- 27 December 2005
- Reaction score
Some nice drawings from the brochure
overscan said:Clearly, if any F155T project was built, it could have been turned into a general purpose fighter. The designs were all short on fuel, but deletion of the rocket engines could have helped there (assuming advances in weapons reduced the required altitude performance).
archipeppe said:overscan said:Clearly, if any F155T project was built, it could have been turned into a general purpose fighter. The designs were all short on fuel, but deletion of the rocket engines could have helped there (assuming advances in weapons reduced the required altitude performance).
I really agree with you Overscan.
Anyway the shortage of fuel was a common problem of almost all British (and not only British, think about early versions of MiG 21s) projects and real fighters, as English Electric Lightning.
By the point of view of mixed propulsion system, a lot of fighters (and not only fighters as the early Comets did for take off) at that time seriously considered, and sometimes used, this approach.
I refer especially to early Mirage family (I and III) and also to the Italian Ambrosini's projects (Ariete, Leone and so on).
I think, but it is my opionion, that the F155T realized and used for real should have left the mixed propulsion system for good, and should be one of the few real competitors of the outstanding Phantom II...
overscan said:MiG-25, and its predecessors Ye-150 etc, is a reasonable comparison actually: the Gyron engine powered P.1103 derivative, P.1121, was expected to be able to push Mach 2.8 (with obvious airframe limitations on time) and a steel wing was considered for high speed derivatives.
There really wasn't a direct UK equivalent to the Phantom. In fact, worldwide, the Phantom was pretty unique.
rickshaw said:What find about all British aircraft of this period is how relatively under-armed they are. An aircraft the size of the Delta III carried only two Red Tops whereas the F-4 at the same time was carrying 8 missiles! Were there any plans to give the Delta III a gun?
LowObservable said:Wonderful graphics, Overscan...
Really, really hideous concept and design, apparently executed by someone who had been shooting eraser fragments at classmates during the lecture on "drag".
Wings? Well, we've got these big engine tunnels down the fuselage. Should we put the wing carry-through below them? Above them? No, straight through the freaking middle of them!
Engines? Let's put them in the front so that the inlets are short, there's no time to straighten the flow out and the jetpipes are hot! (The installation looks a lot like a Boeing X-32, but they had an excuse.)
This does make one realize why the Froggies get upset when people suggest that they copied the Mirage III from Fairey, when Dassault did so many elementary things right and the Brits did them wrong...
zen said:As for drag, it was expected to overcome it
Basil said:As mentioned by LowObservable the long jet pipes between the turbine nozzle and the afterburner may lead to inefficiencies, especially during dry (non-afterburner) flight regimes (besides additional problems because of the hot gases inside the fuselage like material stretching). Nearly all British designs of that period used this layout as well as designs that used British engines (saab lansen, draken, etc.) - in contrast to most American, Russian and french designs which had a more compact turbine-afterburner arrangement. I don't know the reason - was it really just a question of the CoG?
Basil said:The BOMARC? It was a liquid fueled (and later solid fueled) missile with ramjets mounted beneath the fuselage. No long ducts there.