Design dilemma...

[AeroplaneDriver]

The One Week Build has motivated me into a flurry of modelling activity.  The Hobbycraft Vampire F3 on the shelf was just crying out for a quick build before I go back to work, but it was also crying out for a bit of cutting...so....:

1947-After the failed 1944 allied invasion, the war in Europe became a stalemate.  The new fleet of German jet and rocket interceptors are taking a heavy toll however.  To give some protection to the allied bombers new "parasite fighters" enter allied service.

One such fighter was the DeHavilland Vampire Bat.  Derived from the Vampire, the Bat was smaller, carried heavier armarment, including a 57mm cannon in the nose, replacing the nose landing gear assembly.  Allied bomber formations now included at least 5 FB-36 Sentinel aircraft armed with two Bats as well as new TV guided anti-aircraft missiles.

When enemy fighter activity was detected the Sentinels would deploy their Bat fighters.  Powered by a jet engine and a rocket booster pack the Bats would climb above the bomber formations, then dive back in on the enemy fighters at high speed.  

Though kills were relatively rare for the unstable Bats they did aqt least occupy the enemy jets and rockets, allowing hte bombers to reach their targets.  Once out of ammunition or at a critical fuel point the Bats would head for home on their jet engines where they landed using a blowdown undercarriage system that was recharged between flights.


So there's the story.  The dilemma is....

Do the tail surfaces cant outwards:

[AeroplaneDriver]

...or inwards?


I'm leaning towards out, but inwards looks prety cool from certain angles.

Any opinions?

Nick

[Madoc]

Nick,

Canting them outwards would make it easier for the aircraft to be docked with its FB-36 Sentinel carrier.  Canting them inwards would complicate the clearance immediately over the aircraft.

Madoc

[Tophe]

I propose Variable Geometry tails: inward aboard the B-36 because not much room inside, then outward because it is more safe with the jet hot gas. Some Cruise missiles were like that, opening their wings after release.
So your model with outwards is just perfect. And beautiful...

[Captain Canada]

Out.

It just looks better, and more flyable. Not that I'm an expert !

Docking is kind of irrelevant, as they would be loaded on the ground and jettisoned mid air.

[Madoc]

CC & all,

This all does depend on how they're attached to the carrier.  If they're simply latched onto a long pylon dangling beneath the wing of the carrier then it doesn't much matter whether the tails are canted in or outwards so long as the release process drops the bird away quickly and cleanly enough that there'd be no chance of the tails hitting the pylon.

This sort of mounting would require that the pilot be secured in the fighter's cockpit and there remain throughout the duration of the flight.  As this is a bomber escort mission, that pilot would be stuck doing little of anything for a goodly chunk of the flight.

Now, if the parasite fighter is nestled into the carrier's fuselage this would allow the pilot to get into the cockpit only when needed.  Otherwise he'd be "free to move about the aircraft."  That'd help with pilot fatigue as well as operational safety.  Consider the risks involved if the pilot was strapped into his fighter that was hanging on that long pylon from the wing of the carrier as it took off.

You'll note I said "nestled into the carrier's fuselage" and not "within it."  The wings on the fighter aren't folded so there's no way it could get inside the fuselage of even a B-36.  The mounting I'm envisioning here is something akin to the way the USAAF originally carried its "X" planes aloft.  They were secured in the bomb bay but the wings and a goodly portion of the fuselage was outside of the carrier.  The pilots for these craft got into their cockpits only after the carrier plane had safely reached its launch altitude.

Madoc

[Tophe]

Depending on the relative size...

[Aircav]

Looks better canted outwards IMHO and the idea looks great      

[Radish]

Outwards baby and now I know what to do with my Hobbycrap Vampires  

[Bryan H.]

What about a tail configuration simialr to this...



canted inward & connected in the center.

Proposed Mars UAV

Canted inward would give you two attachment points (fuselage & between the tails.)  It'd be a little simpler than three attachment points (fuselage & two tails) and be marginally safer and more reliable.

Bryan

[Patrick H]

outwards if you ask me. Looks so much better



Patrick

[anthonyp]

Outward definately.  Looks better to me.
 

[lancer]

Defiantely outwards.

[AeroplaneDriver]

The more I look at it the more outwards looks right.  I think I'll go  that way with it.  Found out today that I deffinately head back to work Sunday so I have a lot to do tomorrow!

[Tophe]

What about a tail configuration simialr to this...
canted inward & connected in the center.
Canted inward would give you two attachment points  Bryan

Thanks Bryan for having posted this picture that I did not know, the title shows this is the UAV scheduled to fly on Mars planet - with no air in the meaning we use, just gaz...
A / \ or \ / Vampire aboard a B-36 and without landing gear is a more serious idea, somehow...