD was to be in the order 100kts or less.

Got real doubts the Super Crusader meets those requirements, but it might stand a chance with the later.

AW406 specified:-
Mach 2+
Engagement of a mach2.5 target at 60,000ft.
CAP of 2.5 hours
Strike of over 200nm ROA at very low level with one TMB or WE177 or four 1000lb bombs.
Required to operate from Eagle, Ark Royal, and preferably Victorious and Hermes.

RN was very adamant it wanted a twin engined machine, even though it was forced to accept the P1154.

Reality?
different world. '57 meant a total revision of what would be available for carriers in the 1960s and this effects everything afterwards. The P1154/NMBR.3 fiasco wastes time, money and hope on a system that won't meet anyone requirements in reality.
Type 584 would've been 'salvageable' from the application of VTOL, to make a decent carrier warplane.

Of all the 'real' projects the P1121 was closest to completion, physical elements of the prototype still sit in a museum somewhere. HSA dropped it in 1958 but proposals still came around until 1960.

A lot of upgrades where possible for both Scimitar and Sea Vixen, most not persued because the RN expected to get something much better quickly. That was not the case of course and perhaps they should've known that or at least suspected it.

The supersonic Buccaneer studies for a Fighter version are the most logical, while not being as fast as many designs, they'd meet CAP, and peform strike quite well and make a neat evolution from the subsonic Buccaneer for RN and RAF.

Mirage G meets all of AW406, but does'nt have the second engine, and its perhaps a little late being around 1967. But in all honesty its would've been a far better proposition for anglo-french cooperation than the Jaguar or AFVG. It closely resembles some earlier UK studies like the evolved Type585.
Equaly the earlier (1964 I think) Mirage F2 while not so good on Take off and Landing speeds or endurance, offeres a lot.

[Archibald]

I agree.. there was a long and interesting serie of single engine, VG Vickers. If my memory serve well, the 585 and also the 593 (later). Think there was also the 587 (not sure!)
Mirage G and Type 585 were quite similar to the MiG-23...
The Mirage G had a TF-306, and replacing this engine by Spey or M53 would have not been too difficult (modern turbofans are quite similar in size, weight, and diameter, all are roughly 1600 kg / 5 m long / 1.10 in diameter)

We already had a long thread onthe subject Zen and I (I have to check the forum).
In fact no less than four Dassault fighters of the late 60's could have been used as basis for a cooperative multirole fighter
- Mirage F-1 light fighter
- Mirage F3 heavier fighter
- Mirage F2 fixed wing strike aircraft
- Mirage G VG strike aircraft.
The F3 was never built (the F-1 was cheaper, with a french engine).
The G and F2 were nearly identical, except their wings.
The F-1 was a scaled down F-3 with an Atar 9K engine.

The F3, F2 and G all have TF-106/TF-306 engines, which program was scrapped in 1968 in favor of the M53.