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.
Thank you. I like the F-20 analogy.

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
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.
 
Last edited:
Here we go, the FAR-21 Griffin is born. One can guess what FAR stands for ;)
When will you submit the drawing?
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.
 
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.
Thank you. I like the F-20 analogy.

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
Would 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.
Nope. The intention is drag reduction at transonic speeds. See Whitcomb area rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule
Area rule.jpg
 
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...
 
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...

The level of detail is dependent on time and effort I can (or wanna) spend on this :)

In general I wanna keep it on a conceptual level and add only items which are of importance for the internal arrangement. I may add landing gears next. One of the main tasks is to find sufficient space for at least 2800 liters of fuel. To do so I'm gonna model fuel tanks (solid 3d objects) and measure the volume of each one. 27 m³ is the estimated aircraft volume requirement.

Great if I have inspired you! Go for it! I would love to see someone come up with another LMF concept model.
 
Last edited:
Canopy reworked, rear section reworked, wing shifted 0,3 m aft and I've tweaked the 3d model towards 27 m³ total volume,... some "panel lines" added for better visualization of the fuselage shape.

And the IWB is fully integrated now! Including moveable doors with AIM-120 attached to it.

Next task: Landing gears!
 

Attachments

  • LMF_X_115.PNG
    LMF_X_115.PNG
    3.3 MB · Views: 518
  • LMF_X_113.PNG
    LMF_X_113.PNG
    3.4 MB · Views: 423
  • LMF_X_114.PNG
    LMF_X_114.PNG
    3.4 MB · Views: 400
  • LMF_X_111.PNG
    LMF_X_111.PNG
    3.2 MB · Views: 413
  • LMF_X_112.PNG
    LMF_X_112.PNG
    3.1 MB · Views: 1,178
Congratulations VTOLicious, very impressive!!

I only have one immediate concern, which is the lack of rear visibility of your cockpit/canopy arrangement.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
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

Not too bad for an estimation based on a 3-view, but 31,1 m³ is 15% off.

What is "aerodynamic quality"?
 
If you want to improve the RCS, take some tips from the Northrop/McDD/BAe JSF.
cddr_mda-ngc-bae_003.jpg
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.

lmf_x_112-png.672540


Sides and the lower fuselage are very boxy and too close to 90 deg. You really want some more angle on them if possible.
 
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.

Thx for your input!

To find the right balance between various (and often conflicting) requirements is not an easy task. You will always find yourself forced to compromise one or the other (e.g. stealth vs. aerodynamic performance).

Having said that, I think the current layout is reasonable and does not feature any fundamental flaws that would disqualify it being a light fifth-generation low-observable fighter. I consider this as the baseline-layout. I may do another variant in the future, but for now I will proceed and see where it gets me. I'm especially keen to see if I will find the required space for the desired minimum amount of fuel.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Attachments

  • 20211228_140219_small.png
    20211228_140219_small.png
    3 MB · Views: 369
  • LMF_X_Ldg_Test_021.PNG
    LMF_X_Ldg_Test_021.PNG
    1.6 MB · Views: 369
  • LMF_X_Ldg_Test_020.PNG
    LMF_X_Ldg_Test_020.PNG
    862 KB · Views: 350
  • LMF_X_Ldg_Test_019.PNG
    LMF_X_Ldg_Test_019.PNG
    518.8 KB · Views: 345
  • LMF_X_Ldg_Test_018.png
    LMF_X_Ldg_Test_018.png
    490.8 KB · Views: 374
Last edited:
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

20130824135919.jpg
d19e06c621e81ef42d378f6f12b3452e.jpg
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
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

20140212221949.jpg
 
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.
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

Don't you think the single engined proposals would have rather be designed around a PW F100-PW-229 (KF-16)?
 
Last edited:
Obviously an amateur production being based on Sketchup n'all.
 

Attachments

  • Inlets Check 1.jpg
    Inlets Check 1.jpg
    145.6 KB · Views: 285
  • Lower Inlets In Red.jpg
    Lower Inlets In Red.jpg
    137.8 KB · Views: 274
  • Upper Inlets In Red.jpg
    Upper Inlets In Red.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 287
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.
VTOLicious, I've said it once and I'll say it again, very very impressive work!!

Regards
Pioneer
 
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.
VTOLicious, I've said it once and I'll say it again, very very impressive work!!

Regards
Pioneer
Thank you!
 
Now it gets interesting, the moment of truth has come!

To model integral fuel tanks I've used a copy of the solid model, cut it into the desired pieces and finally shrinked each one to 85% of the original volume. I've read that's a common method to estimate the volume of integral fuel tanks. As you can see in the pictures, this leaves plenty of space to the outer skin / internal components and accounts for the space required by internal structure as well.
LMF_X_FuelTank_006.PNG
LMF_X_FuelTank_005.PNG

Well, that results in a total fuel tank volume of approximately 3920 liters (3136 kg). Not bad at all!

That's about 1100 liters more than Gripen "L" (2800 l / 2240 kg) and not too far away from Gripen "NG" (4200 l / 3360 kg).

Btw, I've adjusted the front and aft tank's volume so that they are equal to keep the aircraft in balance. Furthermore, I have left plenty of space behind the cockpit to account for avionics, ECS, etc., did not extent the aft tank all the way to the end and didn't fill each tiny space with fuel.

LMF_X_FuelTank_004.png
 
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

very-close-bottom-view-of-a-f22-raptor-against-clouds-picture-id1147675922

FOREIGN201411190830000546834344217.jpg


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?
1566366851_1491198211_yayayaya.jpg
 
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
FOREIGN201411190830000546834344217.jpg

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?

The answer is simple: Intake layout was dictated by the IWB-layout I chose. Those doors swing to the sides!

LMF_X_Ldg_Test_018.png

See also:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...eight-multirole-fighter-lmf.38539/post-506704

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...eight-multirole-fighter-lmf.38539/post-506735
 
Last edited:
Btw, wingtip weapons pods are shown in "Flying Wings and Radical Things" page 256 ;)

I've drafted wingtip-pods which can accommodate short range AAM's.
Those pods are in addition to the main bay ( 4x AIM-120) and are intended to be detachable/ interchangeable. The missile would be deployed with a "trapeze launcher", similar to the on used in the F-22's side bays.
Furthermore, those wingtip-pods could also be utilized to house EW- or ISR-equipment, or may be used as additional fuel tanks.

What do you guys think?

Depicted: AIM-132 ASRAAM
Length: 2,9 m
Diameter: 0,166 m
Wingspan: 0,45 m

LMF_X_WTP_010.PNG LMF_X_WTP_007.PNG LMF_X_WTP_008.PNG LMF_X_WTP_009.PNG
 
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?
 
Can we speculate about a short-range, air-to-air missile with folding fins?
Folding fins could vastly reduce the volume of wing-tip pods.
Square cross-section or hexagonal to allow folded fins to lay flat on the missiles' fuselage.

OTOH your wing-tip pods are a good size to carry extra fuel.
Maybe leave the bad guys guessing as to whether you are carrying extra fuel or extra weapons?????????
 
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?

Rather large wing tip tanks were used before. Think F-104, F-5,...
However, I do agree that it is necessary to adapt the layout of LE and TE flaps to enable a better connection to the wing's structure.
 
Last edited:
Another option for the internal carriage of SRAAM's would be conformal pods above the air inlets. Similar to the bump on the F-35A, which houses the gatling gun.
F-35A_301.jpg
Such a conformal pod may provide a solution for an optional gun as well, but I would need to free up some internal space for the ammunition.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom