"design A Fighter" Group Build

[Spey_Phantom]

although im not financially capable of organising GB's, i just came up with this great idea, after watching some documentaries on china, taiwan, sweden,.... developing and building there own fighterplanes, why dont we organise a group build to design and build are own fighter.

its quite simple, a random person here gives us a specification for a new fighter, then its up to you to make up a design, build it (scale doesnt matter) and present it. and whoevers design is the best to meet the requirement wins, its kinda like the ATF or JSF programs, only on a model scale  B)

what you think    

[Hobbes]

Sounds a bit like the 'design-off' idea that was bounced around recently. Sounds interesting, so I'm in.  

[GTX]

its quite simple, a random person here gives us a specification for a new fighter, then its up to you to make up a design, build it (scale doesnt matter) and present it. and whoevers design is the best to meet the requirement wins, its kinda like the ATF or JSF programs, only on a model scale

Would it need to be a fighter?  

I'm interested in supplying specs or being on the judging panel for the judging of the contenders (having had a bit of real world experience in that area).

I might even supply a specification, though I might be a bit too stringent - wanting to see justifications/reasonings behind design decisions.  I'd also be interested in tradeoffs - e.g. we went with this engine because it would be cheaper, though not necessarily as powerful as this etc.

Regards,

Greg

[retro_seventies]

sounds like fun.

[GTX]

Hi folks,

Here's a suggested basis for a specification - it's only a suggestion though:

There still exist numerous MiG-21s, F-5s, Mirage III/5/50s and similar fighters with various Air Forces around the world (usually in Asia, Africa, South America, Eatern Europe).  These aircraft are old and reaching the end of either their physical lives or at least operational lives.  Whilst many of these countries would like to replace them with new modern combat aircraft in the shape of F-16s, Gripens, Rafales etc, they honestly cannot afford the new aircraft.  This often results in them looking to the second hand market or doing without.  

Your design brief (if you choose to accept it) would be to design a new combat aircraft (it doesn't need to be a pure fighter) for these countries.  As an added bonus, it may be expected that some richer countries may also purchase the resulting fighter as a second line, cheaper compliment to their top tier combat aircraft.

It is suggested that maximum thought be given to the possability of re-using existing components such as engines/weapons/sytems from existing aircraft or at least using readily available off-the-shelf components (i.e. it might be nice to specify using a F-135 engine for sprightly performance, but it is more cost effective to either re-use the existing Tumansky R-25/SNECMA Atar/General Electric J79 or at least General Electric F404/General Electric F110/Klimov RD-33 etc - same goes for radars/weapons etc.).  

Furthermore, it might be useful to consider the ability for maximum flexibility in system selection - i.e. the same aircraft may be offered to one customer re-using a relatively inexpensive base-model AN/APG-66 radar or it may be offered to a richer country with an AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar.

Finally, the aircraft should ideally not be a single role design - something that can do Air-to-air, Air-to-surface, recon' and other roles should be aimed for.

All key design decsions should be justified (and at least plausible - e.g. don't try to have VTOL capability in a 10t fighter using only a single General Electric J85).  

Teaming arrangements between designers/profilers/modellers would be welcomed.

Any questions also welcomed.

Regards,

Greg

[elmayerle]

So the idea is something that can affordably replace the F-5/MiG-21/Mirage III class of aircraft, preferably in both A-to-A and A-to-G roles?  With an aim of making use of existing hardware where possible to reduce the logistics footprint of the new bird?  A challenge but a do-able one.  I'm already getting some "interesting" ideas, here.

[GTX]

I'm already getting some "interesting" ideas, here.

There you go folks - we already have an engineer/designer possibly on board - any others?  What about some profilers etc teaming up as well?

If anyone wants more details or questions answered just ask.

Regards,

Greg

[ysi_maniac]

I like this    

First question/decission: Stealth? Personally I do not think this nessary, but some features can be acceptable.
Second question/decission: I think F-404 is a good option.
Third question/decission: I would go with a modernized F-20. Canard config, perhaps?

What do you think?
Should the decissiond be democratic?

Do you accept me as a modeler?

[ysi_maniac]

A simplified F-16 or F-18 can also be considered. My brain is boiling    

[elmayerle]

First question/decission: Stealth? Personally I do not think this nessary, but some features can be acceptable.
Second question/decission: I think F-404 is a good option.
Third question/decission: I would go with a modernized F-20. Canard config, perhaps?

You mean like, say, a F-20/Lavi cross?  It was studied years ago by Northrop and two configurations proposed.  IAI declined to develop either concept preferring to do an "all-new" aircraft and enlarging it to need a PW1120 (original Lavi concept and the Northrop proposals used F404).

I was rather figuring using the F-5/F-20 fuselage from at least the canted bulkhead, aft of the cockpit, forward (this allows interchangeable single- and twin-seat front ends to be fitted as well as a dedicated recce single-seat front end).  I've got some other ideas for the wings and the overall configuration as well as an engine bay that would allow use of other engines besides the F404 (avoiding certain political problems).

If someone wants to work up a drawing of my proposed configuration, feel free to PM me.

[PanzerWulff]

Ok here's my concept a modernized A-4 Skyhawk the origional had great manuverability a decent load for it's size and was a dream to fly I figure the airframe could be beefed up to handle a more powerful engine (I figure a single F-18 engine would fit the bill or even the engine used in the SU-25) as well as more modern avionics are quite a bit more compact than the origionally installed gear. it could still carry more modern weaponry yet retain the capability of using lower tech ordinance of "Classical" types. What do you think???

[Mossie]

I'd been thinking along these lines a little while ago when I picked up a 1/48 Hawk.  The hawk has already been upgraded to the Hawk 100 & a cheap single seat fighter in the Hawk 200.  I thought about increasing it's capabilities further by adding a new wing, possibly a delta & substituting the non-afterburning Adour for a developed version of the Jaguars afterburning Adour 106.

Many nations operate the Hawk & maximum use of the current airframe & exsisting technologies would be used.  As with the current Hawk series, it would be able to take a variety of sensor & equipment fits as specified by the customer.  Performnce would be in the mid mach range & it would be designed as a true multi role fighter.  The Hawk is relatively cheap, easy to maintain & proven.

Now I've got thinking about a developed Jag as well, what with all these spare airframes floating about now the RAF is retiring them.  I'll have to think about one!  Hmmm....  

[elmayerle]

Ok here's my concept a modernized A-4 Skyhawk the origional had great manuverability a decent load for it's size and was a dream to fly I figure the airframe could be beefed up to handle a more powerful engine (I figure a single F-18 engine would fit the bill or even the engine used in the SU-25) as well as more modern avionics are quite a bit more compact than the origionally installed gear. it could still carry more modern weaponry yet retain the capability of using lower tech ordinance of "Classical" types. What do you think???

In dry form, Singapore's A-4s are flying with the F-18's engine now (thrust is similar to the J65 or J52 engines used by all other Skyhawks).  I could see stepping up to a dry F414 or even a dry version of the PW1120.  The engines used by the Su-25 aren't all that powerful and, as turbojets, are rather on the thirsty side.

Another idea I've had is to build a single-seater from a TA-4F/OA-4M airframe and use the extra fuselage volume for systems upgrades and additions.  If feasible, develop a common engine bay that could use a dry F404/F414, a dry RB.199, a dry EJ200, or a dry M88.  With the use of an AMAD gearbox, such would be fairly feasible.

[ysi_maniac]

I'd been thinking along these lines a little while ago when I picked up a 1/48 Hawk.  The hawk has already been upgraded to the Hawk 100 & a cheap single seat fighter in the Hawk 200.  I thought about increasing it's capabilities further by adding a new wing, possibly a delta & substituting the non-afterburning Adour for a developed version of the Jaguars afterburning Adour 106.

Many nations operate the Hawk & maximum use of the current airframe & exsisting technologies would be used.  As with the current Hawk series, it would be able to take a variety of sensor & equipment fits as specified by the customer.  Performnce would be in the mid mach range & it would be designed as a true multi role fighter.  The Hawk is relatively cheap, easy to maintain & proven.

Now I've got thinking about a developed Jag as well, what with all these spare airframes floating about now the RAF is retiring them.  I'll have to think about one!  Hmmm....

Yes, a supersonic Hawk-200: thin wings more swept (F-16 wings would be nice), F-404 or so engine, pointed nose.

Yours was an alternative I was thinking about.

Similar treatement can be done with a MB-339K: http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contribution...ijk/2724L-2.jpg

[ysi_maniac]

I'm already getting some "interesting" ideas, here.

There you go folks - we already have an engineer/designer possibly on board - any others?  What about some profilers etc teaming up as well?

If anyone wants more details or questions answered just ask.

Regards,

Greg

Ok, I feel happy being a manufacturer judged by Evan and you.

Some ideas more:
Between target air forces would be third worlds: not rich and with limited tech resources so maintenance simplicity should be a must. No?

Political restrictions can favour non US components. Should we consider only tech issues? What do you think?