Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[Finorskia]

No, but the fighter does what it is designed to do is my point. His points don't apply because they don't matter to the mission of the aircraft.

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.

Except they won't. The FSW allow it to achieve its mission statement at greater success than a conventional design.

Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

FSW works fine on my fighter, and nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

Except they won't. The FSW allow it to achieve its mission statement at greater success than a conventional design.

Edit: I should also note that a top speed of Mach 2 gives the F-54 a speed advantage over the F-16, and F-35, as well as the UNADS F-29 (NS fighter). So your point is kinda moot.

Doubtful and likely untrue.
You've just been told that with computer aids, FSW have poor transonic and supersonic stability. You want to take them up to Mach 2 and higher.

It's not untrue. The F-16, F-35, and all the other fighters I have listed have speeds of mach 2 or less.

Second I do wish to take FSW up to those speeds and I will. I have had the design approved by the NS Draftroom so for all I care, you can suck it.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm a member of that draftroom.
"Approved by NSD" is not a thing.

Second, I quoted you before your edit. I'm not referring to your edit.

[Organized States]

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.


Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

FSW works fine on my fighter, and nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

Doubtful and likely untrue.
You've just been told that with computer aids, FSW have poor transonic and supersonic stability. You want to take them up to Mach 2 and higher.

It's not untrue. The F-16, F-35, and all the other fighters I have listed have speeds of mach 2 or less.

Second I do wish to take FSW up to those speeds and I will. I have had the design approved by the NS Draftroom so for all I care, you can suck it.

First of all, no need to be rude. Secondly, Imperializt Russia and NV have good points on the FSW, it's not a good choice for an interceptor, and all of the fighters you mentioned are Multiroles, not interceptors...

[Vitaphone Racing]

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.


Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

No, that is the point. You can get everything you want from an FSW configuration without any of the drawbacks with a thrust vectoring system.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

According to you...

FSW works fine on my fighter, and nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

FSW doesn't work fine on any fighter. It's a concept that was looked at in the late 40's and shelved, dusted off in the 80's and 90's because we thought metal had come a long way and then shelved again. It's no mystery why no FSW fighter as of 2014 has ever been proposed for production; the concept frankly sucks because of serious structural issues caused by forward swept wings having some notably different aerodynamic properties to rearward swept ones, and nobody wants anything to do with it.

This has been explained to you previously by me, I'm explaining it again now. If you're not going to listen now then I can only conclude you didn't come to this thread for criticism and hence there's not much point in me continuing this discussion.

I've also never seen it in the draftroom FWIW

[The Soodean Imperium]

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.


Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

FSW works fine on my fighter, and nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

Your fighter is fictional. By that logic I could claim that the Soodean Imperium's new pedal-powered fighter is actually capable of reaching Mach 5 and carrying 50,000,000 kilos of bombs and you can't dispute it. These are the exact stats that we are debating, claiming that it works because it does kind of begs the question.

It's well known that FSW wings induce higher stress than non-swept wings; if you have indeed found the proper materials to outrun conventional fighters with an FSW configuration (doubtful), you could still be getting an even higher speed with a conventional layout, or a lower cost with a conventional layout.

Doubtful and likely untrue.
You've just been told that with computer aids, FSW have poor transonic and supersonic stability. You want to take them up to Mach 2 and higher.

It's not untrue. The F-16, F-35, and all the other fighters I have listed have speeds of mach 2 or less.

Second I do wish to take FSW up to those speeds and I will. I have had the design approved by the NS Draftroom so for all I care, you can suck it.

That's the kind of language that tends to lead to two pages of messy argument followed by a mod-induced forum ban.

[Finorskia]

First of all, now need to be rude. Secondly, Imperializt Russia and NV have good points on the FSW, it's not a good choice for an interceptor, and all of the fighters you mentioned are Multiroles, not interceptors...

Yes, I know. The F-54 is a Multirole fighter, not an interceptor. How many times do I have to say this. It even says so on the stat block I posted.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

No, that is the point. You can get everything you want from an FSW configuration without any of the drawbacks with a thrust vectoring system.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

According to you...

Actually not according to me. I didn't just make that up.

FSW doesn't work fine on any fighter. It's a concept that was looked at in the late 40's and shelved, dusted off in the 80's and 90's because we thought metal had come a long way and then shelved again. It's no mystery why no FSW fighter as of 2014 has ever been proposed for production; the concept frankly sucks because of serious structural issues caused by forward swept wings having some notably different aerodynamic properties to rearward swept ones, and nobody wants anything to do with it.

This has been explained to you previously by me, I'm explaining it again now. If you're not going to listen now then I can only conclude you didn't come to this thread for criticism and hence there's not much point in me continuing this discussion.

I've also never seen it in the draftroom FWIW

I wrote a very long and length counter to your whole "FSW is bad thing" pretty much discrediting the whole thing.

As for not seeing the design on the draft room, that is probably because it was up a good year and a half ago. Also note I got the design approved by Viranna as well.

Your fighter is fictional. By that logic I could claim that the Soodean Imperium's new pedal-powered fighter is actually capable of reaching Mach 5 and carrying 50,000,000 kilos of bombs and you can't dispute it. These are the exact stats that we are debating, claiming that it works because it does kind of begs the question.

It's well known that FSW wings induce higher stress than non-swept wings; if you have indeed found the proper materials to outrun conventional fighters with an FSW configuration (doubtful), you could still be getting an even higher speed with a conventional layout, or a lower cost with a conventional layout.

Yes it is fictional. As is every other fighter designed on NS. So moot point.

[Vitaphone Racing]

No, that is the point. You can get everything you want from an FSW configuration without any of the drawbacks with a thrust vectoring system.


According to you...

Actually not according to me. I didn't just make that up.

Then by all means, please provide us with the data which led you to this conclusion. Because if you've actually modelled this sort of stuff, you've done more than what most universities could accomplish and I'd be very impressed to say the least.

FSW doesn't work fine on any fighter. It's a concept that was looked at in the late 40's and shelved, dusted off in the 80's and 90's because we thought metal had come a long way and then shelved again. It's no mystery why no FSW fighter as of 2014 has ever been proposed for production; the concept frankly sucks because of serious structural issues caused by forward swept wings having some notably different aerodynamic properties to rearward swept ones, and nobody wants anything to do with it.

This has been explained to you previously by me, I'm explaining it again now. If you're not going to listen now then I can only conclude you didn't come to this thread for criticism and hence there's not much point in me continuing this discussion.

I've also never seen it in the draftroom FWIW

I wrote a very long and length counter to your whole "FSW is bad thing" pretty much discrediting the whole thing.

Where? I've looked myself, the only defence of FSW you've given is "they can probably go Mach 2" and you've made no mention of anything else.

As for not seeing the design on the draft room, that is probably because it was up a good year and a half ago. Also note I got the design approved by Viranna as well.

So?

[Finorskia]

Then by all means, please provide us with the data which led you to this conclusion. Because if you've actually modeled this sort of stuff, you've done more than what most universities could accomplish and I'd be very impressed to say the least.

I meant in terms of speed. All listed fighters had recorded speeds of less than mach 2. As for maneuverability, FSW aircraft have superior maneuverability than conventional aircraft that are unassisted by things such as thrust vectoring, so my aircraft which has FSW and thrust vectoring is only naturally going to be more maneuverable than aircraft that don't.

F
I wrote a very long and length counter to your whole "FSW is bad thing" pretty much discrediting the whole thing.

Where? I've looked myself, the only defence of FSW you've given is "they can probably go Mach 2" and you've made no mention of anything else.[/quote]

Page 60, right before my post on the F-54. Are you trying to tell me that you are debating with me without having even looked at my original post?

So?

Viranna is an RP mentor and NS designer who really knows his stuff.

[Premislyd]

Viranna is an RP mentor and NS designer who really knows his stuff.

What does being an RP mentor have to do with military tech?

[The Soodean Imperium]

So to be clear: You've taken a multirole, given it a wing arrangement which is known to decrease supersonic performance, then claimed that it has better supersonic performance than existing multiroles because (1) stronger metals and (2) bigger engines.

Forgive me for sounding impolite, but even after reading your initial explanation I fail to see the depth of the logic here. You're trying to fix a problem that barely existed in the first place, and you're doing it in a way that creates even more problems in the process.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Then by all means, please provide us with the data which led you to this conclusion. Because if you've actually modeled this sort of stuff, you've done more than what most universities could accomplish and I'd be very impressed to say the least.

I meant in terms of speed. All listed fighters had recorded speeds of less than mach 2.

So how did you determine the speed as I don't see any other way for you to come to Mach 2 other than making it up.

As for maneuverability, FSW aircraft have superior maneuverability than conventional aircraft that are unassisted by things such as thrust vectoring, so my aircraft which has FSW and thrust vectoring is only naturally going to be more maneuverable than aircraft that don't.

Sure, if you're happy with slight gains for the same trade-offs.

Where? I've looked myself, the only defence of FSW you've given is "they can probably go Mach 2" and you've made no mention of anything else.

Page 60, right before my post on the F-54. Are you trying to tell me that you are debating with me without having even looked at my original post?

You said you wrote a counter, I didn't realize your counter was the thing that I was countering. Uh, neat? But that "counter" you wrote is really nothing more than some juxtaposed anecdotes and theories. Aircraft stability is not a lose term; being unstable is not an inherently good thing and the instability associated with a FSW design at supersonic speeds is not the same instability sought by designers of other conventional fighters. You've then gone on to talk about some materials being poor or something even though that has literally no bearing on how much stress is applied to an airframe nor does it negate how much the wing is going to try and flex at high speeds, but claimed it's possible to practically address these concerns without saying how. And then you've said that the reason nobody wanted FSW is because nobody wanted FSW....

No sources, no back up, no explanations, just "I think". Which in itself isn't a crime, but if you're going to use that in an argument then you've brought a knife to a gun fight. Personally I can't see why you just can't be happy with working around the drawbacks of FSW, since it's plainly obvious you want to use that layout, rather than trying to justify them being obviously superior to conventional wings because they aren't and never will be.

If you need clarification, the problem is not that you're using FSW but have serious misgivings on how they are to be accommodated

So?

Viranna is an RP mentor and NS designer who really knows his stuff.

So?

[Oaledonia]

for all I care, you can suck it.

Then leave.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa200b/potential3d/fsw.html

[Hurtful Thoughts]

As for not seeing the design on the draft room, that is probably because it was up a good year and a half ago. Also note I got the design approved by Viranna as well.

That design is nowhere near being done.
-Ironicly, you may have thought it was approved because they were busy on other designs at that time.

The discussion left off with "Does this plane have enough thrust/structure to keep its engines from ripping it to shreds?"

The answer was more of less, that a smaller percentage of aircraft-weight is devoted to airframe-reinforcement than a typical F-16.

[Voltrovia]

for all I care, you can suck it.

Then leave.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa200b/potential3d/fsw.html

The fact is that FSW Mach 2 is will result in the disintegration of the airframe. If you're unwilling to listen to our explanations of this fact then we simply can't help you.

[Voltrovia]

Yes, they do still apply. A tactical air defense role does not mean every air-to-air encounter you have will be head-on and at lowish speeds.


Arguable. Seeing how the Su-37 actually outmaneuvers the Su-47, it's difficult to quantify FSW as a quantum leap in terms of maneuverability which you'd demand from a wing layout that has considerable drawbacks.

1) The Su-47 didn't have a lot of maneuverability enhancements that the Su-37 has, such as 3D-thrust vectoring. Point is moot.

2) The F-54 is capable of out matching the F-16, F-35, Rafale, AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo, (can probably find more) in terms of speed and maneuverability. It matches the Gripen, and Eurofighters in terms of speed and is capable of outmatching them in terms maneuverability.

FSW works fine on my fighter, and nothing you have said has proved otherwise.

Doubtful and likely untrue.
You've just been told that with computer aids, FSW have poor transonic and supersonic stability. You want to take them up to Mach 2 and higher.

It's not untrue. The F-16, F-35, and all the other fighters I have listed have speeds of mach 2 or less.

Second I do wish to take FSW up to those speeds and I will. I have had the design approved by the NS Draftroom so for all I care, you can suck it.

The military realism/aviation threads aren't rubber stamping operations and nor is NSDraftroom. The aircraft cannot achieve those speeds without breaking apart, as our friends at Dryden will tell you from page 18 onwards.

[San-Silvacian]

wow stamford and NASA say its a bad idea?

obv they are wrong, two highly respected places of learning and of science will never beat Finorskia's ramblings and near flaming responses.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

wow stamford and NASA say its a bad idea?

obv they are wrong, two highly respected places of learning and of science will never beat Finorskia's ramblings and near flaming responses.

Y'know, I'm thinking that NSDraft was actually more polite in cases like these.
-That, or the noobies are less likely to shake their heads and plug their ears on NSDraft.

Probably both.
-Plus entire threads (or multiple threads) devoted to single designs, or even modifications.

BTW, I'm thinking about nerfing the F-7's stats for export. IIRC, the biggest issue was with ferry-range and engine-life.

[Voltrovia]

wow stamford and NASA say its a bad idea?

obv they are wrong, two highly respected places of learning and of science will never beat Finorskia's ramblings and near flaming responses.

Y'know, I'm thinking that NSDraft was actually more polite in cases like these.
-That, or the noobies are less likely to shake their heads and plug their ears on NSDraft.

Probably both.
-Plus entire threads (or multiple threads) devoted to single designs, or even modifications.

BTW, I'm thinking about nerfing the F-7's stats for export. IIRC, the biggest issue was with ferry-range and engine-life.

For export, why not remove a few pylons and hardpoints while mandating the use of lower-rated engines manufactured exclusively by you.

(Even with every pylon utilised that ferry range seems quite high though IMO.)

[Triplebaconation]

I'm a member of that draftroom.
"Approved by NSD" is not a thing.

Second, I quoted you before your edit. I'm not referring to your edit.

"Approved by NSD" usually means "people got bored and stopped talking about it."

No objections? Approved!

A Mach 2 FSW fighter is possible. Above Mach 1.6 or so the structure required gets so much heavier than a conventional wing that it becomes a disadvantage.

They can also carry less fuel and are more expensive, but whatever.

If this was a light fighter I'd be acceptable for Mach 2> however when its light fighter contempories are going faster than it?

FSW doesn't seem much of an option for modern fighter aircraft that wish to carry any wing mounted munitions, wish to maneuver at it's max speeds.

"Gee I wish I could catch that MiG-29, but the Ace Combat fan of the aircraft designer opted for me not to be able to."

Well first off vary modern aircraft use external munitions regularly so not a big deal. Second the speed is fine. This is a fighter designed for specifically for defense. The only time an F-54 pilot would need to catch an enemy would be if they were in retreat, at which point they don't need to be caught. Finally the modern missiles go faster than most fighters, so they don't really need to be able to catch them anyway.

Forget FSW, your 1D model of air combat is truly revolutionary.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Well first off vary modern aircraft use external munitions regularly so not a big deal. Second the speed is fine. This is a fighter designed for specifically for defense. The only time an F-54 pilot would need to catch an enemy would be if they were in retreat, at which point they don't need to be caught. Finally the modern missiles go faster than most fighters, so they don't really need to be able to catch them anyway.

Forget FSW, your 1D model of air combat is truly revolutionary.

Ace Combat graphics with Star Fox mechanics?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If this was a light fighter I'd be acceptable for Mach 2> however when its light fighter contempories are going faster than it?

FSW doesn't seem much of an option for modern fighter aircraft that wish to carry any wing mounted munitions, wish to maneuver at it's max speeds.

"Gee I wish I could catch that MiG-29, but the Ace Combat fan of the aircraft designer opted for me not to be able to."

Well first off vary modern aircraft use external munitions regularly so not a big deal. Second the speed is fine. This is a fighter designed for specifically for defense. The only time an F-54 pilot would need to catch an enemy would be if they were in retreat, at which point they don't need to be caught. Finally the modern missiles go faster than most fighters, so they don't really need to be able to catch them anyway.

By this logic, the Russians could have easily destroyed every SR-71 that flew over their airspace.

Have fun actually plotting intercepts for two objects of vastly different performance taking intelligent evasive maneuvers.

SR-71 had speed, and range. Such speed that forces had to be scrambled so far well ahead of the flightpath that a minor bank-turn would bring the SR-71 outside of the MiG-21's maximum range.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well first off vary modern aircraft use external munitions regularly so not a big deal. Second the speed is fine. This is a fighter designed for specifically for defense. The only time an F-54 pilot would need to catch an enemy would be if they were in retreat, at which point they don't need to be caught. Finally the modern missiles go faster than most fighters, so they don't really need to be able to catch them anyway.

By this logic, the Russians could have easily destroyed every SR-71 that flew over their airspace.

Have fun actually plotting intercepts for two objects of vastly different performance taking intelligent evasive maneuvers.

No SR-71s flew over the USSR, their anti air missiles were already thought to be able to shoot it down.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

By this logic, the Russians could have easily destroyed every SR-71 that flew over their airspace.

Have fun actually plotting intercepts for two objects of vastly different performance taking intelligent evasive maneuvers.

No SR-71s flew over the USSR, their anti air missiles were already thought to be able to shoot it down.

Then what were SR-71s doing over the Baltic sea by way of Japan when they got intercepted by Norwegians?
-Likely circumnavigating around Russia, largely to gather ELINT.

[Imperializt Russia]

By this logic, the Russians could have easily destroyed every SR-71 that flew over their airspace.

Have fun actually plotting intercepts for two objects of vastly different performance taking intelligent evasive maneuvers.

No SR-71s flew over the USSR, their anti air missiles were already thought to be able to shoot it down.

Because it flew so high, in the time it took strategic air defences to climb to an engagement altitude, the SR-71 could already outrun it. SR-71s evaded SAM fire in Vietnam and probably other combat zones.

SR-71 never flew over the Soviet Union? I find that hard to believe, an aircraft even more capable than the U2.

[San-Silvacian]

No SR-71s flew over the USSR, their anti air missiles were already thought to be able to shoot it down.

Then what were SR-71s doing over the Baltic sea by way of Japan when they got intercepted by Norwegians?

They were about to fly over the USSR