Ideal naval carrier fighter(aircraft) designs.

From the J-10 videos, it appears to me the plane is capable of the high angle, slow speed take offs and landings that you can use for carriers. The question is the landing gear, it seems a little stout and narrow, but nonetheless, if the J-10 is capable of those landings and takeoffs, it would only need to modify the landing gear, strengthening the structure and give it folding wings.

As for Su-33 vs. MiG-29k, assuming we don't factor China's previous experience in handling and manufacturing Flankers, this becomes a question of packing more aircraft with a smaller jet, or have less aircraft but has more capability per jet. The Su-33 has potentially much greater range, payload, and hardpoints than the MiG-29k.

crobato said:

If I wanted to do an inverted V shaped tail, maybe I may like it as far away from the fuselage bore axis. I may use something inspired from WWII bombers and fighters like the B-24, B-25, and Me-110, where the elevators are between the rudders.

/__O*O__\

Something like this if you view it from the tail end.

Click to expand...

The reason modern fighters don't do that is because they require an all-moving tailplane if the wings are in a conventional layout to maintain control autjority in transonic/supersonic regime - remember what happened to DeHaviland when he tried to go supersonic in a Vampire or Venom (forget which). But if you have a delta wing with all-moving canards this could be overcome.


EDIT: Scratch, lovely as always. Your pics not you that is

If stealth is a priority, then I think Scratch's design might have problems: the engines and the space in the middle create big RCS.

What's wrong with inverted fins? The only problem I can think of is maybe some sort of wind stress in the middle at the top. (Will giving it a wing/spoiler structure help?)

Is there a way to put the intake on top safely? (Unfortunately, I know nothing of vortices.)

planeman said:

EDIT: Scratch, lovely as always. Your pics not you that is

Click to expand...

I already thought it would once again be to nice to be true thanks anyway ...

sumdud:

If stealth is a priority, then I think Scratch's design might have problems: the engines and the space in the middle create big RCS.

Click to expand...

I originally intended the inverted V fins for even lower RCS because SAM radars from below would not be able to see them. The waves of fighter radars from the side would be deflected skyward instead of being cought between the below 90° angle of rudder - elevator.
If you could place the fins' roots on parts of the fuselage reaching as far back as the nozzles, but being a little away (outward) from them, it should work.
Now it's perhaps even more difficult to understand what I want than actually doing it. So I guess I have to paint it.
I had to remoddel my Su today (fuselage part; the LEX didn't come out well and scalable) so I made no progress in evolving it. Just be patient few more days.

Wait, I thought you said inverted Vs have mechancial or aerodynamic problems.

Otherwise, I doubt designs around the world would've experimented with it, further away from the F-19.
I know what you mean.
You are talking about this, right?
/oo\

I am going to take a older design that I posted here and put inverted fins and body onto it. (CT-82 in the "cheap" stealth thread from around September.)

sumdud said:

Wait, I thought you said inverted Vs have mechancial or aerodynamic problems.

Otherwise, I doubt designs around the world would've experimented with it, further away from the F-19.
I know what you mean. You are talking about this, right? /oo\

Click to expand...

I think the ones who mentioned possible probs with inverted Vs were crobato and planeman.
There seem to be some probs/disadvantages with them anyway since these are not found on any serial production plane.

Ok, some more aerodynamics: I read that the MiG-29s fuselage creates up to 40% of the entire life due to the big space between the engines (thus reducing wing loading). Is the same true for the Flankers in a similar manner?
Because on another observation the Flankers have a "bend" or "kink" in the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. Just after the canopy and in front of the wings. The wings seem to have no AoI with the middle-rear part of fuselage, but around 3,5-4° with the nose. Meaning the aircraft can point the nose straigt ahaed (less drag), while the mid-fuselage wing combination has an AoA of 3,5-4°.
Was that a consideration in designing the Flankers?
And I seem to recognize that this "kink" is bigger in the Su-33 than in the Su-35.

If I'm going to add canards to my Su-33 like design anyway because of enhanced lift and low-speed maneuverability it's the best to remove the LERXs, right?

edit: first version, next step is to cover nozzles. Perhaps by moving rudders and stabalizers to the back or perhaps add some kind of facing.

You need to keep your rudders safe from the turbelence and wake coming from the fuselage and other devices (strakes, lerx), and this wake tends to center just around the sides of the fuselage. Inverting twin fins puts them closer to this hence why it was always preferable to V them outward.

There is one aircraft that uses inverted twin rudders though. Its the SR-71. But in that plane's case, they are far from the center fuselage.

If you put an elevator between the rudders to create an A-10 like tail, you cannot make the entire elevator move, and all moving elevators are essential in high speed maneuverbility, and have been a feature of conventional (non delta) fighter jets since the mid fifties.

I do have one idea though, where the main wing is delta. The inverted rudders are situated on middle of the main wing which also supports the two engines in the middle. The end result looks like this from the rear end.

__/__@o@__\__


Scratch,

On your design, its best to look for any possible excuse to move the elevators as backward as possible to get as much arm movement and thus control authority. You can keep the LERX even with the canards, though it adds drag. However, like in many fighter designs, the LERX can be used to divert airflow to the engine intakes at high angles of attack.

As with Northrop's designs (YF-23, F-5E), if you are putting the engine intakes on top of the wing rather than under, the intakes should be close to the LERX so that the LERX can divert airflow into it during maneuvering.

Ok, that would mean eliminating the elevators. I'd like to keep the engine inlets below the wing/fuselage. I seem to remember (from Typhoon report) that such a position supports airflow into the engines at high AoAs.
I could also keep my engines rather far apart. Then again I might have somehow have a problem to hide the nozzles. I'd have to move the rudders as far back as possible. Gotta see what I can do, I currently think I might come up with a mix of J-10/Su-33.

Seperating the engines, while it may have a lifting body effect, may also reduce your roll rate by putting mass farther from your centerbore axis.

Ok, some ideas I put together.

No.1 is a twin-engined J-10 with twin rudders. The stabilizers are relocated below the rudder, making a X like tail.

No. 2 is a evolved Su-33 with removed strakes, added canards, and a new tail.

No. 3 is perhaps the most radical one. The fuselage is very wide to produce lift itself. The enginges are far apart therefore and mounted to the fuselage outside. Even further outward in the delta-wing are rudders and stabilizers below them, both to protect the engines. They are formed like an inverted X.
It somewhat looks like a mix of a 'blackbird" and a B-58 hustler to me.
Perhaps I could put a stealthy container between the engines making it a conformal fuel tank or weapon-storage.

Well, just seeing I forgot the tail-hook. Just imagine it's totally covered by the tail.