Some Bombcorde questions

[Pellson]

Sorry for creating another Bombcorde thread, but I couldn't seem to find what I am looking for in the existant ones I've plowed through, so please bear with me.

Right. Not dwelling on backstory or aircraft name/designation at this time but rather focusing on design, I'm planning a Bombcorde active in the nineties as a RAF long distance low altitude intruder, much along the lines of the USAF B-1B. To facilitate this, I need to consider a few aerodynamical issues such as smooth ride at low level and high speed, ECM equipment and possibly also active defence measures, such as AAM:s. To make things a tad simpler, all air-to-ground payload goes internally in bomb bays and refuelling probe is completely retractable.

The strakes along the sides of the cockpit are - I suppose - providing a little extra nose-up lift a high AoA:s as well as some vortexes at most speeds. The B-1B has small moveable canards approximately in similar positions, these mainly acting as oscillation dampers in the dense air at low altitude and high speed. I plan something along these lines, but not going all the way to "big" canards as on the SAAB Viggen, or even the Typhoon FGR4. What do you think? Good or bad?

I will need some external ECM lumps and bumps, I presume, keeping these items as integral as possible instead of putting them externally on drag inducing pylons. Now - a fin tip RWR and ECM pod seems natural, but as the aircraft is spacious, do I really need any other external pods?

The thread is hereby handed over for thoughts on these matters as well as others that could have an impact on the mission intended.

[rickshaw]

The big delta is going to give you a very bumpy ride down low.   I also wonder if it could structurally survive the extended pounding it would receive at high speed at low altitude? 

[pyro-manic]

Also, the Olympus turbojets will be poor performers at low altitude.

[Hobbes]

Most of the equipment can be internal, but you'll have to have a couple of antennas visible. Also some optical sensors (one on the nose, one in the tail for rear warning, one on top of the fuselage for astronavigation). Maybe a sideways-looking radar behind the cockpit (visible only as a different paint color for the dielectric panel).

Canards are a good idea, either small ones as on the B-1 or larger as on the Tu-144.

[PR19_Kit]

Aren't the B-1B's canards part of an active gust alleviation system?

IIRC they move to reduce the low altitude bouncing and bashing the crew get. The Concorde nose strakes are fixed and would probably not be large enough to do that same job at low altitudes even if they were active.

[McColm]

The tail section could house the ESM or ECM. Remember that Concorde in theory could carry more weapons
internaly than the Vulcan at twice its speed, but the Vulcan could operate at high and low level at mach 0.8.
The B-1BR has been tweaked to fly at mach 2 (a speed that the B-1A could achieve).

[kitnut617]

Like has been said, most of the equipment could be inside the fuselage,  On the one I'm building I've got a fairing on the top of the fin;




In the 1/72 Airfix kit, there's some parts that go on the outside and on top of the fuselage which I think are some sort of communication pod.  It looks like an upside-down canoe and somewhere along the way, I picked up some more of them so mine will get a couple of these.

Also stuck something from the B-58 in the extreme tail   

[PR19_Kit]

I think you should have gone for the big one Robert, you'll lose that one under a fingernail one day............ 

[Pellson]

Thanks for thoughts. Some of them, I think I've considered already.

- Big delta equals bumpy low level ride - Not necessarily. Two interesting examples of big wings at low altitude are F-15E and SAAB Viggen. Neither of their users report anything but rather nice behaviour on the deck. The Viggen canard creates a big vortex over the main wing that somehow helps with this. How the F-15 wing works, I actually don't know.

- Olympus engines - Well, the TSR2 had them, and as far as I know, the main work for that aircraft was on the deck, right?   It seems a matter of tweaking rather than exchanging the entire engine, which - obviously as this is whif - isn't all that impossible. A new, big turbofan, or a modernized low bypass derivative of the Olympus with significantly improved fuel burn rate wouldn't be unwelcome to boost both payload and range.

- ECM in tailcone, definitely. Especially some kind of defensive suite (electronic, not necessarily american hardware ). I would guess that I need some bumps or so at the wingtips as well, judging from what I know of similar systems in other aircraft. Also, the mentioned optical sensors will have to be added externally. In particular the offensive one. I'm considering some kind of electro-optical gizmo ball like on a B-1 (again) but perhaps smaller. More like things nicked from a TIALD pod or so. No, I won't have a complet pod on a pylon. I effectively hate small assymetrical poo-poo (with an english accent) pylons with unexpendable goods tacked on them. Yes, I am aware of the rationale of podded systems and I think the logic sucks for larger aircraft where there's ample space for an easy detachable system either as internal plug-and-play or scabbed directly on the exterior and connected via quick-cord.

- I like the fin pod, Kitnut, and I've looked at your machine earlier for inspiration. However, I think that I will go for something smaller, perhaps more like the RWR on the Tornado F3. I'll dwell more on that on my own..

- Canards. Mr Spackman is corrrect about their function in the Lancer. And that's about what I'm after, thus planning to replace the strakes.


Despite trying to keep aerodynamics as clean as possible, I think an AAM or two would be nice to have, just as the Mirage IV carried Magics and even Vulcans were considered to carry Sidewinders. What do you think?

[Hobbes]

There'd be plenty of room for AAMs in the bomb bay. Otherwise, try mounting them next to the engines, maybe add conformal tanks to the engine sides (like the F-15E) and recess the missiles into those. I'd go with AMRAAM. IR missiles are just too short-ranged.

[ChrisF]

Cant wait to see more !

[kitnut617]

I think you should have gone for the big one Robert, you'll lose that one under a fingernail one day............ 

I couldn't find a 1/48 one Kit,  so I stayed with the smaller 1/72 scale one.       is there another scale then ?

[kitnut617]

maybe add conformal tanks to the engine sides (like the F-15E) and recess the missiles into those.

Now there's an idea Harro   

[kerick]

Don't some ECM sensors need to be as far apart as possible?  Good rational for tidbits on the wing tips.

[rickshaw]

I think you should have gone for the big one Robert, you'll lose that one under a fingernail one day............ 

I couldn't find a 1/48 one Kit,  so I stayed with the smaller 1/72 scale one.       is there another scale then ?

There are 1/100 - Doyosha (?sp), 1/125 - Heller and 1/144 Airfix/Heller that I'm aware of.  I think there are 1/200 and 1/400 in the airline scales.