It's not about power, its about speed. You need to leave the ramp with sufficient speed to be able to accelerate to flying speed before you fall into the drink, even in the case of the failure of one engine. So look at a twin engined aircraft like L-15, but with sufficiently strong structure and undercarriage. But for initial training I would like a slower aircraft, say a Super Tucano with twin engines in the nose driving a co-axial or contra-rotating propeller. One or other should appear around the time of the introduction of the next flattop.
Aerodynamics thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
usaf0314
Junior Member
power will accommodate the acceleration in turn translate to speed, but it will also depends on the aircraft's lifting surfaces (i.e. wings) and its weight. an aircraft that is light and have enough lifting surface can take off in relatively short distance, but then we also have to determine the boundaries on a carrier with which an aircraft can fit. so its a combination of power, weight, drag and lift. (but again, this applies to almost all aircraft)
Last edited:
OK, so will the Chinese buy Super Tucano's, and although you say its not about power, the only aircraft that operate off of Stobar carriers have a high power to weight ratio, whether its the Harrier, F-35B, Mig 29, or Su33. I am rather certain that installing two turbines in the Super Tucano is rather impractical, but could be done? I am far less concerned about a single engine turboprop operating off the STOBAR carrier, because there is at least a chance that it would have sufficient speed leaving the ramp to be appropriatly ditched in the ocean without the necessity of ejecting.
I will also buy your suggestion of the L-15, contrary to popular belief, its really isn't beyond the scope of the average bright engineering student to upgrade spars, attachpoints and monocoque fuselage, and add a hook to an existing aircraft, ie YF-17 to F-18, with modern CNC equipment it is just a matter of entering the new data and making adjustments. The increased weight would require a power increase but there again, not a biggie. In addition, you don't need to mix up the laymen with a speed/power debate since to attain sufficient speed does require sufficient power. Roger? Most Respectfully Brat
I would think the Su-25K to have a moderate thrust to weight ratio.
Acceleration is ( Thrust minus Drag ) divided by mass. You can increase the take off speed by increasing the time that accelerating force works, i.e. increasing the take off run.
Also note that your minimum control speed needs to be well below minimum flying speed.
If China were to buy Super Tucano they will have to redesign it: Probably larger wings, larger control surfaces, stronger structure and landing gear, tail hook, new engine installation ( think of Fairey Gannet as an example of a twin engined installation; although the British called it a single engine you could stop one of the components ).
It would be interesting to see both USN and PLAN using British derived training aircraft, T-45 came from a Hawker aircraft, Tucano was originally designed by Short. But perhaps China will think they own enough aircraft design talent to let it be designed by own of their own companies - they bought several light aircraft manufacturers in the US. Perhaps have a competition between them.
I have a question which may seem simple to answer for you guys.
What advantages do you gain from having Horizontal Tailplanes as well as Canard Foreplanes in a manner similar to the F-15 ACTIVE?
From what I understand, it increases the amount of surface area interacting with the airflow, resulting in quicker deceleration, sharper turn rates etc. Are there any other benefits and if there are, why has this design not been implemented in production Fighter Jet designs?
Sorry if you find this easy, but I'm genuinely interested in this.
What advantages do you gain from having Horizontal Tailplanes as well as Canard Foreplanes in a manner similar to the F-15 ACTIVE?
From what I understand, it increases the amount of surface area interacting with the airflow, resulting in quicker deceleration, sharper turn rates etc. Are there any other benefits and if there are, why has this design not been implemented in production Fighter Jet designs?
Sorry if you find this easy, but I'm genuinely interested in this.
I have a question which may seem simple to answer for you guys.
What advantages do you gain from having Horizontal Tailplanes as well as Canard Foreplanes in a manner similar to the F-15 ACTIVE?
From what I understand, it increases the amount of surface area interacting with the airflow, resulting in quicker deceleration, sharper turn rates etc. Are there any other benefits and if there are, why has this design not been implemented in production Fighter Jet designs?
Sorry if you find this easy, but I'm genuinely interested in this.
Weeelll noow, lets see, to my knowledge although there where several Flankers with canards, horizontal tailplanes, and TVC, which is the basic configuration of the F-15 ACTIVE Eagle, but the canards were later eliminated, the reason is cost, complexity, and overkill. The ACTIVE was in many ways a tech demonstrator that was a lead in aircraft to the Raptor, and the desired characteristic was super-manueverability or hyper agility, which the F-22 has in spades, without the canard. Soooo, lets use an automotive analogy and say that the
1. Canard is like front wheel drive. it is a European thang
2. The horizontal stabilizer or stabilator is like rear wheel drive. it is a murican thang
3. The horizontal stabilator in combination with the canard is all wheel drive. the combination of the two gives much better control and a more sure footed grip
4. The horizontal stabilator in combination with the canard , with the addition of TVC is like four wheel drive with differential lock in my Toyota Landcruiser. this may be too much of a good thing, and may result in being to "hooked up"? especially on pavement.
It is no longer considered necessary or practical since the latest fighter dogma or doctrine says that with BVR engagments, [kind of like computer dating], you never see who your hooked up to until its to late], so it has gone out of style. Now many of us old heads still like the idea of yo aeroplane, being able to turn and burn, and supercruise, while pulling the old cloaking or L/O tricks, but the wonder boys and their techno geeky weapons decry that as ancient history, no need they say, they could be partly right.
Now the short answer is increased pitch authority, and thats all good?
So in essence, the whole debate between Canards vs Horizontal Stabilizer is a matter of continental pride?
Thanks for your rather informative analogy, it really helped. I must say I'm surprised that countries limit their planes to NOT be overkill, but then I guess I thought money isn't important for such nations.
So in essence, the whole debate between Canards vs Horizontal Stabilizer is a matter of continental pride?
Thanks for your rather informative analogy, it really helped. I must say I'm surprised that countries limit their planes to NOT be overkill, but then I guess I thought money isn't important for such nations.
Thank you for asking, now if anyone else tunes in on our conversation, you will hear lots of second opinions, but I am the Air Force Brat, the Raptor will sustain 9.5gs in a steady state turn as long as you can stand it, and have fuel, nothing else manned will do that. Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz has stated, " the F-22 will sustain a 6g turn at 50,000 ft, what other aircraft will do that?" It operates slightly beyond the limits of normal human tolerance, this is the main reason that Raptor pilots have been passing out, the physiology of sustained high g flight is well understood up to the Raptor level, at the Raptor level and beyond you are pushing it.
You might ask, why not go unmanned, the simple answer is that the pilot is the "secret sauce" that makes the Fighter Aircraft such a devastating weapon, he is able to outperform tactically the very best of the unmanned equipment. He is not limited by linear thinking, but is equipped with the Mark I organic computer, it is programmed for survival against all odds, even if he has to cheat or game the system. Now the modern fighter aircraft is given an amazing ability to interface with and compliment its operator, and may be thought of in its best iterations to be a suit of armor, designed to be used intuitively to fight and win.
Now the geeky boys will say thats not true, or not true for long, blah, blah, blah, but IMHO the unmanned fighter makes as much sense as the unmanned CV or Submarine, if we take the human element out of warfare, we are simply left with machines that kill in a cold blooded manner, but that only frightens those of us who care. End OFF TOPIC
So to say its continental pride, is slightly unfair, I would state that it more cultural comfort, and yes there is a fighter culture, which varies from company to company, country to country. Aerodynamics are as much culture, as the food we eat, and the observations I made are very general and not set in concrete. So it is all about pitch control, stabilator, canard, TVC, or a combination of the three, as I said supermanueverability is somewhat out of fashion as we speak, but aerodynamics are the answer to the question?
I have a request:
Does anyone have any information (research papers preferred) on aerodynamic properties (lift, drag calculations, etc.) for aircraft or UAV with either of these configurations:
1. Lifting body (something like the electric icarus)
2. boxed wing (something like that UAV from Chengdu)
If not, technical specifications from other existing aircraft that utilize these configurations would be helpful too.
Does anyone have any information (research papers preferred) on aerodynamic properties (lift, drag calculations, etc.) for aircraft or UAV with either of these configurations:
1. Lifting body (something like the electric icarus)
2. boxed wing (something like that UAV from Chengdu)
If not, technical specifications from other existing aircraft that utilize these configurations would be helpful too.
T U P can you post some pix that give us a starting place, I hate to admit that I am not familiar with eithher design? The lifting body I have a great appreciation for and some very basic knowledge starting with the X-24, and I believe I know what you are thinking with the boxed wing, but some pix and specific areas of concern might prime the pump. I know Master Delft loves this wonky kind of thing?