Saab Viggen

[Howard of Effingham]

thanks PD7.

i will now have to see if the KLu markings i hope to use will fit.

trevor

[GTX]

Have a look here (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,12942.0/) too - some profiles already done for inspiration.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

Something I just stumbled across - The "Snabel-Viggen".  Saab was seeking collaboration with MBB (who eventually did the X-31) in building a test aircraft from the Viggen in order to test high AoA performance. The Viggen was supposed to be fitted with vectored thrust, down sloping intakes and fully moveable canards.



Regards,

Greg

[ChernayaAkula]

Where's that pic from? Has a comic book look to it...

[GTX]

Hi folks,

Something I just found in a book detailing the history of Saab-Scania.  The proposed Saab Supersonic Executive jet (SSE):



No other data I'm afraid, though the SSE obviously has Viggen heritage and there was a mention that an American company (which?) did make enquiries for a modified version of the Viggen capable of flying 6 - 8 passengers at Mach 2.  Unfortunately, the proposal proved too expensive and was not progressed with.  Perhaps this is that proposal?

Regards,

Greg

[ElectrikBlue]

Wow... Amazing project, thanks for sharing! 

[famvburg]

       Back in the early '70s when the GI Joe Adventure Team action figure line came out, one set was a pilot with parachute called "Fantastic Freefall Adventure". While no airplane was included, pictured on the boxart was a gray USAF SAAB Viggen, which he had bailed out of. The sets also cam with small comics & the a/c shown in the comics looked a lot like a swept wing AVRO CF-100 with an F-15ish forward fuselage. No Viggen in the comic, just on the box.

Almost goes without saying that it would look beautiful in the overall ADC grey with really bright (Michigan ANG ??) unit markings.

Ian

[ysi_maniac]

Hi GTX,
The last two pics you have posted are so inspiring 
Thanks for post them!

[norseman]

Sorry to restart an old thread but this is my favourite all time aircraft. Not mentioned here but the original engine mooted for the Viggen was a RR Medway variant giving 22,000lb dry and 30,000lb+ reheat. Unfortunately this was canned and left Saab having to find an alternative which they did but RR did shoot itself in the foot a lot. Would have been nice along with the tentative project to fit RB.106's into the Drakens.
A fag packet discussion was taken in the 80's as well with talk of re-enginning Viggens with straight through re-heat versions of the RB.422 giving 32-33,000lb dry and over 48,000lb reheat (VTOL PCB version in initial version was already pitched at 44,600lb thrust). This never got beyond informal assesment and then it all fell apart with the cancellation of the P.1214/1216 and the RB.422 family which was a real pity as this engine was basically doing what the F.135/136 are doing now. With an engine like this it opens a whole extra range of what if versions, thinking especially 2 seat strike or long range competitor to Tornado ADV and F15.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Why didn't the Swedish make any use of flush-mounts on the Draken, Viggen, and Gripen?

KJ Lesnick

[GTX]

Don't know - maybe ask Saab...

Greg

[Weaver]

Why didn't the Swedish make any use of flush-mounts on the Draken, Viggen, and Gripen?

KJ Lesnick

You mean like the semi-recessed Sparrows on F-4s, F-14s etc?

My guess would be:

Draken: chosen weapons were Falcons with long-chord wings which are not exactly suitable for a recessed mounting. They could be mounted on mini-Phoenix-style pallets, but then most of the available surfaces are bits of the wing, so they'd screw up the airflow more than a thing pylon. Sidewinders need to see the target, so they're not really suitable for flush-mounting until they and the avionics get sophisticated to "pre-point" them. It's also a pretty small aircraft, so even the volume of a few missile troughs would have an impact.

Viggen: the aircraft certainly looks like it could take Skyflash troughs at the wing/fuelage junction doesn't it? However, the aircraft was developed as a ground attack aircraft first (AJ.37), so carrying a wide variety of bombs, rockets and ASMs probably got a higher priority than minimising drag. The interceptor version (JA.37) was developed from it later, and the only airframe changes that seem to have been allowed were "bolt on" ones. you may wonder how the Tornado, which went through the same transition, managed to get semi-recessed Skyflashes, but in that case, the UK was "lucky" in that all the major airframe changes were confined to the front fuselage, which we built, so we could do a UK-only "special" without disrupting the main program. Note that the Tornado's rear Skyflashes are not recessed: they just sit on the outside of the German centre-fuselage, in positions where their fin pockets can be shoe-horned in-between exisiting equipment.

Gripen: again, it's a small aircraft and volume matters. They may also have been considering the fact that the choice of weapons wasn't certain at the time the design was fixed: Meteor (and it's paper predecessors) wouldn't fit in the same trough as an AMRAAM, and there isn't room for Typhoon-style fuselage corner pylons. In fact, one suspects that this consideration (i.e. weapon uncertainty) may have influenced the change from the EAP's Tornado F.3-style missile troughs to the Typhoon's F-15-style corner mounts.

[ChernayaAkula]

<...>the UK was "lucky" in that all the major airframe changes were confined to the front fuselage, which we built, so we could do a UK-only "special" without disrupting the main program. Note that the Tornado's rear Skyflashes are not recessed: they just sit on the outside of the German centre-fuselage, in positions where their fin pockets can be shoe-horned in-between exisiting equipment.

Most interesting!   I always wondered why the rear pair sit the way they do.

<...> Meteor (and it's paper predecessors) wouldn't fit in the same trough as an AMRAAM,<...>

I may be wrong, but wasn't one of the Meteor's requirements to fit in the Typhoon's AMRAAM troughs? Or was that requirement added later to avoid expensive refits to the Typhoon fleet and to fit in the weapons bays of the (British) F-35s?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver,

So it had nothing to do with the requirement that the plane could be armed in ten minutes with with conscripts who have little training?

[Weaver]

Weaver,

So it had nothing to do with the requirement that the plane could be armed in ten minutes with with conscripts who have little training?

Don't see why it's significantly harder to load a Sparrow onto a Phantom than a Viggen to be honest, and it's something you could train any reasonbly competent group of people to do in a reasonable time....