Possible configuration of the Boeing F/A-XX

jmspeedfreak said:
It is half using the wing to maintain the pitch and half to actually generate lift and overcome the down force from the pitching. No thanks!
Click to expand...
You still need to obey physics and be able to trim out the pitching moment, and have sufficient control authority to change attitude e.g. due to gusts
 
Oh, I thought something related to this had been posted in this forum. That was probably a misunderstanding.
 
Low IQ Techie said:
Can you please share a half-half comparison diagram? Thanks & regards.
Click to expand...
Here you are. Cleaned it up a bit.
But keep in mind these are basic referrence line for orientation. They are not exactly to scale nor are they the design's OML line. As you will notice they were originally for the F47. lol
But since I'm more or less keep the same end section for both design it's fine. Although, I've a good idea about the tailess section, I'ven't exactly molded it yet. It's complicted.
body_wave-drag_shaping-ref2.png

FlyGuy369 said:
For those curious about the Super Bug replacement, no future for the WSO in it.
Click to expand...
The Navy still needs traning variants? And also needs a few to drive the mission commanders (MC)?
I can see new landing software (AI) and precess could get rid of a training variant but MC would be harder to dismiss.
 
Seragina said:
Here you are. Cleaned it up a bit.
But keep in mind these are basic referrence line for orientation. They are not exactly to scale nor are they the design's OML line. As you will notice they were originally for the F47. lol
But since I'm more or less keep the same end section for both design it's fine. Although, I've a good idea about the tailess section, I'ven't exactly molded it yet. It's complicted.
View attachment 813145
Click to expand...

I mean the design in red Vs F-22 in green.
When i make drawing comparison of jets, i make 1 superimposed & other half-half.
 
Seragina, I would say that and F-35 style NATOPS syllabus would drive training and MCs roles are shared via data link network to alleviate singular load tasking.
 
I suppose the more integrated HQ/operation centers will have more access to tactical decision. But this depends very much on network latency as well as "firing solution" computing power. I'm not so confidence about this reliancy.
 
Seragina said:
I suppose the more integrated HQ/operation centers will have more access to tactical decision. But this depends very much on network latency as well as "firing solution" computing power. I'm not so confidence about this reliancy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not buying it either.

These planes are going to be on the wrong end of ALL the enemy electronic and cyberwarfare weapons as is. Adding a 5-10sec communications lag because you're bouncing halfway around the planet is making it really easy for the enemy to get into your OODA loop.
 
jmspeedfreak said:
Some very tightly packed (4x) JASSM with the fuel packs (The JASSM would need their ejectors built into the fuel modules, it would be a 'thing').
Click to expand...
Interesting work!
Though I am curious where would you place the tailhook?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rbyn512 said:
Interesting work!
Though I am curious where would you place the tailhook?
Click to expand...
Up it's jacksy. :D (Edit: realise I explained all the below products previously, sorry!)

I measured it up and it had sufficient space to fit to tomcat tail hook, but I prefer a design without the F35 style tail hook doors if possible, so I went (for some reason) with the idea of a "rectal orifice" (!) through which the tail hook could be extended rearward and lock into the rear of the weapons bay structure. That only needs a very small port and simple retract/extend mechanism. Only problem is the Navy probably would think that is more complex than the 2.5m long doors (I don't but that may just be me). In case this isn't clear, when retracted the hook shaft can be held inside the central keel beam structure.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom