Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
User Artwork / Re: Motocar's Cutaway drawings
« Last post by Motocar on Today at 04:04:02 pm »
Cutaway Heli-Plane, author Douglas Rolfe and published in the agazine popular Mechanics edition 08-1962 and retouche by Motocar
2
User Artwork / Zeppelin twin pulse jet fighter
« Last post by Skyraider3D on Today at 03:22:49 pm »
Commissioned by Dan Sharp (newdeskdan) for his bookazine on Luftwaffe secret designs, which was released last spring.
Please see https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,30273.0.html or go to https://www.classicmagazines.co.uk/product/5540/bookazine-luftwaffe-secret-designs-of-the-third-reich to order.
Only some sketches exist of this curious contraption, but the knowledge it was built with the use of a He 162 wing, Me 109 tailplane and As 014 engines helped making a decent reconstruction.
3
User Artwork / Re: Speculative/fictional Su-57 production version
« Last post by Trident on Today at 02:45:04 pm »
I believe they serve an aerodynamic purpose as well as housing the SRAAM missiles.

Yes, they are going to be accounted for in the area ruling of the overall airframe, so I assumed at least some of the spare cross sectional area is put to to beneficial use in blending the engine/intake nacelle junction into the wing root. A bit like the removal of space reserved for thrust reversers in the YF-23 nacelles led to the trough between them having a reduced depth on the EMD F-23 design.

Wasn't there a speculative naval version of the Su-57 with folding wingtips for the Shtorm carrier (I didn't notice wing-fold lines in the drawing)?

Yeah, there is a wing fold line in my drawing too though. Perhaps I should update the side and front views with dashed outlines of the outer panels in folded position to make that more obvious.

Also, from what I read the deal with the Indians fell apart because Sukhoi did not give up the codes and drawings to the aircraft's design so that India could manufacture the aircraft in India. Maybe an export version with the supercruise capable Izdelie-30 engine and serrated exhaust system.

The Izd. 30 engines are in there already, including serrated nozzles. Although I'm reasonably happy with how the colourized drawing turned out given my crude methods, I'm not experienced or skilled at making camouflage profiles. I can change the national insignia to the Indian roundel and make it a uniform grey scheme (which conveniently matches modern IAF practise) if you want, but that's about as far as I'll take it :)

The SRAAM bays are in a good place structurally... I probably wouldn't touch them.

While they possibly are not as deleterious structurally as on the F-22/J-20, due to their semi-external nature, if 1) no demand for more than 6 AAMs exists and 2) you waive the requirement to accommodate legacy LOBL missiles, SRAAM bays just become excrescent (both literally on the Su-57 and figuratively) altogether. Why bother to accept even a reduced penalty if an alternative with zero impact gets the job done just fine?

If I were imagining a late version... I think I'd go with the fancy 2d nozzel with the exhaust mixer (for IR reduction?) that was shown in a patent. Anyway, that is my 2 cents for what it is worth.

IR signature reduction is an interesting point, we're still not quite certain how the Su-57 will handle this after all (will it get that mysterious aerosol system?). For the most part, I stayed away from the nozzle question beyond adding serrations of the kind that are visible on the Izd. 30 pictures we've seen to date. Currently, the engine appears to use a tilted-axis ball-joint TVC nozzle like Izd. 117(S), but personally I'd favour Salyut's KliVT/PYBBN-type 3D solution which is potentially lighter and less complex. For IR signature reduction, I'd consider an ejector effect as discussed for advanced F110 derivatives in this GE paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267483234_F110-GE-129_EFE_-_Enhanced_Power_Through_Low_Risk_Derivative_Technology

That again would give a simple yet effective route to 3-axis TVC with reduced IR signature (relatively low number of actuators required compared to a ball-joint, lower thrust penalty than a rectangular nozzle, no aerosol storage).
4
Designation Systems / Re: Sikorsky models and designations
« Last post by fightingirish on Today at 11:40:36 am »
Here is a list of as-yet undesignated Sikorsky projects and prototypes which I have pics of (by no means exhaustive!):

Tests of parasol wings on biplane airframes:
    [...]
       
    • UTV Universal Tactical Vehicle flying crane proposal
    [...]
    [/li]
[/quote]
Source: https://flic.kr/p/2afArys
5
Modelling Forum / Re: Project Cancelled SIG., IPMS. SMW. 2018 Display
« Last post by Hood on Today at 05:03:59 am »
Telford is a great event, it has to be experienced to believe it.
The Project Cancelled SIG tables were great and it was an honour to have inspired so many great models (even the ones that weren't ready for the show).

Seeing a project represented in 3-D form is great, and having not built a model since my wonky Sea King circa 1999, the level of skill model makers like Joe and Geoff have constantly amazes me!
6
User Artwork / Re: Speculative/fictional Su-57 production version
« Last post by Avimimus on Yesterday at 07:38:26 pm »
The SRAAM bays are in a good place structurally... I probably wouldn't touch them.

If I were imagining a late version... I think I'd go with the fancy 2d nozzel with the exhaust mixer (for IR reduction?) that was shown in a patent. Anyway, that is my 2 cents for what it is worth.
7
User Artwork / Re: Speculative/fictional Su-57 production version
« Last post by Dynoman on Yesterday at 06:13:51 pm »
Wasn't there a speculative naval version of the Su-57 with folding wingtips for the Shtorm carrier (I didn't notice wing-fold lines in the drawing)?

Also, from what I read the deal with the Indians fell apart because Sukhoi did not give up the codes and drawings to the aircraft's design so that India could manufacture the aircraft in India. Maybe an export version with the supercruise capable Izdelie-30 engine and serrated exhaust system.
8
User Artwork / Re: Speculative/fictional Su-57 production version
« Last post by flateric on Yesterday at 12:27:26 pm »
They were identified as SRAAM bays by KnAAPO insider describing T-50_even before maiden flight_.
C'mon, this is 2018 already. Please stop that 'might not be'.
9
Alternative History and Future Speculation / Gloster's Heavy Fighter/Bomber P.293
« Last post by zen on Yesterday at 12:24:57 pm »
Really why mess about? Well the UK did, but it didn't have to......

Gloster produced a skteched design numbered P.293  large virtually flying wing, supersonic heavy fighter/medium bomber.....in 1949.....

By opting to go the 'whole hog' here it's a virtual shoe in for a Canberra successor (from the perspective of the 1950's), and in theory should deliver the sort of long range fighter desired but never achieved until the Tornado.

Yes it has Gloster's high 'T' tail, but for this sort of concept it's not that big a problem.

Nose is big enough to cope with a 40" dish....
Huge central section for internal weapons in the future...or fuel....

Yes it's only designed for mach 1.2 but this is something that can be improved......

Here us a way forward that has more potential than the Javelin, and retains that into the 60's
10
Alternative History and Future Speculation / The Fighter-Striker Westland's W.37
« Last post by zen on Yesterday at 12:00:43 pm »
April 1950 Westland proposes the W.37 Fighter-Striker to N.9/47 for a fighter and NR/A.19 for a single seat strike aircraft.

Assuming this was chosen several benefits result:-

1. Either
 a) the use of a single large jet such as Gyron or Olympus is chosen as the powerplant
 b) a reheated Sapphire or Avon is chosen.

IF 'a' THEN developments in either powerplant soon bring static thrust up from 10,000lb to around 15,000lb and ultimately 20,000lb AND a possible re-engining with a moderate bypass turbofan massively extending range/endurance.

IF 'b' THEN developments in reheat will mean either engine reaches the proposed dry thrust of the larger engine AND reheated will delver around another 50% increase on that. A re-engining with a reheated Spey delivers increased range/endurance.

Logically the increasing power of the jets, means TO performance and maximum weight at catapult launch increases.
It also means that during it's development, it would still be viewed as a potential Fighter, as it's rate of climb would rise with that power.
This 22,000lb (approximately) strike weight could well rise without any increase in catapult power and WOD requirements will relax for launch.
That weight figure is such, it puts the machine in the realm of being operable from the CVL types, and well inside the extent rating of the Centaurs. MAking both far more valid for the future (from a 1950's perspective that is)

2. Either
 a) W.37/1 is chosen due to internal weapons bay large enough to handle a torpedo and potentially Red Beard
 b) W.37/2 is chosen due to the highly rated central station for a torpedo and potentially Red Beard

Of these the stronger case is W.37/1 as internal carriage of Red Beard was always desired for safe recovery and this was why Scimitar's had to return with a live weapon to an airfield instead of the carrier.

Under these circumstances, the RAF's push to kill NA.39, could be accepted by further development of the W.37 system by the inclusion of two seats (such a variant was designed for trainer purposes anyway), and a Blue Parrot (AI.23) set.
Killing NA.39 would release funds for some other system....but which?

Such efforts could actually draw in the RAF for the MRI mission, this being available long before the likes of the P1154, F4 or Jaguar. It might well make with extra fuel, the 600nm ROA for nuclear strike.....leaving only the longer 1000nm ROA for OR.339

Chief downsides of the design are:-
1. that single engine
2. the four 30mm guns are located such that gases could be re-ingested into the engine. So a relocation would be necessary....or simply removed in the era which saw the gun as out of date.
3. the high 'T' tail, which never bothered the Buccaneer, though if necessary the fuselage is of a configuration that a low tail could be achieved.
4. the inlets, which are of a wing root type. However it is possible to design that to say semi-circular or circular types and that might have happend during the development process anyway.

All in all, this is quite an interesting alternative path forward. It effectively liberates the RN from the ever more limited number of strike machines on ever more limited numbers of carriers, drives the need to handle reheated exhaust on the carriers deck much earlier, releases the RAF from piling everything on not just the OR.339 machine but alleviates the need to accept a NMBR.3 winner and is actually a strong case to survive D.Sandys Defence Review unscathed since it;s mostly a Strike/Attack machine.

In fact it might even gain some export orders.....
German Navy for instance?
Australia's FAA?
India?
South Africa?

An argument could be made that since the FAA has dropped the NA.39 requirement, the need for a superonic figher to compliment it's Strike machine is now more pressing.....
Depending on the timing this could drive forward more funding to the DH.110 Sea Vixen, speeding it to service (not impossible considering the glacial pace of that effort). Or it could put more funds behind the Vickers Type 556 (FAW Scimitar).
Alternatively considering the benefits of it's lighter weight on the needs of a CV, this could place more emphasis on the likes of the Type 545....
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10