User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:34:15 AM EDT
[#1]
At 0.99 mach wouldn't you exceed mach 1 in a dive? Also isn't hovering right on the edge of the sound barrier dangerous?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:46:50 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honda Jet is available right now. No, it's not. Hasn't even made it through the certification process. Maybe by 2015. Unless they've moved the nozzle location, that thing's such a pain in the ass to fuel.... <-- First non-Honda Employee to fuel it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:47:29 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There've already been concepts like is and none have been successful. Wy spend $5-7m when you can get an L-39th for 500k? Yea..... L39 can go Mach 0.8 at best. THIS on the other hand, will go Mach 2.0, is fully operational, and easy to maintain. Best part is it only costs $79,000 USD. Where are you going to get a waiver to go supersonic over the CONUS? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Waiver?  Yeah, well... Sonic boom? Sorry, no, I didn't hear anything but a compressor stall. I don't have any room to talk, because I didn't have any waiver for the kinds of speeds I hit on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway over a decade ago. 
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I didn't say you should fly Mach 2, I said the aircraft was capable of it. If it can do Mach 2 it can do Mach 0.99, just like the Saker S-1, but it can do it much cheaper. But whether in a Mig 21 or Saker S-1, what would stop you from flying over the pacific for 200 miles (out of US territorial waters, hitting Mach 1.1 over international waters, then slow back down to Mach .99 to re-enter US Airspace? Or Visit Bermuda in your aircraft and fly supersonic while over international waters going there? Interesting Czech Mig21 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHH-YI6Rj7w The US Navy might get an ichy trigger finger.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 1:24:02 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
At 0.99 mach wouldn't you exceed mach 1 in a dive? Also isn't hovering right on the edge of the sound barrier dangerous? Not dangerous, and not likely. The wave drag builds rapidly to astronomical magnitudes and the airplane would shortly use up all its fuel, if it had enough thrust to maintain that mach number. It's better to push through. I suspect speed stability would be an interesting problem. At mach numbers less than 1, the surface of the airframe will have supersonic flow due to the local flow speeds greater than the free stream speed (speed of the airplane). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 4:23:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There've already been concepts like is and none have been successful. Wy spend $5-7m when you can get an L-39th for 500k? Yea..... L39 can go Mach 0.8 at best. THIS on the other hand, will go Mach 2.0, is fully operational, and easy to maintain. Best part is it only costs $79,000 USD. Where are you going to get a waiver to go supersonic over the CONUS? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Waiver? Yeah, well... Sonic boom? Sorry, no, I didn't hear anything but a compressor stall. I don't have any room to talk, because I didn't have any waiver for the kinds of speeds I hit on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway over a decade ago.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I didn't say you should fly Mach 2, I said the aircraft was capable of it. If it can do Mach 2 it can do Mach 0.99, just like the Saker S-1, but it can do it much cheaper. But whether in a Mig 21 or Saker S-1, what would stop you from flying over the pacific for 200 miles (out of US territorial waters, hitting Mach 1.1 over international waters, then slow back down to Mach .99 to re-enter US Airspace? Or Visit Bermuda in your aircraft and fly supersonic while over international waters going there? Interesting Czech Mig21 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHH-YI6Rj7w The US Navy might get an ichy trigger finger. Act like an anti-ship cruise missile, get treated like an anti-ship cruise missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 5:41:54 PM EDT
[#6]
If I had the cash.
Restart production of the F-86, add a second seat and power it with two smaller engines to fill the space of one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 8:06:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honda Jet is available right now. No, it's not. Hasn't even made it through the certification process. Maybe by 2015. Whoops, I was thinking since the engine passed the airframe was ready. Although they still seem to be working on the engine as well. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:04:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There've already been concepts like is and none have been successful. Wy spend $5-7m when you can get an L-39th for 500k? Yea..... L39 can go Mach 0.8 at best. THIS on the other hand, will go Mach 2.0, is fully operational, and easy to maintain. Best part is it only costs $79,000 USD. This particular example has been babied. Mig 21s it was said exceeded mach 2 rarely, stories I read said it would need a total engine overhaul or new engine nearly every time it did. Also I am fairly certain pissant civis are not allowed to go supersonic over CONUS even if they could. If you buy a Mig 21 buy a few spare engines. This dream airplane won't cruise at M=0.99, either. There's a reason for that, the same reason no one else cruises there. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:11:49 PM EDT
[#9]
I'd be happy to have a Quicksilver.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:31:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There've already been concepts like is and none have been successful. Wy spend $5-7m when you can get an L-39th for 500k? Yea..... L39 can go Mach 0.8 at best. THIS on the other hand, will go Mach 2.0, is fully operational, and easy to maintain. Best part is it only costs $79,000 USD. Where are you going to get a waiver to go supersonic over the CONUS? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Waiver? Yeah, well... Sonic boom? Sorry, no, I didn't hear anything but a compressor stall. I don't have any room to talk, because I didn't have any waiver for the kinds of speeds I hit on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway over a decade ago.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I didn't say you should fly Mach 2, I said the aircraft was capable of it. If it can do Mach 2 it can do Mach 0.99, just like the Saker S-1, but it can do it much cheaper. But whether in a Mig 21 or Saker S-1, what would stop you from flying over the pacific for 200 miles (out of US territorial waters, hitting Mach 1.1 over international waters, then slow back down to Mach .99 to re-enter US Airspace? Or Visit Bermuda in your aircraft and fly supersonic while over international waters going there? Interesting Czech Mig21 video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHH-YI6Rj7w The US Navy might get an ichy trigger finger. LOL good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2013 10:04:17 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Whatever happened to the BD-10J ?  If my memory isn't off, the tail on the prototype had a structural failure, during the flight test phase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 5:04:16 AM EDT
[#12]
The BD-10 went into kit production and a couple of airplanes were built. One of the buyers of the project from Bede was killed in his company airplane. I don't recall the mode or reason.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 5:18:26 AM EDT
[#13]
Need hard points.
I remember seeing this back in the late 80s on the cover of PM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 8:06:07 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
[I was searching articles and company information to find out whether Jim Bede is involved.] 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 8:13:51 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
The BD-10 went into kit production and a couple of airplanes were built. One of the buyers of the project from Bede was killed in his company airplane. I don't recall the mode or reason. More than "a couple". I remember a PopSci or PopMech cover article a while back (probably late 1990s) which, IIRC, said that several people had already been killed in them. Again IIRC, something about crashes on takeoff. Wikipedia says five built and three crashes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 8:35:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
If I had the cash. Restart production of the F-86, add a second seat and power it with two smaller engines to fill the space of one. Bring back the T-33 Sky fox! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 8:37:28 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: If I had the cash. Restart production of the F-86, add a second seat and power it with two smaller engines to fill the space of one. They made working rebuilds of the Me-262 with modern GE engines, so why not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 8:45:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Edit: answered.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 10:59:28 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The BD-10 went into kit production and a couple of airplanes were built. One of the buyers of the project from Bede was killed in his company airplane. I don't recall the mode or reason. More than "a couple". I remember a PopSci or PopMech cover article a while back (probably late 1990s) which, IIRC, said that several people had already been killed in them. Again IIRC, something about crashes on takeoff. Wikipedia says five built and three crashes. There's a thin line between "a couple" and "pretty many", and I don't care enough to dig up the airplane's history. Bede was working on the BD-10 and his other two new pusher projects at Spirit of St. Louis airport. I was down there a few times to see how the airplane was put together. The inlet was scaled from T-38 geometry. The wing skins were honeycomb panels with skins only on the outer moldline side; . Load paths at the wing roots were disturbing.
Ol' Jim was reveling in the attention and interest during that period. For a while. As things progressed, he moved to smaller quarters at Spirit, and then moved to Alton altogether before skedaddling out of town. Quoted:
Quoted:
If I had the cash. Restart production of the F-86, add a second seat and power it with two smaller engines to fill the space of one. They made working rebuilds of the Me-262 with modern GE engines, so why not? ME 262's were two engine airplanes to start, and that project was financed by bottomless pit of money. Your F-86 fantasy requires an all new fuselage. Simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 12:39:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 7:29:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2013 8:45:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. My guess is that the fuselage was cut just aft of the wing trailing edge, and a new aft fuselage installed. That would take care of getting rid of the huge cavity that the original engine had occupied, and allow adding the new structure for attaching the new engines. The rest of the fuselage is at least modified (nose redone, engine intakes removed). The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). ETA: Might be less work to change a Lear 24 to a two seat tandem cockpit. Replacement parts would be easier to find, upgrades are available, and you'd be starting with a newer design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 4:26:19 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. My guess is that the fuselage was cut just aft of the wing trailing edge, and a new aft fuselage installed. That would take care of getting rid of the huge cavity that the original engine had occupied, and allow adding the new structure for attaching the new engines. The rest of the fuselage is at least modified (nose redone, engine intakes removed). The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). ETA: Might be less work to change a Lear 24 to a two seat tandem cockpit. Replacement parts would be easier to find, upgrades are available, and you'd be starting with a newer design. OMG! I have an idea! We'll use that engine bay for a fuel tank! 
I think the GD Fighter Airplane Group had better install an engine in the stock bay, plus hang two engines on the outside. Get both, because three is none in this case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 5:00:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. My guess is that the fuselage was cut just aft of the wing trailing edge, and a new aft fuselage installed. That would take care of getting rid of the huge cavity that the original engine had occupied, and allow adding the new structure for attaching the new engines. The rest of the fuselage is at least modified (nose redone, engine intakes removed). The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). ETA: Might be less work to change a Lear 24 to a two seat tandem cockpit. Replacement parts would be easier to find, upgrades are available, and you'd be starting with a newer design. OMG! I have an idea! We'll use that engine bay for a fuel tank!
I think the GD Fighter Airplane Group had better install an engine in the stock bay, plus hang two engines on the outside. Get both, because three is none in this case. Not sure exactly what the rolling eyes are directed at. In case my sarcasm meter is off... The engine is a fixed weight, and my understanding is that on the T-33 and F-86, the engine is well aft of the CG. A fuel tank is a variable weight, so not a good thing to have too far from the CG. As for the Lear 24 comment, it was a comparison to the work that would be involved. Rather than having to redo the majority of the fuselage structure, and get into moving powerplant systems around, it would be mainly limited to redoing the fuselage structure forward of the wing. Still quite a bit of structural work, and messing with the control, electrical, instrumentation, and pressurization systems, but likely less work than the Skyfox/T-33 mod. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 5:39:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
There've already been concepts like is and none have been successful. Wy spend $5-7m when you can get an L-39th for 500k? Because Slav shit |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 5:40:15 AM EDT
[#26]
It's aimed at every poster that believes modifying an existing airframe or resurrecting a large, complicated airplane is no more difficult than making and drawing "plans" and slathering some parts together as if it's some sort of hot rod for cruising the beach.
A casual look at the Sky Fox reveals that the only obvious airframe parts retained from a T-33 is the canopy, and maybe the cockpit structure between the forward bulkhead and the rear seat bulkhead. Now, retaining other components such as the landing gear or even the control sticks, rudder pedals, bellcranks, and so on go a long way to completing an airplane (when the airframe structure is complete, only 90% of the work remains), but all of that has to be incorporated to function in the new airplane, and they probably won't without massive modifications. The idea of converting a Lear to tandem seating is too laughable for comment. Same with hanging two engines on the outside of the fuselage of an F-86; that one isn't even remotely clever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 5:44:59 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honda Jet is available right now. No, it's not. Hasn't even made it through the certification process. Maybe by 2015. Will it be flown by Asimo? Asimo with tentacles 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:13:19 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). The F86 had a huge engine in the center of the plane. Two modern engines "could fill that space with "minor" engineering. The thrust would be about 4200 lbs and with the lighter engines it would "almost" have the same operational speeds with some reliability. Yes I know it is a pipe dream but a modern 2 place would be nice............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:26:49 AM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:27:08 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. My guess is that the fuselage was cut just aft of the wing trailing edge, and a new aft fuselage installed. That would take care of getting rid of the huge cavity that the original engine had occupied, and allow adding the new structure for attaching the new engines. The rest of the fuselage is at least modified (nose redone, engine intakes removed). The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). ETA: Might be less work to change a Lear 24 to a two seat tandem cockpit. Replacement parts would be easier to find, upgrades are available, and you'd be starting with a newer design. Surprisingly,no,the majority of the fuselage was still T-33. New nose,new tail,new canopy,new wing tips but most of it was still T-33. The remark about the Lear and Falcon was due to their design rather than actual production origins: the Lear coming from an aborted Swiss fighter and the Falcon being the offspring of the Mystere. The failure of the Skyfox is obvious: why waste so much time and effort when the T-33 itself was rugged and by that point free and lots of bother rather than buying new Hawks or Alpha Jets. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:38:25 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). The F86 had a huge engine in the center of the plane. Two modern engines "could fill that space with "minor" engineering. The thrust would be about 4200 lbs and with the lighter engines it would "almost" have the same operational speeds with some reliability. Yes I know it is a pipe dream but a modern 2 place would be nice............. Explain what part would be modern. Here's your assignment for your first attempt at configuring an airplane. Shoehorn Make an initial layout of two PW 545B engines of 4500 pounds thrust in the engine bay of a F-86H airplane to replace the original J73-GE-5 9500 pound thrust engine. Include a preliminary weight and balance calculation and add ballast if necessary. Examine the stock fuel capacity and report whether the range and endurance will be reduced or increased; assume drag is unchanged for this step, drag will be assessed after the layout has developed sufficiently to examine the moldline changes required to install two 32 inch diameter engines in place of one 39.5 inch diameter engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:41:49 AM EDT
[#32]
I think half of the target customers already have their own air force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:46:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. My guess is that the fuselage was cut just aft of the wing trailing edge, and a new aft fuselage installed. That would take care of getting rid of the huge cavity that the original engine had occupied, and allow adding the new structure for attaching the new engines. The rest of the fuselage is at least modified (nose redone, engine intakes removed). The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). ETA: Might be less work to change a Lear 24 to a two seat tandem cockpit. Replacement parts would be easier to find, upgrades are available, and you'd be starting with a newer design. Surprisingly,no,the majority of the fuselage was still T-33. New nose,new tail,new canopy,new wing tips but most of it was still T-33. The remark about the Lear and Falcon was due to their design rather than actual production origins: the Lear coming from an aborted Swiss fighter and the Falcon being the offspring of the Mystere. The failure of the Skyfox is obvious: why waste so much time and effort when the T-33 itself was rugged and by that point free and lots of bother rather than buying new Hawks or Alpha Jets. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Add new wings, landing gear, avionics, and so on. Don't try to sell the "simple" changes to the wing, they aren't, and they aren't limited to the wing tips. I have no idea what you're trying to say in your Lear and Falcon comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:46:24 AM EDT
[#34]
Not that I have to worry about having that type of money to burn , but honestly I would rather have a G5 and fly to my destination in style with an attendant pouring me my favorite beverage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 7:48:37 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 8:09:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There've already been concepts like is and none have been successful. Wy spend $5-7m when you can get an L-39th for 500k? Because Slav shit I'm as big a slav-shit hater as anyone... But that said: Ignoring combat abilities and focusing on "how good of a plane is it?" the MiG-21 is probably the best Soviet built fighter, by far. A great combination of relative simplicity (compared to, say, the MiG-23), high performance, reliability, ease of maintenance... It's my opinion that Soviet fighter design was all downhill after the MiG-21 (with the exception of the MiG-25... But that sucker is kind of in a different category). The MiG-21, if I recall, is the most common fighter in the world... Parts are still made and will be for some time. Designed to be maintained by illiterate retards... So I might have a chance of understanding at least some of its PMCS. Still being upgraded for use in other nations... Could probably get some pretty sleek avionics upgrades from, say, Poland. If one were buying a jet to serve the role of a flying sportscar... The MiG-21 would actually be a damn good choice... Cheap and simple enough you might actually be able to upkeep it... Capable enough to be awesome. The upkeep and fuel on fighters are really killers when it comes to private ownership... They are spectacular. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 8:36:37 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> Explain what part would be modern. Here's your assignment for your first attempt at configuring an airplane. Shoehorn Make an initial layout of two PW 545B engines of 4500 pounds thrust in the engine bay of a F-86H airplane to replace the original J73-GE-5 9500 pound thrust engine. Include a preliminary weight and balance calculation and add ballast if necessary. Examine the stock fuel capacity and report whether the range and endurance will be reduced or increased; assume drag is unchanged for this step, drag will be assessed after the layout has developed sufficiently to examine the moldline changes required to install two 32 inch diameter engines in place of one 39.5 inch diameter engine. Ouch. One of those snakes that can swallow a cow comes to mind. Is there a such thing as reverse area rule? For ingomsg3, using two engines inside a roundish fuselage like that would not make sense even if you used two engines small enough to fit because it's a poor use of internal space. This lost cross sectional area is not only wasteful in terms of structure, it makes the design less efficient because the engines' total cross sectional area becomes smaller, which means that the exhaust velocities have to be higher to provide the same thrust, reducing fuel economy. It is possible and often done to replace one engine with a more powerful/efficient one of similar size and weight, but even this requires a substantial amount of work. If you want two engines, you need to design the fuselage around them, either placing them side by side (F-4) or if you're feeling creative, one on top of the other (Lightning.) You usually end up with a flatter shape than the F-86's rounder fuselage cross section. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 8:46:04 AM EDT
[#38]
Can't wait to see them!
....... ... .. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 8:47:15 AM EDT
[#39]
Nope, but they require a lot of inspections, you have to have the fire dept at your airport needs to understand them.
There's a lot of costs associated with them. I know someone that has an F-101 star fighter. Quoted:
I thought ejection seats were illegal on civilian aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 9:14:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
I know someone that has an F-101 star fighter. An F-101 Star Fighter, you say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 9:21:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Nope, but they require a lot of inspections, you have to have the fire dept at your airport needs to understand them. There's a lot of costs associated with them. I know someone that has an F-101 star fighter. 
or |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 9:52:37 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
the MiG-21 is probably the best Soviet built fighter, by far. Su-27 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 9:53:40 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Explain what part would be modern. Here's your assignment for your first attempt at configuring an airplane. Shoehorn Make an initial layout of two PW 545B engines of 4500 pounds thrust in the engine bay of a F-86H airplane to replace the original J73-GE-5 9500 pound thrust engine. Include a preliminary weight and balance calculation and add ballast if necessary. Examine the stock fuel capacity and report whether the range and endurance will be reduced or increased; assume drag is unchanged for this step, drag will be assessed after the layout has developed sufficiently to examine the moldline changes required to install two 32 inch diameter engines in place of one 39.5 inch diameter engine. I think I'd rather just get a BAE Lightning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 10:22:41 AM EDT
[#44]
Here's one that never gets a mention; the Morane-Saulnier MS.760 Paris, or Paris Jet.
Quoted:
... I think I'd rather just get a BAE Lightning. Great Buys on Jet Airplanes - 2 Seat Harrier, Magisters, and Others There's a reason surplus fighters and trainers are always for sale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 11:01:35 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nope, but they require a lot of inspections, you have to have the fire dept at your airport needs to understand them. There's a lot of costs associated with them. I know someone that has an F-101 star fighter.
or I thought the F-101 was the VooDoo and the F104 was the Starfighter? Top image looks like a Voodoo, bottom one like a StarFighter, or is it me? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 11:04:53 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
There's a reason surplus fighters and trainers are always for sale. operating cost? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 12:11:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's a reason surplus fighters and trainers are always for sale. operating cost? Indirect and direct operating cost. Very few people can afford to operate one for long; several that think they can find out they'd rather not, and some flatly can't but don't learn that until after they have a broken down airplane that can't be resold. Plus their usefulness is severely restricted by the FAA and that use is coming under closer scrutiny. There used to be a red Folland Gnat that bounced around the US market for years. I don't think I recall any time that it wasn't for sale, and there are others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 12:29:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or,like the Skyfox I posted,you stick the motors on the outside of a new airframe.Kinda the same thing was done to make the Lear and Falcon,though considerably less directly. The one immutable rule of airplane engineering is that the prop bone is connected to the rudder bone. I'm curious about how much of the Skyfox you believe is T-33. My guess is that the fuselage was cut just aft of the wing trailing edge, and a new aft fuselage installed. That would take care of getting rid of the huge cavity that the original engine had occupied, and allow adding the new structure for attaching the new engines. The rest of the fuselage is at least modified (nose redone, engine intakes removed). The F-86 fuselage would be left with a huge cavity from nose to tail, if the original engine was removed and two engines added externally, because the engine intake was at the front of the nose. The T-33's engine intakes were much farther back, and the weaker engine probably needed less air (smaller intakes). ETA: Might be less work to change a Lear 24 to a two seat tandem cockpit. Replacement parts would be easier to find, upgrades are available, and you'd be starting with a newer design. Surprisingly,no,the majority of the fuselage was still T-33. New nose,new tail,new canopy,new wing tips but most of it was still T-33. The remark about the Lear and Falcon was due to their design rather than actual production origins: the Lear coming from an aborted Swiss fighter and the Falcon being the offspring of the Mystere. The failure of the Skyfox is obvious: why waste so much time and effort when the T-33 itself was rugged and by that point free and lots of bother rather than buying new Hawks or Alpha Jets. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Add new wings, landing gear, avionics, and so on. Don't try to sell the "simple" changes to the wing, they aren't, and they aren't limited to the wing tips. I have no idea what you're trying to say in your Lear and Falcon comment. T-33 wing and landing gear.No,not limited to the tips,they got LEXs faired into the fuselage but it's not a new wing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 12:37:28 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2013 8:07:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
the MiG-21 is probably the best Soviet built fighter, by far. Su-27 Ehhh... Militarily, yes. But the MiG-21 would be friendlier to private ownership as a toy due to the smaller scale and vastly reduced parts count. The upkeep on a private Flanker would be scary. The MiG-21 is already a giant money pit. Now we're going to double the number engines, mass, systems? Yeah... That's going be be an amazing magic trick to make money disappear. It's still in production though... I'll give you that. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
