F-15 Eagle

Taiidantomcat · February 08, 2011, 08:42:36 PM

QuoteNot when those AMRAAMs belong to the Charlie model or better.

I stand corrected

dy031101 · September 20, 2011, 04:03:07 PM

Although the timing doesn't fit (F-15 went into service in 1976), what else should I do to the airframe if a F-15 packing three F404 turbofans is to be attempted?

One thing I can immediately think of is that three F404s might consume more fuel than two F100s...... permanent FAST pack attachment?

ysi_maniac · August 06, 2012, 10:19:10 AM

Note: fuselage has been widened.

Logan Hartke · August 06, 2012, 11:31:37 AM

Mind doing that again but with the standard Eagle tail?

Cheers,

Logan

ysi_maniac · August 06, 2012, 11:46:25 AM

This one?

Logan Hartke · August 06, 2012, 02:44:40 PM

Yeah, very nice. I don't think it looks quite as good in profile, but I think it would be far better-looking in 3D with the twin tail than the single. Thanks!

Cheers,

Logan

kerick · August 06, 2012, 04:21:23 PM

Very nice drawings. I'll add this to my to do list. (Its a long list) Something very Sukoi about it.

PR19_Kit · August 06, 2012, 04:25:08 PM

Twin F-111 fins might look even better.

But it'd probably be a PIG to turn!

kerick · August 06, 2012, 04:29:47 PM

At least it would have the engines the F-111 should have been born with. TF 33s sucked no matter what aircraft they powered. Also would have gotten rid of the intake problems.

rickshaw · August 06, 2012, 05:07:20 PM

Quote from: kerick on August 06, 2012, 04:29:47 PM
At least it would have the engines the F-111 should have been born with. TF 33s sucked no matter what aircraft they powered. Also would have gotten rid of the intake problems.

F-15 intakes wouldn't have worked as well as the final F-111 ones down low and fast. The chief problem would be inlet lip temperature F-15 ramp intakes were designed for medium-high altitudes. This is why the F-111 was always so difficult to catch for interceptors. It could go faster down low than they could.

ysi_maniac · August 06, 2012, 07:11:44 PM

Quote from: PR19_Kit on August 06, 2012, 04:25:08 PM
Twin F-111 fins might look even better.

Canted à la F-18.

Sauragnmon · August 06, 2012, 07:56:46 PM

One would wonder how the dynamics of a side-by-side seated Air Superiority fighter might play out though... the communication aspects between the two seats would be improved, for a note.

kerick · August 06, 2012, 09:24:07 PM

The intake problems I was thinking of involved the design producing flow problems. Finally solved with the Triple Plow III. The F-111 was always the fastest thing around down low. Only thing close was the F-105 and the Buccaneer as I recall.

nighthunter · August 07, 2012, 04:09:16 PM

My Take on a Super Eagle:

Diamondback · October 12, 2012, 11:40:45 PM

How 'bout a less exotic Eagle with a pair of F135's shoved up its backside? Or better yet THESE beauties?

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre_demoprog.html

I mean, either way should post some impressive gains... IIRC I had seen something about a few of the YF135s used on the X-32 prototypes getting to 50K# thrust, and if my math on thrust/weight ratio is correct and it has a linear proportion on MTOW, two of those could let a Mudhen gross heavier than a WWII B-29.

And for an ACTIVE-derived canard, could you mount the actuators in a "hunchback" on top with a driveshaft running above the Vulcan barrel and geared to a stub-axle on the canard? NASA seems to claim on their factsheet that the stock IFR receptacle was still viable to port...