Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[New Vihenia]

I tried changing it, did it come out alright? (See below, of course)

So here's the finished version, I guess. I don't know how it came out, to be honest. It's not my best work in my opinion, but it was a little fun to make.

(Image)

And since it's based on the SU-30, I thought for NS I'd try making it in Russian aircraft camo:

(Image)

Hmm not really DSI i see, it need to have bumps.

On a tangential note regarding DSIs and fixed-geometry inlets:

I've not been able to read anything on the matter, but do DSIs affect maximum speeds over Mach 2? I know the F-16 Block 30 with the test DSI reached Mach 2 without any incident, and the F-35 is expected to operate well below this speed, but does it have any effects on maximum speed? And does anyone have any information on the extent of their RCS reduction, ideally vs. the conventional diverter spacing used in the F-22?

I've also read that the use of fixed inlets on the F-22 for stealth purposes affects its maximum speed versus the F-15 with its variable-geometry intake ramps. I'm aware that the focus on stealth over raw speed and the addition of supercruise gives the F-22 a higher "useful" speed than the F-15, but to what extent does this affect maximum speed anyway? Discussions I've seen seem to swing back and forth between "it's slower than the F-15" and "the F119s overcome the issue through sheer brute thrust."

Pressure recovery.

Why the variable ramp inlet such as one in F-15 work for "higher" maximum speed is that because the inlet's oblique shock system can be actively adjusted by moving the ramp, thus allow maximization of pressure recovery. Fixed ramp inlet however can't do this, it can only be optimized at certain maximum mach regime before airflow become uncontrollable.

The DSI is basically similar as fixed ramp inlet but they do not have the diverter (the small gap between inlet and fuselage) It's the "DSI bump" that will break the formation of boundary layer (a thin layer of turbulent air which bad for engine) In respect of RCS reduction, the DSI bump can be made smoothly blended to the fuselage, thus reducing possibility of "edge diffraction" or even "trapping" of EM wave as what might occur at conventional diverter.

Can't really come with image though..haven't really try to simulate it. But that's what i know so far.

[Paragania]

Hmm... have you tried something with the tail or the nozzles yet? If so, that would be cool.

Well, I tried making the nozzles a bit more F-22 esque. (See below)

Hmm not really DSI i see, it need to have bumps.

How about now? I apologize I can't get it right, I'm very bad at aircraft design.

[Purpelia]

Are we doing aircraft now? Are we?

[Iltica]

Sorry to keep bugging you guys about the whole canard vs. 3 surface thing, but assuming an aircraft of equal wing area, wing geometry and engine, how much of speed loss should one expect when adding a V-tail to a canard foreplane design? Mach 2 seems to be the standard for most fighters so anything below that would be kind of troublesome in RPs. Climb rate is probably more important but will it also suffer?
If you think it's better off with just the canards or V-tail that works too.

[Velkanika]

Sorry to keep bugging you guys about the whole canard vs. 3 surface thing, but assuming an aircraft of equal wing area, wing geometry and engine, how much of speed loss should one expect when adding a V-tail to a canard foreplane design? Mach 2 seems to be the standard for most fighters so anything below that would be kind of troublesome in RPs. Climb rate is probably more important but will it also suffer?
If you think it's better off with just the canards or V-tail that works too.

Unless it has FSW, you can break Mach 2 with afterburners at altitude.

Actually, I take that back. You can probably reach Mach 2 at 30,000 feet in level flight, but if you want a definite answer you need to do the drag calculations. I believe your configuration should be able to reach Mach 2 given a good engine, but there's a good chance it won't be able to get there in level flight.

Also, not being able to reach Mach 2 isn't that big of an issue for a fighter. If it's an interceptor it is, but top speed is mostly irrelevant in modern air combat.

[Iltica]

Sorry to keep bugging you guys about the whole canard vs. 3 surface thing, but assuming an aircraft of equal wing area, wing geometry and engine, how much of speed loss should one expect when adding a V-tail to a canard foreplane design? Mach 2 seems to be the standard for most fighters so anything below that would be kind of troublesome in RPs. Climb rate is probably more important but will it also suffer?
If you think it's better off with just the canards or V-tail that works too.

Unless it has FSW, you can break Mach 2 with afterburners at altitude.

It is planned to have low aspect ratio crescent wings, hopefully the low sweep of the outer sections will solve the wingtip stall problem...
What about the climbrate? I'd like this thing to be able to go toe to toe with other 4.5 gen fighters at least.

[Velkanika]

Unless it has FSW, you can break Mach 2 with afterburners at altitude.

It is planned to have low aspect ratio crescent wings, hopefully the low sweep of the outer sections will solve the wingtip stall problem...
What about the climbrate? I'd like this thing to be able to go toe to toe with other 4.5 gen fighters at least.

Figure out how much the thing weighs first.

[Iltica]

best guess is a little under 20,000 pounds with an engine of 17,000-ish lbs of dry thrust and 28,000-ish afterburning.
That's with 2 surfaces, no clue what the third will add weight wise

[The Conclave]

Still new at this whole factbook writing thing and have never been a very imaginative writer, could use some help.

[The Akasha Colony]

Sorry to keep bugging you guys about the whole canard vs. 3 surface thing, but assuming an aircraft of equal wing area, wing geometry and engine, how much of speed loss should one expect when adding a V-tail to a canard foreplane design? Mach 2 seems to be the standard for most fighters so anything below that would be kind of troublesome in RPs. Climb rate is probably more important but will it also suffer?
If you think it's better off with just the canards or V-tail that works too.

TBH, actual top speed is irrelevant compared to combat range and other engine parameters like acceleration. It doesn't really matter if you can do Mach 2.5 in a clean configuration if it takes forever to reach that speed and gives you a maximum radius of like 300 km.

Fighters will spend most of their time at high subsonic speeds unless they're playing interceptor or really need to get somewhere fast, but even then reaching actual maximum speed is extremely rare. It's taxing on the airframe and guzzles fuel, meaning that range disappears pretty quickly. It is more useful to improve sustained speed with things like supercruise capability than push maximum speed higher.

[Organized States]

So, I've been brainstorming the make-up of my Carrier Air Wings aboard a Gerald R. Ford Class.

What do you guys think of this one? Am I going overboard here or am I missing something?

1 Fighter Squadron (VF) consisting of twelve F/A-24A/B Bobcats
3 Strike Fighter Squadrons (VFA) consisting of twelve F/A-28A/B Tigersharks
1 Early Warning Squadron (VAW) consisting of 4 E-2C/D Hawkeyes
1 Electronic Warfare squadron (VAQ) consisting of 5 EA-28G Sparksharks
1 Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of 10 MH-60S Knighthawks (2-4 of which are in detachments aboard accompanying ships)
1 Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of 10 MH-60R Seahawks (3-5 of which are in detachments aboard accompanying ships)
1 Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Detachment of two C-2B Greyhounds (Rebuilt Greyhounds similar to the E-2D)
1 Fleet Surveillance and Attack Squadron (VSA) of 4 UCAVs (X-47C, Sea Ghost, or Phantom Ray)

[Yukonastan]

Hmm not really DSI i see, it need to have bumps.

How about now? I apologize I can't get it right, I'm very bad at aircraft design.

[/quote]

A diverterless supersonic inlet still has a ramp, just like a conventional inlet. It still has a raised and noticeable hump in the intake to slow the air down and increase its pressure.

See this F-16 which had been fitted with a DSI for JSF testing.

[Gallia-]

here is galla's air force

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/Gallan_Army#Organization

here is its logo

http://iiwiki.com/wiki/File:Coaaviation.png

[Iltica]

Sorry to keep bugging you guys about the whole canard vs. 3 surface thing, but assuming an aircraft of equal wing area, wing geometry and engine, how much of speed loss should one expect when adding a V-tail to a canard foreplane design? Mach 2 seems to be the standard for most fighters so anything below that would be kind of troublesome in RPs. Climb rate is probably more important but will it also suffer?
If you think it's better off with just the canards or V-tail that works too.

TBH, actual top speed is irrelevant compared to combat range and other engine parameters like acceleration. It doesn't really matter if you can do Mach 2.5 in a clean configuration if it takes forever to reach that speed and gives you a maximum radius of like 300 km.

Fighters will spend most of their time at high subsonic speeds unless they're playing interceptor or really need to get somewhere fast, but even then reaching actual maximum speed is extremely rare. It's taxing on the airframe and guzzles fuel, meaning that range disappears pretty quickly. It is more useful to improve sustained speed with things like supercruise capability than push maximum speed higher.

Oh, alright if you guys really think 3 surface is worth it I'll do it.
But what's it really gaining and losing with that? The Wiki page says it can reduce total surface area but I think that's referring to instances where all 3 surfaces are lifting surfaces.
More concerning is the weight and performance differences, The exact amount of weight gained by adding canards is difficult to gauge since it happens so infrequently and is usually accompanied by other changes. The Su-27 and Su-33 are 36,100 and 40,600 lbs empty respectively while the F-15B and F-15S/MTD are 28,000 and 35,000 lbs empty. So I guess somewhere around a 1/5 to 1/4 increase in weight? I don't know enough about aerodynamics to guess the other impacts. :/
If it's better to go with two surface do you think it's better to have canards for pitch and conventional rudders or to have just the V-tail handling both?

[New Vihenia]

Oh, alright if you guys really think 3 surface is worth it I'll do it.
But what's it really gaining and losing with that? The Wiki page says it can reduce total surface area but I think that's referring to instances where all 3 surfaces are lifting surfaces.
More concerning is the weight and performance differences, The exact amount of weight gained by adding canards is difficult to gauge since it happens so infrequently and is usually accompanied by other changes. The Su-27 and Su-33 are 36,100 and 40,600 lbs empty respectively while the F-15B and F-15S/MTD are 28,000 and 35,000 lbs empty. So I guess somewhere around a 1/5 to 1/4 increase in weight? I don't know enough about aerodynamics to guess the other impacts. :/
If it's better to go with two surface do you think it's better to have canards for pitch and conventional rudders or to have just the V-tail handling both?

This is not a question that one can really ask. You will need to do the math yourself to see the result.

Reading articles are totally insufficient for this. You will have to come up with your aircraft layout first.. then start number crunching..and see if they fit your purpose.

The method for calculation aerodynamic contributions from those surfaces can be found at "Introduction to Aeronautics:
A Design Perspective" I haven't had time to start it yet. Though i might do so for accompanying my Energy maneuverability calculator.

[Kouralia]

Okay, so in terms of fighter/combat/multirole planes I think I'll need for my air force, I'm considering something based on the P.1216 as a stand-in for F16/F15 4th Gen fighters along with something based aesthetically on the BAE Replica to be analogous to the F22. Are there any other fighter/attack role aircraft I would need to consider?

[Iltica]

Oh, alright if you guys really think 3 surface is worth it I'll do it.
But what's it really gaining and losing with that? The Wiki page says it can reduce total surface area but I think that's referring to instances where all 3 surfaces are lifting surfaces.
More concerning is the weight and performance differences, The exact amount of weight gained by adding canards is difficult to gauge since it happens so infrequently and is usually accompanied by other changes. The Su-27 and Su-33 are 36,100 and 40,600 lbs empty respectively while the F-15B and F-15S/MTD are 28,000 and 35,000 lbs empty. So I guess somewhere around a 1/5 to 1/4 increase in weight? I don't know enough about aerodynamics to guess the other impacts. :/
If it's better to go with two surface do you think it's better to have canards for pitch and conventional rudders or to have just the V-tail handling both?

This is not a question that one can really ask. You will need to do the math yourself to see the result.

Reading articles are totally insufficient for this. You will have to come up with your aircraft layout first.. then start number crunching..and see if they fit your purpose.

The method for calculation aerodynamic contributions from those surfaces can be found at "Introduction to Aeronautics:
A Design Perspective" I haven't had time to start it yet. Though i might do so for accompanying my Energy maneuverability calculator.

I don't have much money to throw around right now, but I'll start saving up.
Can you tell me if the Wiki page's claim is accurate?

[Velkanika]

This is not a question that one can really ask. You will need to do the math yourself to see the result.

Reading articles are totally insufficient for this. You will have to come up with your aircraft layout first.. then start number crunching..and see if they fit your purpose.

The method for calculation aerodynamic contributions from those surfaces can be found at "Introduction to Aeronautics:
A Design Perspective" I haven't had time to start it yet. Though i might do so for accompanying my Energy maneuverability calculator.

I don't have much money to throw around right now, but I'll start saving up.
Can you tell me if the Wiki page's claim is accurate?

Fewer surfaces usually have less surface area, so that part is correct.

Also, you've reached the limits of what can be reasonably deduced by reading articles. If you're going to get this indepth into designing an aircraft, you have to actually calculate the surface area and aerodynamic drag. The formulas for both are on the internet somewhere, be it Wikipedia, wolframalpha, or some other site. The problem is this is physics-level math, so if you want an answer to this you really need to be at the calculus level of mathematics.

I personally am still learning calculus, so don't ask me to run the numbers for you.

[New Vihenia]

I don't have much money to throw around right now, but I'll start saving up.
Can you tell me if the Wiki page's claim is accurate?

You have the internet :3 save your money for something else.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/1hy17lwh9 ... ective.pdf

[Iltica]

I don't have much money to throw around right now, but I'll start saving up.
Can you tell me if the Wiki page's claim is accurate?

You have the internet :3 save your money for something else.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/1hy17lwh9 ... ective.pdf

Thanks, I'll give that a read, or maybe buy it anyway it looks cool
Do you really need to number crunch just to pick a planform type? I don't need to know the exact proportions of it right now, just the basic pieces to start conceptualizing.
The crescent wing can probably work with any of the 3 choices but it just feels off somehow with the conventional tail placement...

Fewer surfaces usually have less surface area, so that part is correct.

That makes more sense than what it said:

The three-surface configuration is claimed to reduce total aerodynamic surface area compared to the conventional and canard configurations,[9][15] thus enabling drag and weight reductions

I think It's mostly talking about instances where the canards are lifting surfaces which isn't the case on most fighters.

Wing area reduction[edit]

The minimum size of the lifting wings of an aircraft is determined by; the weight of the aircraft, the force required to oppose the negative lift produced by the horizontal stabilizer, the targeted take off and landing speeds, and the coefficient of lift of the wings.

Most modern aircraft use trailing edge flaps on the main wing to increase the wings lift coefficient during take off and landing; thus allowing the wing to be smaller than it would otherwise need to be. This may reduce the weight of the wing, and it always reduces the surface area of the wing. The reduction of surface area proportionately reduces skin drag at all speeds.

A drawback of the use of trailing edge flaps is that they produce significant negative pitching moment when in use. In order to balance this pitching moment the horizontal stabilizer must be somewhat larger than it would otherwise be, so that it can produce enough force to balance the negative pitching moment created by the trailing edge flaps. This, in turn, means that the main wing must be somewhat larger than it would otherwise have be to balance the larger negative lift produced by the larger horizontal stabilizer.

On a canard aircraft the foreplane can provide positive lift at takeoff, reducing some of the down force the rear stabilizer would otherwise have to create. However, the main wing must be large enough to not only lift the aircraft's remaining weight at takeoff but also to provide adequate safety margin to prevent stalling. On a three-surface aircraft, neither of these handicaps is present and the main wing can be reduced in size, so also reducing weight and drag. It is claimed that the total area of all wing surfaces of a three-surface aircraft can be less than that of the equivalent two-surface aircraft, so reducing both weight and drag.

Minimum area in cruise can be further reduced through the use of conventional high-lift devices such as flaps, allowing a three-surface design to have minimum surface area at all points in the flight envelope.[9]

Examples of reduced-area three-surface aircraft include the Piaggio P.180 Avanti, and the Scaled Composites Triumph and Catbird. These aircraft were designed to expose a minimum of total surface area to the slipstream;[citation needed] thus reducing surface drag for speed and fuel efficiency. Several reviews compare the Avanti's top speed and service ceiling to that of lower-end jet aircraft, and report significantly better fuel efficiency at cruise speed.[18][19] Piaggio attributes this performance in part to the layout of the aircraft, claiming a 34% reduction in total wing area compared to a conventional layout.[9][15]

Guess I could do that but nobody has to my knowledge made a 3-surface fighter with lifting canards, probably for good reason. Can you still get that benefit by just pitching the canard upwards on takeoff?

[Yukonastan]

You have the internet :3 save your money for something else.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/1hy17lwh9 ... ective.pdf

Thanks, I'll give that a read, or maybe buy it anyway it looks cool
Do you really need to number crunch just to pick a planform type? I don't need to know the exact proportions of it right now, just the basic pieces to start conceptualizing.
The crescent wing can probably work with any of the 3 choices but it just feels off somehow with the conventional tail placement...

Fewer surfaces usually have less surface area, so that part is correct.

That makes more sense than what it said:

The three-surface configuration is claimed to reduce total aerodynamic surface area compared to the conventional and canard configurations,[9][15] thus enabling drag and weight reductions

I think It's mostly talking about instances where the canards are lifting surfaces which isn't the case on most fighters.

Wing area reduction[edit]

The minimum size of the lifting wings of an aircraft is determined by; the weight of the aircraft, the force required to oppose the negative lift produced by the horizontal stabilizer, the targeted take off and landing speeds, and the coefficient of lift of the wings.

Most modern aircraft use trailing edge flaps on the main wing to increase the wings lift coefficient during take off and landing; thus allowing the wing to be smaller than it would otherwise need to be. This may reduce the weight of the wing, and it always reduces the surface area of the wing. The reduction of surface area proportionately reduces skin drag at all speeds.

A drawback of the use of trailing edge flaps is that they produce significant negative pitching moment when in use. In order to balance this pitching moment the horizontal stabilizer must be somewhat larger than it would otherwise be, so that it can produce enough force to balance the negative pitching moment created by the trailing edge flaps. This, in turn, means that the main wing must be somewhat larger than it would otherwise have be to balance the larger negative lift produced by the larger horizontal stabilizer.

On a canard aircraft the foreplane can provide positive lift at takeoff, reducing some of the down force the rear stabilizer would otherwise have to create. However, the main wing must be large enough to not only lift the aircraft's remaining weight at takeoff but also to provide adequate safety margin to prevent stalling. On a three-surface aircraft, neither of these handicaps is present and the main wing can be reduced in size, so also reducing weight and drag. It is claimed that the total area of all wing surfaces of a three-surface aircraft can be less than that of the equivalent two-surface aircraft, so reducing both weight and drag.

Minimum area in cruise can be further reduced through the use of conventional high-lift devices such as flaps, allowing a three-surface design to have minimum surface area at all points in the flight envelope.[9]

Examples of reduced-area three-surface aircraft include the Piaggio P.180 Avanti, and the Scaled Composites Triumph and Catbird. These aircraft were designed to expose a minimum of total surface area to the slipstream;[citation needed] thus reducing surface drag for speed and fuel efficiency. Several reviews compare the Avanti's top speed and service ceiling to that of lower-end jet aircraft, and report significantly better fuel efficiency at cruise speed.[18][19] Piaggio attributes this performance in part to the layout of the aircraft, claiming a 34% reduction in total wing area compared to a conventional layout.[9][15]

Guess I could do that but nobody has to my knowledge made a 3-surface fighter with lifting canards, probably for good reason. Can you still get that benefit by just pitching the canard upwards on takeoff?

I know there was an F-15 which had canards fitted, as well as TV nozzles. That thing could take off VERY short. And I have no doubt that the canards did help a great deal with that.

[Vancon]

Yuko's talking about this.

[Iltica]

Yeah!, The F-15STOL/MTD. we talked about it last month for something...

I know there was an F-15 which had canards fitted, as well as TV nozzles. That thing could take off VERY short. And I have no doubt that the canards did help a great deal with that.

That's not really the problem, 3 surface will work for the STOL requirement but I'm concerned the extra drag and weight will ruin the energy maneuverability and straight-ahead speed.
Probably going to leave the thrust vectoring out, it doesn't seem worth it (or realistic) for a 4th gen single engine fighter.

[Vancon]

Drag and weight won't be as much if a problem since you're creating a larger lift surface. With this, your weight gets not nullified, but counteracted, and you become both more manoeuvrable and your plane handles much better.

Drag might still be a bitch, but it'll not be that bad.

[The Kievan People]

That's not inherently true. You can maintain L/D, but the inertia of the plane still goes up and T/W goes down.

But NV is right. You cannot determine this in abstract.