Discussion: F-14, F-15 Hybrid Idea

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mr. Mayerle

Well, as a general rule, it's also usually the bulkhead that the radome attaches to since it would of necessity be the farthest forward bulkhead in the airframe.

I know the bulkhead is somewhat in front of the cockpit.  I don't know exactly how much further forward of the front of the cockpit though.  Is there some rule of thumb as to where the bulkhead the antenna and radome are attached to?

With proper tailoring of materials and shapes, I don't think such a radome would cause any problems (consider the "sharknose" radome flown on the last couple F-20's). though I'm not certain what, if any, radar was fitted to the YF-23 (I was at Northrop at the time but on other programs).

Understood


KJ Lesnick

[elmayerle]

Well, it varies somewhat with each design, but I'd reckon you could use the details from cutaways of the F-4, F-15, and F-14 for comparative purposes.  Part of the overall design layout is to determine where the bulkheads are and to decide the size of the radome.  For the size aircraft we're talking about (F-14/F-15 size), a rough rule of thumb would be a distance in front of the windscreen similar to that on the F-14 and F-15 for the location of the aft end of the radome.  You'll need some length there for the equipment bays housing the boxes that make up the processors et al. of the radar plus, for that era, the controllers and motors moving the antenna.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mr. Mayerle,

Understood. 


BTW:  Do you know of any good-sized F-14 cut-away graphics?


Kendra Lesnick

[Jeffry Fontaine]

BTW:  Do you know of any good-sized F-14 cut-away graphics?

Ask and ye shall receive :^|

Flight Global Aircraft Pictures & Aircraft Photo Archives has a rather extensive archive of cutaway drawings and fortunately the F-14 Tomcat on the list (link to image). 

And here is the image:

[KJ_Lesnick]

Dear Jeff,

Thank you very much


Kendra Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

Anybody got a cut-away of the F-15?


KJ

[GTX]

Have a look at the link above or simply do a google search.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Back to business,

Would Grumman's design have been seriously affected if it was 67-feet long instead of 62-feet long?


GTX,

Understood -- In either case I now have a cut-away...

[bagera3005]

[elmayerle]

Back to business,

Would Grumman's design have been seriously affected if it was 67-feet long instead of 62-feet long?

I'm not totally certain (I don't know the exact spotting factor), they might have needed to fold the radome and a bit of the forward fuselage to fit the deck-edge elevators.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mr. Mayerle,

I'm not totally certain (I don't know the exact spotting factor), they might have needed to fold the radome and a bit of the forward fuselage to fit the deck-edge elevators.

Would the need to fold the radome be considered a bad thing on a proposal compared to a design that did not?


KJ Lesnick
BTW:  If you can find out the spotting-factor figures, that would be quite helpful. 

[elmayerle]

Most likely not.  I know of other naval aircraft where it didn't affect consideration of the design (Vigilante as a case in point).  Considering that the Vigi's length with radome in place was a tad over 76 feet, I don't think a legnth of 67 feet would be held against a heavy fighter design.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mr. Mayerle,

Normally I would agree, but I don't know how many squadrons of A3J/RA-5C's were operated off the carriers...  Multiple squadrons of F-14's however operated off the carriers...

Also, the F-111B was around 67' and I'm wondering if the F-111B's replacement (the F-14) ended up the same size if it would cause the USN to say "Oh God, Not again!"


KJ Lesnick

[elmayerle]

Generally, only one squadron of RA-5Cs operated off any carrier at a time.   However, they did operate off carriers also using F-14s, so I don't expect the etra five feet would be a problem.  Regarding that "Oh, God, not again!" reaction, as long as the performance and handling of the F-111B's replacement was a decided improvement, much as the F-14's was, even with the same engines, I can't see the Navy being too upset unless it had a significant weight-growth spurt or some other major issue.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Evan,

Generally, only one squadron of RA-5Cs operated off any carrier at a time.   However, they did operate off carriers also using F-14s, so I don't expect the etra five feet would be a problem.  Regarding that "Oh, God, not again!" reaction, as long as the performance and handling of the F-111B's replacement was a decided improvement, much as the F-14's was, even with the same engines, I can't see the Navy being too upset unless it had a significant weight-growth spurt or some other major issue.

Well, that makes things easier...


BTW:  Since this conceptual design is a fixed-wing plane, do you think such a hypothetical design would have resulted in the F-14 being more likely to have been cancelled in favor of that F-15N design (since it was a fixed-wing design and would probably be closer to the actual F-15 than the actual F-14 design)?