Twin tailed Canberra?

[zenrat]

Would an air launched Bloodhound need the boosters?  They were to get it off the ground and up to a speed where the ram-jets could get going.  As long as the Canberra could reach that speed then the boosters would be unnecessary.

[Dizzyfugu]

A twin tail would hardly make sense on a Canberra, because the fins would sit directly in the (hot) jet efflux. While this arrangement is effective on propeller-driven aircraft, improving rudder effectveness, it's not so clever on jets... unless you get the fins out of teh way, somehow. A butterfly tail would IMHO be a better (and certainly also pretty) choice?

[PR19_Kit]

Would an air launched Bloodhound need the boosters?  They were to get it off the ground and up to a speed where the ram-jets could get going.  As long as the Canberra could reach that speed then the boosters would be unnecessary.

Apparently so, as the Thor ramjets didn't get going till the Bloodhound had reached M 1.0 plus, and I doubt ANY Canberra could go that fast. 

The Wiki page for the Bloodhound says it could reach 400 mph before it reached the end of the launcher and M 1.0 by the time it was 25 yards away, and the boosters dropped off 3 secs later, by which time it was doing M 2.2!!! 

That's some acceleration!

[zenrat]

So the Canberra would need bigger engines then...

[PR19_Kit]

So the Canberra would need bigger engines then...

A bit, yes............ 

[Rheged]

So the Canberra would need bigger engines then...

A bit, yes............ 

Is this, we ask ourselves, leading to a Canberra with a pair of Olympus 593's?

[Stratos]

A twin tail would hardly make sense on a Canberra, because the fins would sit directly in the (hot) jet efflux. While this arrangement is effective on propeller-driven aircraft, improving rudder effectveness, it's not so clever on jets... unless you get the fins out of teh way, somehow. A butterfly tail would IMHO be a better (and certainly also pretty) choice?

And... a turboprop will benefit from such effect?

[Dizzyfugu]

Yes, but with the potential problems of hot exhaust gases, too. But I think it would not be as dire as with a true jet engine that relies on pure exhaust thrust.

[Dork the kit slayer]

Would smaller boosters be more acceptable ? or needed.?

My thinking is that the whole bloudhound unit would be dropped before the ignition sequence,or am I dinner before breakfast.(as usual)

[kitnut617]

So the Canberra would need bigger engines then...

A bit, yes............ 

Like this then, and raise the tail plane at the same time



All you'd need to do is raise the wing too, then there's a ton of room under the wing

[zenrat]

Ooh I like that.

[NARSES2]

My thinking is that the whole bloudhound unit would be dropped before the ignition sequence,or am I dinner before breakfast.(as usual)

That's my thinking as well

[Captain Canada]

Great ideas here love the T-tailed example and yours is really coming along Robert !

[Old Wombat]

The boosters on the Bloodhound wouldn't have to be as big for air-launch, as, once dropped, the missile would accelerate in a dive, rather than upwards, reaching main engine ignition velocity faster & with less effort.

Probably not a significant weight saver but every bit counts.

I'd give the Canberra bigger engines, a high wing (much like the one kitnut617 has posted images of) & mount the Bloodhounds to the lower sides of the fuselage, instead of to the wings ... You could call it the Auckland or the Wellington II.

The configuration would be useful for air-launched nukes & cruise missiles, too.

[PR19_Kit]

The boosters on the Bloodhound wouldn't have to be as big for air-launch, as, once dropped, the missile would accelerate in a dive, rather than upwards, reaching main engine ignition velocity faster & with less effort.

Diving would only accelerate it at 1g, and the existing boosters would seem to accelerate it at over 900 g! 

Just a slightly smaller booster would seem to offer much more acceleration per buck to my mind.