paralay
ACCESS: Top Secret
When will you submit the drawing?Here we go, the FAR-21 Griffin is born. One can guess what FAR stands for
When will you submit the drawing?Here we go, the FAR-21 Griffin is born. One can guess what FAR stands for
Would spine across the fuselage from cockpit to the engine better than a hump above the engine? Also it will has benefit for more fuel.Thank you. I like the F-20 analogy.Superb work. A true son of the mighty F-20 Tigershark.
If you want it to more closely follow the area rule, you'll certainly have to replace the aft positioned ruddervator with a vertical (think M2K) or fill the gap b/w the wing trailing edge with a section increase of some sort.
In regards of area rule: Have a close look. It actually has a "hump" to fill the gap between wing an V-tail.
View attachment 672398
I have to tweak the 3D model a little more. In particular the rear, where the fuselage meets the nozzle. Not entirely happy with the current geometry.When will you submit the drawing?Here we go, the FAR-21 Griffin is born. One can guess what FAR stands for
Nope. The intention is drag reduction at transonic speeds. See Whitcomb area rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_ruleWould spine across the fuselage from cockpit to the engine better than a hump on above the engine? Also it will has benefit for more fuel.Thank you. I like the F-20 analogy.Superb work. A true son of the mighty F-20 Tigershark.
If you want it to more closely follow the area rule, you'll certainly have to replace the aft positioned ruddervator with a vertical (think M2K) or fill the gap b/w the wing trailing edge with a section increase of some sort.
In regards of area rule: Have a close look. It actually has a "hump" to fill the gap between wing an V-tail.
View attachment 672398
What level of design detail are you working towards?
Are you gonna design/include gear/control surfaces/other systems?
How are you gonna calculate the fuel space?
I think that you could reach a pretty highly detailed design fairly easily through this method!
You might just have inspired me to do something similar...
Congratulations VTOLicious, very impressive!!
I only have one immediate concern, which is the lack of rear visibility of your cockpit/canopy arrangement.
Regards
Pioneer
31.1 m3 according to my formula
maximum take-off weight 15500 kg
normal 13146 kg
empty 7800 kg
fuel 4600 kg
weapon 3200 kg
"aerodynamic quality" - 12.8
the permissible capacity of weapon bays is not more than 31.3 m3 * 0.135 = 4.23 m3
thrust-to-weight ratio 0.71 kgf/kg
wing load 470 kg/m2
Great detailed sketches, but they are converging on the Sukhoi LTS Checkmate configuration.
Great detailed sketches, but they are converging on the Sukhoi LTS Checkmate configuration.
Not a criticism because if you design two airplanes for the same mission, they are likely to look the same.
If you want to improve the RCS, take some tips from the Northrop/McDD/BAe JSF.
View attachment 672801
Increase wing sweep to 45 or more (you want the wing return out of the front quadrant). This probably takes you to a delta (hello Su-75) or lambda wing.
Intake angled at the same angle as the wing leading edge.
Strake should continue rearwards to tail.
Sides and the lower fuselage are very boxy and too close to 90 deg. You really want some more angle on them if possible.
worth noting that before KAI decided on the KF-21s final design..
in the past they considered a single engined lighter fighter in the very early stages
first with twin tails and another with single tails. This was supposed to be more of a straight up F-16 sized replacement
I don't know if this one has space for bays like the other proposals
i couldn't find any dimensions or specific powerplant.worth noting that before KAI decided on the KF-21s final design..
in the past they considered a single engined lighter fighter in the very early stages
first with twin tails and another with single tails. This was supposed to be more of a straight up F-16 sized replacement
I don't know if this one has space for bays like the other proposals
The influence of the F-16 is unmistakable.
Do you know the dimensions and which powerplant it was supposed to have?
i couldn't find any dimensions or specific powerplant.worth noting that before KAI decided on the KF-21s final design..
in the past they considered a single engined lighter fighter in the very early stages
first with twin tails and another with single tails. This was supposed to be more of a straight up F-16 sized replacement
I don't know if this one has space for bays like the other proposals
The influence of the F-16 is unmistakable.
Do you know the dimensions and which powerplant it was supposed to have?
but i did find that the single engined proposal had no internal bay
so the C102E and C202E were single engined (one is canard the other is wing tail).
the I version means it has an internal bay. In this round, the single engined proposal was eliminated and the I model chosen
i guess it would be safe to assume they were intending for a single engined F414 or EJ2000
VTOLicious, I've said it once and I'll say it again, very very impressive work!!Landing gears... quite challenging and lots of work. Now that I managed to squeeze the wheels behind the air inlet face I'm relieved. And I'm quite happy that the arrangement of the four main items worked out as desired. It all started with a simple sketch
I think ground clearance and distance to the legs is sufficient to allow weapons bay loading with a dedicated trolley.
Thank you!VTOLicious, I've said it once and I'll say it again, very very impressive work!!Landing gears... quite challenging and lots of work. Now that I managed to squeeze the wheels behind the air inlet face I'm relieved. And I'm quite happy that the arrangement of the four main items worked out as desired. It all started with a simple sketch
I think ground clearance and distance to the legs is sufficient to allow weapons bay loading with a dedicated trolley.
Regards
Pioneer
awesome!
i have a question
For your design, why did you opt not to have the intakes and bottom fueselage flush with each other?
for example, the F-22 and FC-31, the sides of the intake area and main airframe are flush/flat
the X-2 intakes start off highers like yours,
but eventually merges down to be flush with the bottom (but the internal intakes goes upwards).
yours just stays straight rather than merging with the bottom. Are there any pros and cons to these design aspects?
Btw, wingtip weapons pods are shown in "Flying Wings and Radical Things" page 256
The volume of the pod would radically affect the wing tip aerodynamics given that's where your airfoil chord is the shortest.
Either you could investigate adding some extra surface b/w the wing tip and the pod to alter the flow perturbations or use the canoe solution like found on the Felon, pushing your pod inboard where the wing can easier accept such a large volume?