K

Northrop Single-Engine "Cobra" LWF

Started by KJ_Lesnick, March 20, 2009, 02:14:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions

KJ_Lesnick

#30
April 02, 2009, 04:23:40 PM
Sotoolslinger,

QuoteThat's pretty much the idea of the delta Superbug. I will eliminate the horizontal stabs and place the delta wing all the way back on the fuse so it blends in with the lerx correctly.  :wacko:

Wow, an Super-Bug XL... I wish you well with your efforts
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

KJ_Lesnick

#31
April 02, 2009, 04:27:19 PM
The YF-17A and F/A-18 have different strakes.  I'm wondering about which one works better at transonic speed (The LWF was supposed to have excellent energy maneuverability at transonic speeds)?

Also, for this single-engined "Cobra" LWF, do you think the design would profit from having "shelves" or "booms" like the YF-16 to mount the stabilators or speedbrakes?


KJ Lesnick
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

sotoolslinger

#32
April 03, 2009, 08:13:23 AM
Well mine will . I plan on doing a double build. Since I am going to use the back half of a Viper for the single engine F-18 I will also do a twin engine F-16. JP Vieira did and excellent profile of one.
I amuse me.
Huge fan of noisy rodent.
Things learned from this site: don't tease wolverine.
Eddie's personal stalker.
Worshippers in Nannerland

KJ_Lesnick

#33
April 03, 2009, 07:19:27 PM
Sotoolslinger,

QuoteAlso did we ever decide on one intake or two?

I'm not entirely sure actually!  Truthfully the F/A-18's intakes are just fine as they are, and the design would be closer truthfully to the original F-5 design. 

The single engined LWF study which was actually done focused on a different intake design, which was in the event of the F-5 style intake not working (There were worries it would end up having similar problems to the F-111).  I don't know the exact details of the inlet design used on that single-engined design and I haven't been able to find anything of use, for all I know it may still have been a twin-duct inlet.  I don't know how things would have evolved in the event of a dedicated single-engine design (for all I know they may just have went with the different inlet used on the single-engined design) though for all I know they may have very well ultimately used the same basic inlet as the design used on the YF-17.


KJ Lesnick
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

GTX

#34
April 04, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
QuoteThere were worries it would end up having similar problems to the F-111

Such as?

Regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

KJ_Lesnick

#35
April 05, 2009, 11:28:33 AM
GTX,

The inlets
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

KJ_Lesnick

#36
April 07, 2009, 11:39:28 AM
In what areas did the YF-17 have a performance edge over the YF-16 out of curiousity? 

KJ Lesnick
BTW:  The YF-17 was also partially kind of pitched at replacing the F-104 right?
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

sotoolslinger

#37
April 07, 2009, 01:17:07 PM
I don't remember the specifics mentioned but the YF-17 did not have many superior characteristics over the x-viper (which was why it lost) It was developed into the F-18 basically due to the Navies insistence on a twin engined design. Also the fact that developing the F-16 into a carrier craft (landing gear and such ) would have degraded its performance. I THINK :blink: :huh:
I amuse me.
Huge fan of noisy rodent.
Things learned from this site: don't tease wolverine.
Eddie's personal stalker.
Worshippers in Nannerland

sotoolslinger

#38
April 07, 2009, 01:26:19 PM Last Edit: April 07, 2009, 01:30:44 PM by sotoolslinger
I amuse me.
Huge fan of noisy rodent.
Things learned from this site: don't tease wolverine.
Eddie's personal stalker.
Worshippers in Nannerland

Sauragnmon

#39
April 07, 2009, 03:34:28 PM
Hmmm a single engined Bug... now that IS an interesting idea.  I kinda wandered over that the other day in thought as well, thinking about how interesting it might be had the Bug been developed around one powerful engine instead of two not as powerful engines.  I'd honestly say use the Bug tails, but I'd go for broke and give the TERXs off the Viper onto the Bug to give it extra lifting area, and perhaps take the spine of the C-Bug and extend it smoothly over the engine housing?  Keep the Bug intakes, maybe fiddle with the wings a little to maximize the area and linear smoothness.  The best benefit would be to optimize the lifting area in my opinion, to make it nice and well loaded.
Putty-fu, Scratch-jutsu and Bash-chi, the sacred martial arts of the What-If. Mastering them, is Ancient Chinese Secret.

Just your friendly neighbourhood Mad Scientist and Ship-whiffer.

Overkill? Nah, it's Insurance.  So are the 20" guns.

KJ_Lesnick

#40
April 15, 2009, 09:46:27 AM
The first link in sotoolslinger's post states that the reason the YF-17 utilized twin-tails because the tails wouldn't blank the fuselage.  However in the SecretProjects thread about the LWF / F-16 ( URL = http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1335.0.html ), it states that vortex interactions between the chines and the twin-stabilizers caused General Dynamics to go with a single-tail. 

This sounds kind of conflicting...

Does anybody have any further information about this?


KJ Lesnick
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

Sauragnmon

#41
April 15, 2009, 11:05:40 AM
I'm guessing, just on a hunch, GD went with the single tail because of some form of airflow disturbance - you state that it's said an interaction between the stabilizers and the chines, so I'm just going out on a limb here and saying the airflow disturbance off the tails would cause a disturbance along the chines, which would cause an aerodynamics change perhaps because of added pressure on the chines, or else it would cause instability along the airflow at the trailing edges, during maneuvering possibly.

Interesting thought - Single-engine Bug with the Viper empennage, single engine, chines, and then take the twin tails in a V-tail configuration rooted off the chines, potentially with the chines extending back a small distance from the tails a distance.  Give the tails a full-motion configuration, so as to maximize the output of them and lessen weight potentially.

Just a few ideas...
Putty-fu, Scratch-jutsu and Bash-chi, the sacred martial arts of the What-If. Mastering them, is Ancient Chinese Secret.

Just your friendly neighbourhood Mad Scientist and Ship-whiffer.

Overkill? Nah, it's Insurance.  So are the 20" guns.

KJ_Lesnick

#42
April 15, 2009, 07:55:03 PM
Sauragnmon,

I got it backwards, I meant to say "because the tails wouldn't be blanked by the fuselage"

The problem with the F-16 was that the airflow off the chines caused problems with the twin-tails.  The YF-17 had a problem here too, though not sure if it was the same exact culprit -- on the YF-17 the problem was that there wasn't a vortex on the inside area of the tails which is why it had a slot
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep); should I be framed for a criminal offense or disappear, you know to blame.

rallymodeller

#43
April 19, 2009, 12:53:44 AM
The Canadians came up with a fix for the fatigue cracking in the vertical tails pretty early on -- the small vertical strakes fitted near the wing/LERX junction causes vortices that relieve pressure on the vert tails. Canada was spending a lot more time yanking and banking than the USN and hit on the problem first. 
--Jeremy

Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part...


More into Flight Sim reskinning these days, but still what-iffing... Leading Edge 3D

GTX

#44
April 19, 2009, 01:53:10 AM
Quote from: rallymodeller on April 19, 2009, 12:53:44 AM
The Canadians came up with a fix for the fatigue cracking in the vertical tails pretty early on -- the small vertical strakes fitted near the wing/LERX junction causes vortices that relieve pressure on the vert tails. Canada was spending a lot more time yanking and banking than the USN and hit on the problem first. 

I think the RAAF also hit the problem early on and worked with the Canadians (just as they have for just about the whole service life of the Hornets).

Regards,

Greg
All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions