Ideal naval carrier fighter(aircraft) designs.

Now it's starting to look good. Maybe angle the sides of the engine tunnel to decrease side RCS, flatten the bottom of the tunnel and the nose, to help add lift. The engine nozzles, consider replacing them with 2D vectoring nozzles.

Typhoon actually uses a bent anhedral wing like the J-10 (and so different from the Lavi, or any Russian fighter). It does not angle downward, but angles first then bends, a concept that was also tested on the X-31. If the wing tip is higher than the wing root its dihedral, if lower than anhedral. Dihedral improves stability on the roll axis, but anhedral has the opposite effect and increase rate of roll. That's why the latter is preferred nowadays.

For carrier use, low speed handling is important. Usually you can improve on that by lessening the sweep of the wing and increasing the wingspan. One way is by a wing that is shaped more like a diamond. The other is a double delta (like the J-7E, Draken or Su-15). However, if your wing area is big enough, and your wing loading is low enough, you can also keep the straight delta.

Planeman,

Don't you think the jointed wing designs do not allow for all moving tailplanes? I see that as a disadvantage.

Of the UAV, you must be talking about the Anjian concept. Admittedly it looks cool.

I've seen another Chinese concept where a canard is set behind a straked possibly DSI intake. I think that allows for vortice generation independent of the canard angle.

crobato said:

Planeman,

Don't you think the jointed wing designs do not allow for all moving tailplanes? I see that as a disadvantage.

Click to expand...

The forward wings are all-moving a bit like having massive canards. They control pitch using positive lift rather than negative lift (better than conventional layout in this respect). Because they are all-moving they also align with the oncoming air during high angle of attack (i.e. slow) flight, removing the need for leading edge slats etc.

The rear wings have ailerons but that’s more for high angle off attack flight because the forward wings can provide massive rolling forces.

Behind the rear wing are secondary pitch control flaps which are used primarily during high angle of attack flight.

Lastly there is the TVC engine.

The aim is to allow very slow take-off and landing and also excellent subsonic agility. The cost is probably supersonic efficiency. And ugly wingtip linkage.




Scratch, I love your design, makes me feel the urge to beautify my own cos yours would win the popularity vote! Lol.

I bring you.... the JH-X-9 naval fighter:


Powerplant: 1 x AL-31F with TVC
Crew: 1 & 2 seat combat versions
Weapons: Internal: 2 weapons bays each able to carry 2 x PL-12 (folding fin version) or a range of PGMs up to 4m length and 1.5 wingspan.
External: Wingtip positions for AAMs (PL-12 or PL-8x) and centerline position for wide range of weapons including large SSMs such as YJ-83

Comments:
Boxed-wing with all-moving forward wing and forward swept rear wing and lifing body. Excellent sunsonic agility and very low take-off landing speeds even with weapons load. Does not require wing folding for below deck storage (8.6m wingspan).

Stealthy especially in forward aspect. High use of radar-transparent composites in wings and wing-join.

Planeman, some comments; I think your pilot may be rather limited in his all-around view due to the shallow canopy. The wings look really small, especially for an aircraft that is ment to operate safely in low speed regimes.
Your pics come out really nice and detailed, though.

My concept is ment to be in the same weight class as the Su-33, powered by two WS-10As. With 18m wingspan I should have 60m² wing area. The main wing has a backsweep of 49°.
The canards should add additional 4,5m².
I think of three "heavy" hardpoints for external tanks or big missiles/bombs, one under the centerline and one just outside of each engine tunnel. One hardpoint under each tunnel for AAMs and perhaps one just inside of each tunnel.
And then three more under each wing.
A problem could now be the tunnel form. A straigt shape at the longitudinal axis might be better suited to carry weapons half sunk (?) in the structure.

planeman said:

I bring you.... the JH-X-9 naval fighter:

Click to expand...

Hey what an interesting design esp. as this wing design was once under consideration for an early Eurofighter concept called the "Rautenflügel" in Germany (look

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for more)

But just IMO the main FS wing looks too small ... and enlarging it it would allow the endplates to form as upwards-/inwards angled additional tail-substitutes (I hope You understand what I wanted to discribe !)

Anyway ... will we get the side profile too ??

cheers, Deino

Deino said:

Hey what an interesting design esp. as this wing design was once under consideration for an early Eurofighter concept called the "Rautenflügel" in Germany (look

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

for more)

But just IMO the main FS wing looks too small ... and enlarging it it would allow the endplates to form as upwards-/inwards angled additional tail-substitutes (I hope You understand what I wanted to discribe !)

Anyway ... will we get the side profile too ??

cheers, Deino

Click to expand...

Yeah I love that design. Yes it was an influence in my thinking, but my true interest in joined wing aircraft comes from this somewhat less sexy beast:
Big pic:

Note that my lower wing is forward swept. That is arguably the most important factor in the design.

I agree that the wings look too small but making them any wider would require some form of wing-fold which would add weight and complexity - I'm thinking of all-composite wings.

Because my forward wings are all-moving (to overcome certain high AOA issues of swept wings), and would be the primary roll-initiator, I can't really add dihedral to them. That also moves it away from the Rautenflügel.

PS. Awesome link, I'd never seen the patent pics before, very interesting.

Obviously just another Chinese F-22 copy. This is a two-engined (AL-31) fighter with the large weapons bay with rotory launcher for 4/6 x PL-12. It could also carry a single large SSM (YJ-83 etc) internally(!). Length is 20-21m (same as Su-33) and wingspan is 14m ..... but, and this is the big problem, no wing-fold. Not sure how I could give it wing fold and at the same time keep the more subtle advantages of the joined wing. As before the leading wing is all-moving for super-agility and to aid the high AOA/low speed stability allowing very slow landings and take-offs.

Removable secondary wingtip launch rails for AAMs including PL-12s.




It'd come with all the usual trimmings including of AESA, FLIR, air-air refueling probe, arrestor hook (recessed), IPOD Nano plug-in, etc.

There was some time ago a similar concept posted at the "What if modellers" Forum made by PolluxDeltaSeven !

I made another little comparison of five carrier aircraft: Su-33, MiG29K, Rafale F1, F-18E/F, F-35C.

The squares are of the size they need to be to fit the respective aircrafts in them, with non-folded and folded wings.

The top bar indicates the max payload by it's width (one pixel = 200kg) and the available hardpoints by it's high (one pixel / hardpoint).
The left bar is thrust, max dry and with AB.

Next is weight: empty, specific mission weight, max take off weight. (1pixel=200kg)
The specific mission weight is always empty weight + max internal fuel + 200kg for pilot and his gear and gun ammo (rude estimation) + a specific A-A ammo.
Su-33: 4xAA-12+4xAA-11; MiG-29K: 4xAA-12+2xAA-11; Rafale 6xMica+2xMagicII, F-18E/F: 4xAIM-120+2xAIM-9; F-35C: 2XAIM-120.

Next bar shows the internal fuel load. (1pixel=200kg)
Then comes the wing area. (1pixel=1m²)

The last is combat radius.
Su-33: 4xAA-12, 4xAA-11;
MiG-29K 4AAMs,3 1500l tanks;
Rafale: lower part attak hi lo lo hi 12x250kg bombs, 4xMica, 4300l external fuel (3 tanks); upper part 8xMica + same external fuel;
F-18E/F: hi lo lo hi 4x450kg bombs, 2xAIM-9, 2x1818l tanks; upper part 2xAIM-9, 4xAIM120 + 3xtanks => 135min patrol 278km away from base.
F-35C: internal fuel and weapon load



That's it. Costs and maintenance intensity would be interesting here as well, but are difficult to find in credible numbers.
Then it might help to see those specs put in a rectangle wich's face shows the unit cost.

I'm also looking for turn rates, radar ranges against a certain target and such things, but those are difficult to find in reliable sources as well.

Hey planemayn ... I posted You Your design at the "What if modeling forum" and a guy named "kitflubber" was so impressed that he just started a 3D vew of Your concept !





Cheers, Deino