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

#45
April 23, 2009, 02:03:08 PM
As I understand it, the primary reason why I favor a single-tail is that it would avoid the need for requiring a second pair of vortices (on a twin-tail) in-between a twin-tail set-up. 

Plus the F-20 has a single tail and seemed to do just fine.


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.

KJ_Lesnick

#46
June 01, 2009, 11:03:23 AM
How much of a role did the fact that General Dynamics was committing everything to the LWF program and promised an early service entry than Northrop's play in it's winning the LWF program?

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.

KJ_Lesnick

#47
June 01, 2009, 11:43:02 AM
IDEAS SO FAR

- Pratt & Whitney F100-powered, single-engined YF-17 design
EXPLANATION:  Engine commonality with the F-15

- Trailing-edge extension (chine-shelves / booms a'la the YF-16/F-16) added
EXPLANATION:  I assume it would add extra wing-area, allow a better speed-brake configuration, and allow better blending between this lifting surface and fuselage

- Speedbrakes (split-type) mounted on back of the chine-shelf/boom/trailing-edge-root-extension
EXPLANATION:  The rear brake mounted on the YF-17 wasn't as effective as the YF-16's speedbrakes.  Energy maneuverability requirements dictate the ability to sustain high load-factors, and the ability to rapidly build up and dump airspeed.

- Single vertical tail with a highly swept lower root
EXPLANATION:  Single tail is all you need with one engine, and having one tail does not require slotted chines in order to produce a balancing set of vortices.  Highly swept lower root produces vortex with when directed along the rest of the tail provides good control at high side-slip angles.

- Small strakes on nose removed, and blended with LEX to form a revised chine shape.  (It would look a little bit F-18-esque)
EXPLANATION:  Simplifies design, and would allow similar high alpha capability

- If necessary, better blending between fuselage and wings
EXPLANATION:  Reduces drag, might increase fuel-capacity

- Full span flaperon, or two flaperons taking up full-span
EXPLANATION:  Less deflections required for same lift increase when used as maneuver flap (and better L/D ratio), probably a better roll-rate, more flap area at low-speed to allow better low-speed handling.

- If necessary, asymmetric LED use
EXPLANATION:  It was used on the F/A-18, and it helped drastically increase it's roll-rate.

- FBW like on the YF-16
EXPLANATION:  Allows a sidestick which is easier to use at high-G loads, better optimizes instability for maneuverability purposes

- Sidestick with small throw
EXPLANATION:  No throw is very difficult to get used to, having a little bit of throw gives the pilot the necessary feeling of the stick moving.

In truth I don't think a single engine Cobra would have a chance as part of the LWF program was to have two designs of which one was to be a single engine and the other a twin-engined design.  The only other twin-engined contender was Lockheed's design which completely lost.

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.

KJ_Lesnick

#48
June 11, 2009, 04:07:52 PM
Does anybody know why Kelly Johnson designed the LWF as just a heavily modified F-104 and didn't make up a new design?
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.

jcf

#49
June 12, 2009, 11:31:36 AM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 11, 2009, 04:07:52 PM
Does anybody know why Kelly Johnson designed the LWF as just a heavily modified F-104 and didn't make up a new design?

Get a copy of Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works: The Official History by Jay Miller, Aerofax/Midland Publishing 1995(updated edition) and you can read what Johnson had to say.

KJ_Lesnick

#50
June 12, 2009, 12:07:04 PM
JonCarrFarrelly,

Great news, I have that book, I'll give it a look


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.

KJ_Lesnick

#51
June 13, 2009, 09:40:45 PM
Why was Boeing's design dropped?  Supposedly it was at the top of the list at first, then it was dropped?  I never heard a good explanation...


KJ Lesnick
BTW:  Would there have been any reason for a flyoff of two LWF contenders if both were single engined?
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.

MAD

#52
June 17, 2009, 05:24:38 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 13, 2009, 09:40:45 PM
Why was Boeing's design dropped?  Supposedly it was at the top of the list at first, then it was dropped?  I never heard a good explanation...


KJ Lesnick
BTW:  Would there have been any reason for a flyoff of two LWF contenders if both were single engined?

Great question, that I have often asked myself!
Although looking at its mock-up - I can not but ask how it would have gone during its 'through-life' development stage (as per the General Dynamics Model 401 / F-16 design has!), due to its very small size?

M.A.D

KJ_Lesnick

#53
June 20, 2009, 07:28:24 AM
MAD,

QuoteGreat question, that I have often asked myself!

I think I found my answer.  The Boeing design was dropped due to something pertaining to a problem in the design of the strakes


CuttingEdge100
BTW:  Anybody know if there would have been a fly-off if there were only single-engined designs?
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

#54
June 21, 2009, 07:16:40 PM
How did the F-20 perform in terms of energy-maneuverability to the F-16?

KJ
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.

Supertom

#55
June 22, 2009, 05:11:55 AM
"We can resolve this over tea and fisticuffs!!!"

sotoolslinger

#56
June 22, 2009, 10:56:02 AM
KJ It  is my understanding, just from talking to folk who have seen both fly, that the F-20 was superior to the Viper in flyability but lacked the load carrying capability of the F-16.
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

#57
June 23, 2009, 09:23:07 PM
Was there any aspect of the F-20's design that couldn't have been designed during the timeframe the YF-17 was being developed (for example, CFD makes it a lot easier to design airframe shapes that work better and come up with better designs) in?


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

#58
June 25, 2009, 11:44:39 AM
Well I'm not sure what your asking  :blink: But I do know that the design philosophies were different.The F-20 was designed as an advanced F-5 , that is a lightweight CHEAP fighter for sale to lesser developed nations. The Viper and Hornet designs were in direct competition to supply the US with a lightweight RELATIVELY cheap fighter.
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

#59
June 27, 2009, 12:47:44 PM
Sotoolslinger,

Did Northrop have the technology to conceive of, and such, and produce some or all of the design features used on the F-20? 

I'm wondering because it would be a pretty cool LWF design if you took an F-17, with a single engine and a single tail, fitted it with some F-20 characteristics, along with some YF-16 characteristics (the chine shelves, and some blending characteristics).

Just curious,


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.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5
User actions