Northrop Single-Engine "Cobra" LWF

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm wondering what would have happened if Northrop rather than develop the LWF as a twin-engined design and did a little bit of work on a single-engined design (P-610) on the side, but instead went to one engines earlier rather than developed a twin-engined plane?

While I am aware that Northrop's F-17 was based loosely on the F-5 design which was a twin-engined design, the F-20 was also based on the F-5 and was a single engined design too.


KJ Lesnick

[pyro-manic]

Hornet with a single F100/110 engine? Could be interesting. I'm willing to bet it would be a lot prettier than what became the Bug.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Pyro-Manic,

Hornet with a single F100/110 engine? Could be interesting. I'm willing to bet it would be a lot prettier than what became the Bug.

Agreed (Plus from what I remember Northrop was developing it's design to replace the F-104 as well as perform the LWF role and the F-104 was a one engined jet).

Next question -- should it have one tail or two?  Two tails does sound better true, but the F-20 which was an F-5 development did fine with just one tail, the F-16 had one tail, and the strakes vortices should provide improved directional stability and it would avoid some issues the F-17 and F-18 had to deal with (The need for slots to produce a vortex on the inboard side of the tails to balance the vortex on the outboard side would no longer be a problem)


KJ Lesnick

[sotoolslinger]

Umm Why would they have had to develop something like that when the F-20 was already superior to the F-16.

[pyro-manic]

That's debateable I think. While the Tigershark is undoubtedly much, much cooler than the F-16 , the latter was a new design with lots of development potential, whereas the F-20 was the ultimate evolution of the F-5 (a 1950s design). You couldn't take the F-20 and turn it into something like the Mitsubishi F-2 or the F-16XL. The F-16 also has more pylons, that can carry bigger weapons (more clearance, landing gear is in the fuse rather than taking up wing space).


On a single-engined aircraft, I'd say a single tail.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Sotoolslinger,

Umm Why would they have had to develop something like that when the F-20 was already superior to the F-16.

That's not entirely what I was talking about.  What I was trying to say was that the F-20, which like the F-17 (and later F-18) was based on the F-5 and still had one engine and did fine.  I was also saying that the F-5, the F-20, and the F-16 which were all extraordinarily maneuverable, had a single tail.


Pyro-Manic,

That's debateable I think. While the Tigershark is undoubtedly much, much cooler than the F-16 , the latter was a new design with lots of development potential, whereas the F-20 was the ultimate evolution of the F-5 (a 1950s design). You couldn't take the F-20 and turn it into something like the Mitsubishi F-2 or the F-16XL. The F-16 also has more pylons, that can carry bigger weapons (more clearance, landing gear is in the fuse rather than taking up wing space).

I'm not predominantly talking about the F-20.  I was just talking about it being a one engined derivative of the F-5 (which the YF-17 was), and had one tail. 

The idea I'm talking about is largely a single engined (F-100 powered), single tailed version of the YF-17 LWF instead of the actual LWF design.

On a single-engined aircraft, I'd say a single tail.

That makes things a lot simpler.


My next question?  Should the design have booms like the F-16 (You know, the chine like structures that extend aft of the wings which mount the horizontal stabilizer and the speedbrakes)?


KJ Lesnick

[sotoolslinger]

Well as I see it  it kind of depends. I'm not sure about the YF-17 but the legacy F-18 has the dorsal airbrake.I don't see any reason why you could no have that instead of the tail booms. However you could leave them and have more airbrakes or replace the brakes with countermeasures dispensers.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Yeah, but if you have only one tail you can't use the same dorsal-airbrake the F/A-18 had.  The Hornet's brake was between the tails... 

BTW:  Does anybody know what kind of speed-brake the F-5 had?


KJ Lensick

[KJ_Lesnick]

Would the F-17 or a LWF design like this have profited from having booms/chines like the F-16's?

KJ Lesnick

[sotoolslinger]

Well you could move the airbrake forward on the spine and eliminate the whatever you call em sticking out the back on either side of the exhaust. I personally think you could still use twin vertical stabs on a single engine design. They could just be shorter ,making the design more stealthy.

[jcf]

I'm willing to bet it would be a lot prettier than what became the Bug.

You might lose the bet. 

The Northrop model of the single engine P-610 (page 197, ASP: Fighters & Interceptors 1945 - 1978) looks pretty much like a single engined YF-17. According to Buttler's text, Northrop pulled the single F100 powered design because they weren't happy with the intake-to-engine interface. Even if it had been worked on more I kinda doubt it would have looked much different, aside from a revamped intake arrangement of some sort. The basic design in terms of forward fuselage, wings and empennage would probably have remained the same.

Jon

[sotoolslinger]

Well actually I think the Hornet is cool looking. I also think it is a bad arse. I like the original YF-17 batter as far as sexyness but designs evolve for a reason.

[KJ_Lesnick]

JonCarrFarelly,

The Northrop model of the single engine P-610 (page 197, ASP: Fighters & Interceptors 1945 - 1978) looks pretty much like a single engined YF-17. According to Buttler's text, Northrop pulled the single F100 powered design because they weren't happy with the intake-to-engine interface. Even if it had been worked on more I kinda doubt it would have looked much different, aside from a revamped intake arrangement of some sort.

What kind of intake were they planning to use?


KJ

[jcf]

JonCarrFarelly,

The Northrop model of the single engine P-610 (page 197, ASP: Fighters & Interceptors 1945 - 1978) looks pretty much like a single engined YF-17. According to Buttler's text, Northrop pulled the single F100 powered design because they weren't happy with the intake-to-engine interface. Even if it had been worked on more I kinda doubt it would have looked much different, aside from a revamped intake arrangement of some sort.

What kind of intake were they planning to use?


KJ

Dunno Kendra,
I was just quoting Tony as to Northrop's unhappiness with the intake interface.

[KJ_Lesnick]

JonCarrFarelly,

Understood. 

By the way, were the slots in the strakes also supposed to deal with any potential inlet problems?


KJ Lesnick