Alternate F4D WHIF

[KJ_Lesnick]

Apophenia,

KJ: the F5D had area-ruling (I've exaggerated it into more of a Kuchemann-like shape).

True, but the F5D was first flown 5 years after the F4D did.  My WHIF idea calls for a design built and flown around the same time-frame as the Douglas F4D.  It's possible that Wallace D. Hayes PhD dissertation didn't get the attention it should because it was entirely listed as mathematical formulae and not drawings.  Still, you'd think there would be some aerospace engineers who would realize the significance of the document (and would have been able to have interpreted the numbers to a design shape).

The low-wing delta you suggest would probably be structurally simpler.

I don't know what the USN's attitude on canards would be though.  While a canard can be a perfectly safe, and practical concept, so long as the canard is used as a trimming device, and not a pitch control device (I'm guessing that's because in order to be a pitch control device, the maximum angle of attack of the canard would have to be greater than the wing's), and it stalls before the wing does.  Technically the vortices off the tips of the canards can be used to assist the main wing -- such as a configuration used on the Saab Viggen (though I don't know if the technological know-how existed to do this last part).  Regardless, the USN tended sometimes to be quick to weed out designs that they were not highly confident of.

But, my premise for the 'F6D Skylancer II' was starting from the F4D lineage ... which, of course, the real-life F5D did as well.

I know what you were trying to do (and it's actually quite a nice looking aircraft); it simply isn't exactly what I was going for (no offense of course)

[KJ_Lesnick]

JCF,

Evidently the old, non-afterburning CJ805 equipped XF4D-1 regularly waxed service USAF and USN fighters
in un-official dogfights.  Much to the enjoyment of the GE test pilots and embarrassment of the service pilots.

The Gunter book relates that a clean F-100 was the only aircraft able to give a good account of itself against GE Ford,
"other than this, nothing could stay with the Skyray in a turn."

I'm surprised the F4D-1 with a non-afterburning J79 would have the same sustained agility as an F-100 with an afterburner.  

Out of curiosity, what other USN and USAF aircraft were put up against the F4D-1?

[PR19_Kit]

I'm surprised the F4D-1 with a non-afterburning J79 would have the same sustained agility as an F-100 with an afterburner.  

Backtracking on this, it was probably because the Ford had a much lower wing loading, as do most deltas, and could thus turn tighter and for longer.

[jcf]

I'm surprised the F4D-1 with a non-afterburning J79 would have the same sustained agility as an F-100 with an afterburner.  

Backtracking on this, it was probably because the Ford had a much lower wing loading, as do most deltas, and could thus turn tighter and for longer.

... and that the particular Ford in question was stripped of all non-essential equipment when it was converted to an engine test-bed.
It had no guns, radars etc., just the basic equipment required for flight and the test instrumentation for the J79/CJ805.

In other words, it's a bit like a stock sedan going up against a similar car that has been hot-rodded. 

[PR19_Kit]

... and that the particular Ford in question was stripped of all non-essential equipment when it was converted to an engine test-bed.
It had no guns, radars etc., just the basic equipment required for flight and the test instrumentation for the J79/CJ805.

In other words, it's a bit like a stock sedan going up against a similar car that has been hot-rodded. 

So why did they bother to test it against an F-100? The test was meaningless...........

[jcf]

... and that the particular Ford in question was stripped of all non-essential equipment when it was converted to an engine test-bed.
It had no guns, radars etc., just the basic equipment required for flight and the test instrumentation for the J79/CJ805.

In other words, it's a bit like a stock sedan going up against a similar car that has been hot-rodded. 

So why did they bother to test it against an F-100? The test was meaningless...........

Because the 'tests' were completely ad-hoc and unofficial. It was simply a matter of the USAF and USN service
pilots trying it on against the CJ805 powered XF4D-1 when it was in their neighborhood, as it was on a regular
basis. The CJ805 test-program lasted for two years and the aircraft ranged all over the Southern half of
California and into Arizona and Nevada during that period.

Also it was a relief from the boredom of boring holes in the sky all day at 35,000 ft for the GE test-pilots.  

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit,

Backtracking on this, it was probably because the Ford had a much lower wing loading, as do most deltas, and could thus turn tighter and for longer.

True, but isn't there a point where a wing-loading figure can become so low that it actually hurts you in turns at certain airspeeds?

So why did they bother to test it against an F-100? The test was meaningless...........

Of course it was meaningless, but for GE it would make them look good, for the US Navy, it would make them look good.


joncarrfarrelly,

... and that the particular Ford in question was stripped of all non-essential equipment when it was converted to an engine test-bed.
It had no guns, radars etc., just the basic equipment required for flight and the test instrumentation for the J79/CJ805.

So it had a higher T/W ratio than a traditional F4D regardless of what engine was fitted to it. 



KJ Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

As for a F4D WHIF design, I'm thinking about something like the McDonnell's Model 60.  That supposedly had a good low-speed handling, at least the same supersonic performance...

[PR19_Kit]

PR19_Kit,

Backtracking on this, it was probably because the Ford had a much lower wing loading, as do most deltas, and could thus turn tighter and for longer.

True, but isn't there a point where a wing-loading figure can become so low that it actually hurts you in turns at certain airspeeds?

I don't think so, not in the turning mode anyway.

Where an ultra-low wing loading hurts is the low level, high speed penetration task, where the gust response becomes so violent that the crew and the airframe suffer. That's why the Buccaneer and A-6 Intruder both had high wing loading for low gust response and blown flaps so they could land at a sensible speed.

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit,

I don't think so, not in the turning mode anyway.

Wait, then why do some modern aircraft have aeroelastic tailoring... I thought that was to reduce the effects of air speed bleed-off when maneuvering at high speeds (basically the wing would twist down disproportionately in response to g-loads at higher airspeeds which would reduce the overall lift, and thus the drag that goes with it)