F -20 with J 52 engine

PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Why on earth would you put a J52 in an F-20?
Click to expand...

There's speculation and then there's 'endless fantasy' and 'what ifs' that don't serve a purpose IMHO. X-15's with AESA and AAM's let's talk :eek:
 
First I said this is fanasy. Second F-5 and A-4 are the same generation fighters. I would like to know would the f-5 have some beter performance. IRST is just as kind a upgrade after 20 years or something.Single engine looks beter for modeling.
You are very closed minded group and you shold be some kind of experts.experts. Shoud the sime engine for navy and export cut the cost downand other stuff.I thinked this is alternative history discussion place.Only one guy with interesting reply.
 
afran said:
First I said this is fanasy. Second F-5 and A-4 are the same generation fighters. I would like to know would the f-5 have some beter performance. IRST is just as kind a upgrade after 20 years or something.Single engine looks beter for modeling.
You are very closed minded group and you shold be some kind of experts.experts. Shoud the sime engine for navy and export cut the cost downand other stuff.I thinked this is alternative history discussion place.Only one guy with interesting reply.
Click to expand...

Firstly calling this amazing forum membership 'closed minded' is both an ignorant and arrogant thing to type.

The point being is that this is a fact based community (and if you get to know them a lot of fun, humor and interesting debate) where endless speculation and 'what ifs' that fail to serve any purpose beyond YOUR OWN DESIRE to illicit information from people that have incredible knowledge (yes there are many, many experts here).

Forum members have things to do and you are NOT entitled to their time and efforts to respond to anything YOU might find interesting.

In fact rather than your first post of so few words maybe you should complete a full analysis of everything that would entail from a change to an aircraft, performance parameters etc., then in my opinion there might be something to discuss.
 
Were you perhaps thinking along the lines of a low cost dedicated cruise missile interceptor in the 90s/2000s timeframe? Though the downside would be that it would have relatively short endurance & range compared to the stock F-20. Of course, if it was the J52-P-409 engine you had in mind, it might not be too bad a reduction.

If it was intended for use near the front lines, or alternatively in the infrastructure/point defence role, such a drawback could also be partly alleviated using a mobile ZELL (Zero-Length Launcher) ground setup such as shown below (photo via the somewhat short and inaccurate Wikipedia article on Zero-Length Launch). We have the same photo in another thread by the way, but the large version is currently out of order.

1280px-F-100_zero-length-launch_trial.jpg


See this post/thread, along with the existing ZELL thread, for a few more details and references on some ZELL related programs.
 
afran said:
First I said this is fanasy. Second F-5 and A-4 are the same generation fighters. I would like to know would the f-5 have some beter performance. IRST is just as kind a upgrade after 20 years or something.Single engine looks beter for modeling.
You are very closed minded group and you shold be some kind of experts.experts. Shoud the sime engine for navy and export cut the cost downand other stuff.I thinked this is alternative history discussion place.Only one guy with interesting reply.
Click to expand...


F-5 with J52 makes more sense. F-20 is early 80s, it makes no sense to fit a J52 to it.


J52 would be more fuel efficient than the J85 but heavier. It would not have improved aerodynamic performance but might have increased range.
 
Talk about a noisy, smokey engine - EA-6Bs fly around my area and boy-oh-boy! -SP
 
I wont and answer and I got one finaly. thank you and insulted members shouldnt take this against me
I didnt formulated this post corectly . For me similar engine for similar wight and ranage have common sense
I want to know is this logic have any fondation in real facts.
Provocation is sometime way to get reply.
maybe i should introduce myself
Sometime I just crash in parties with no invitation.
Hello I am Afran the designerer and I seek inspiration and information.
You guys have whole thred about F-5 with alternative propučsion so I opent this thread to do deeprer reserch
I am thinking of openig modeling company plastic models but i dont wont to sell what if but unbult aercraft witch could have
been produced.Real potencial,
Subsonic F-20 with J-52 can interesting toy for some rich guy.Maybe Northrop could earn some money.
There is beter engine today but i chose this randomly.
This all for now thank you.
 
F-20 with RB.199 might have been be potentially interesting for the German air force. It could have been developed further with EJ200.
 
as noted by the multitude of posters above your F-20 would be more like a F-5. Instead of keeping the wide afterbody make it a simple circular rear end . Keep the LEX where the wings and fuselage small as per the F-5A . No changes to the inlets if you are to copy the F-20 there ; Phantom would be a known identity . You can well claim this was a mildly supersonic plane as much as the F-5 was .

or a larger wing where you hang tons of tons of bombs . Look for the variants offered to USN in this site , the desktop models are most impressive .
 
ISTR reading somewhere that the original single-engine F-5 in the '60s or maybe '70s was to use a J-79. I don't recall whether it is a fact or just a what-if, but I got the thought from somewhere.
 
famvburg said:
ISTR reading somewhere that the original single-engine F-5 in the '60s or maybe '70s was to use a J-79. I don't recall whether it is a fact or just a what-if, but I got the thought from somewhere.
Click to expand...

Call it the Northrop F-104. (It'd have been a neat trick seeing them stuff a J79 into an F-5.)
 
lets make ultimate what if engine list for F-5/F-20 so this subject wouldn't be brought up again
I am wondering what if Iranians could stuff some commercial engine like P&W JT8D-5 or something similar
in F5/F-20 airframe and call it the new best thing.
 
afran said:
lets make ultimate what if engine list for F-5/F-20 so this subject wouldn't be brought up again
I am wondering what if Iranians could stuff some commercial engine like P&W JT8D-5 or something similar
in F5/F-20 airframe and call it the new best thing.
Click to expand...

That's the engine used in the Viggen. Probably too big IMO.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
BillRo said:
An easier sell to the UK and Germany.
Click to expand...


Plus longer range than with F404.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't performance, other than range, be adversely affected though? After all F404 is 21% more powerful dry and about 8% on afterburner.
 
Lascaris said:
Arjen said:
Lascaris said:
Wouldn't performance, other than range, be adversely affected though? After all F404 is 21% more powerful dry and about 8% on afterburner.
Click to expand...
As far as I know EJ200 has dry thrust of 13000 lbf, 20000 lbf with reheat. F404-GE-IN20 (most powerful variant according to GE) has 19000 lbf thrust with reheat.
Click to expand...

RB199 not EJ200. At the time Northrop was offering F-18L EJ200 was still some decades in the future...
Click to expand...
A bubble canopy & canard foreplanes would be nice as well
 
afran said:
F -20 with J 52 engine and IRST
comments, opinions lets disscus this fiction
Click to expand...
Assuming you are talking about doing a single engine F-20 like aircraft in the '60s based on the F-5... putting a J-52 in the actual F-20 would not get you anything really.
Assuming that, then what you have is an aircraft with about a foot taller fuselage to accommodate the larger diameter of the J-52 which will add weight over and above the roughly 1000 pounds of the engine over the pair of J-85's it is replacing. If we use a later model of the 52 it will provide more thrust dry than the pair do wet so that should offset some of the weight gain. The HUGE improvement will be in SFC: The J-85 is 1.24 dry and over 2.0 wet and the J-52 is roughly .79! That is a massive improvement in range and endurance.
 
How about a F-5E with J101 ? that is a proto-Tigershak but 15 years earlier: 1967 rather than 1982. If J101 is ready by the date, or perhaps in 1970-72 then. It also nips in the bud the P.530 Cobra and the entire Hornet family along it, which for Northrop wasn't exactly a happy story (for MDD, it was !)
 
BlackBat242 said:
The P.530 WAS an "improved F-5E".
Click to expand...
Technically not, because the P.530 diverged from the F-5 years before the F-5E (1965).

It is descended from the F-5 though. The first configuration I have for P.530 (N300 as it was) is just an F-5A with a larger wing and a larger rear fuselage containing two J97 turbojets. Large parts of the aircraft remain identical. By the time it became the YF-17, there was pretty much nothing left of this ancestry.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom