Overscan, please transfer this to the 'Scale Modelling, Fan Art & Profiles' area or 'The Bar' or otherwise do with it as you see fit.
Thanks Lantinian for the pointers, and mean that. I won't go on too much about my fantasy plane here as it detracts from the serious (if paradoxical) discussion of the real fictional plane, but, from my limited knowledge, I'll try and explain my reasoning:-
1. It was a quick drawing only as an exercise in illustration style and entertainment, as neither F-22 or YF-23 are not my favourite planes (first excuse).
2. The weapons bay is supposed to be wide and flat (its a fair comment) like the F-22s but bigger, and I probably would have moved further back to the C of G if I'd spent more time, but its still further back than on the real YF-23.
3. Like-wise I would have made the expansion of area under the intakes more gradual in depth to help area rule (see my previous retraction Reply #22) and as the intakes are hollow they wouldn't contribute so much and need not be too heavy.
4. Saying canards cause turbulence or reduce control can be applied to any canard plane (MIG 1.44?).
5. As for control power distance from the C of G: (see answer #2 and) remember I added heavy thrust vectoring nozzles at the back. And the moving canards are pushed along in front of the centre of rotation (which is probably a lot further back than you think) so probably still have (and for many other reasons) more power that equivalent trailing tail surfaces.
6. The intakes are on the top side as a bit of a laugh at the expense of some of the entries in the 'Re: Northrop pre-ATF and ATF studies" thread (Sorry guys), which as I already said (see my previous retraction Reply #22) I think is a bad idea.
7. Your reasons why canards are no good: trim drag is down to C of G verses C of lift (isn't it C of lift that moves backwards not C of G that moves forward ;D) and can be altered by weight distribution at the point of design. And cobra's are for airshows. All of which is addressed in the 'Cunards' thread.
8. Your friend's design is quite reasonable but is really not much of a change, as the wing position, tail and volume are unaltered. I do worry that the canards would impede the pilots view and perhaps fowl the air intakes. They are too far inboard to serve as close coupled slats for the wing though they might act as LEXs. They would however add weight and not add as much lift as my canard/widened body combination (IMHO).
Thanks again Lantinian; this is the sort of discussion I love and I look forward to your reply.
Cheers as ever, Woody
