HOME | DD
4-X-S β Realistic Inspired Stealth Jet Design
#aircraft #blueprint #conceptart #designconcept #sketchdrawing #sketchy #stealthfighter #weapondesign #fighteraircraft
Published: 2019-03-25 04:26:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 3010; Favourites: 129; Downloads: 31
Redirect to original
Description
Attempted to be realistic but due to my limited knowledge on aerodynamic engineering this is still very much a nonsense, but what do you expect? If this makes sense I won't be allowed to even use DA.Other than the aerodynamic issues which I don;t know about, back intake has its design advantages, it leaves button surface for big weapons bay with great design freedom, as well as arrangement of internal fuel tank associated with stealth design. The jet is proportionally low profile, fuselage space expanded horizontally, with large section blend with the wings, radar dome has a ellipses cross section like Su34. Engine located in the vertical center, lower than the intake, connected with an S-tunnel. //////*-*----***--*-*-*--*------/////***////---***////////
Please keep in mind that things may be out of proportion.
Related content
Comments: 41
AESA = Active Electronic Scan Array
PESA = Passive Electronic Scan Array
PESA is important to stealth jet, it is able to detect target without emitting radar wave which will expose itself.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah!Β Of course.Β Makes perfect sense.Β Thanks!
π: 0 β©: 1
You are welcome as alwaysΒ Β I think I thought about make a 3D version of this, but I think I can just buy a commission from someone else.Β Too many projects.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do not entertain you, continue with your projects then; I want to see what your next creations are going to be. Greetings.
π: 0 β©: 0
A very interesting design, it reminds me a bit of the PLAAF J-20 but much larger.
π: 0 β©: 1
It is inspired by J20, but I don;t think its that much larger, I added a fuel truck for scale, does that looks normal?
π: 0 β©: 1
Judging by the fuel truck and the cockpit size it looks kind of more along the lines of a bomber or fighter-bomber, I think. In a way it kind of reminds me of a "B" model of the J-20, like the FB-23 version of the YF-23.
π: 0 β©: 1
Fighter bomber sounds about right, then in this proportion its carrying very large missiles. These are suppose to be AA missiles.
π: 0 β©: 0
Intakes on the back? Dorsal inlets like that are pretty risky for a high maneuverability fighter plane. At high angles of attack, air flow into them is restricted by the rest of the fuselage being in the way. That hurts engine thrust and could even result in them stalling out. Sometimes, there are ways to make it work. A properly-designed forward fuselage or canards can create vortices that help funnel air into such inlets. That is what was done with Dan Raymer's RIVET design (which was ultimately never actually built). He stated in one of his books that it should maintain good airflow into the inlets up to an angle of attack of 45 degrees (whereas the F-16 is limited to an angle of attack of 25 degrees). However, the F-22 and YF-23 can reach or even exceed an angle of attack of 60 degrees. Even the F-35 can do 50 degrees or better. So I'm a little doubtful it would work well on a 5th generation fighter plane.
π: 0 β©: 2
Finally some technical insight, so that's the reason why top intake is rarely used in fighter design. If not a 5th gen fighter plane, then its a 5th gen truck? At least this thing would become better than the F117. Is angle of attack that important for 5th gen because you are suppose to avoid dog fight situation right? What about other components, are they in reasonable proportions?
π: 0 β©: 1
Angle of attack is important for any aircraft that is supposed to be highly maneuverable. It allows an aircraft to turn more tightly in a dogfight without stalling. Although 5th generation fighters have low-observability (stealth) as a major component of their design, agility is still considered important when it comes to either evading missiles or getting into an unlikely dogfight. If you run out of missiles, for example, you still have a cannon you can use to shoot down enemy aircraft. That's when agility becomes relevant for a stealth aircraft. Alternatively, you could always get into a dogfight with another stealth aircraft that got past your radar detection ability.
Dorsal inlets [i]could[/i] work well for a high-speed interceptor that fires missiles at long range, so a missile truck is feasible. In fact, Mikoyan Gurevich considered a design with dorsal inlets as a replacement for the MiG-31 Foxhound.
About other aspects of the design. the canopy looks to me like it would not present the pilot with good downward visibility. I'd probably push it further up the nose. The fact that you said that the cross-section of the nose is ellipsoidal is also a concern for a stealth aircraft. If you look at the F-22 and F-35, you can see that the noses are divided sharply into well-defined upper surfaces and lower surfaces. That helps deflect radar waves either up or down instead of directly back towards the radar source like a rounded nose would do.
π: 0 β©: 1
You seems to know alot about aerial combat, its nice to have you here. Its fun to discuss technicals. BTW what if I add flushed inlet at the bottom, the upper intake sustain normal flight, when lift nose upward, the flushed inlet can come to aid. Flushed inlet do not occupy much of space and is structurally simple, therefore the bottom fuselage can still have a large area for weapons bay, nor it would compromise the stealth. Combine with the canard control, this might improve its agility, not in a way that match F22, but would be much better. I think.
The canopy can have a better visibility, but as you move it forward, there will be less cross section for radar system, I guess this has to be a trade off somewhere in between. I made a mistake in description, I didn't meant to be ellipsoid, I do mean its a diamond section with curved edges like the standard for stealth design.
Does the aero geometry make sense? What about the fuel tank? Are the the right size and placed in the right place? Fuel tank is in the red. I added the fuel truck as a scale indicator, does the size confirm to standard for heavy twin engine fighter?
Im thinking the small weapons bay can extend further toward the end, the main weapons bay, with out side winder bay on the sides, can be made a bit wider and accompany additional LAAM. Up to 9 BVR. The extended narrow bay can have many options. In addition to the 3 side winders, the other half can carry some bombs, JDAM, laser guided stuff, or carry up to 6 side winders, or use the whole thing for one hyper sonic cruise missile, or more of the same LAAM. The large bay would also has its own share of customization possibilities. However some of these would over step the role of this craft.
I think this would work well in network with other multi role or air dominance fighters. Its a survivable truck, therefore the combat fighters can focus more on doing their job. Although in this case, I don't think the Vulcan would ever be used.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm a little hesitant to say that a flush inlet on the underside would necessarily be a good idea. I do think a similar idea was considered for the Eurofighter Typhoon to help the engines get more air at high angles of attack, but for whatever reason it wasn't used. Flush inlets like that would tend to ingest turbulent, boundary layer air, which would reduce engine performance. I imagine they have flow separation issues too, which would further compromise performance.
It's hard for me to get a good idea of size just by looking at it. If you know the size of the fuel truck, you can estimate the size of the plane too. For a heavy fighter, I'd say a length between 19 and 21 meters is good. The overall geometry of the plane looks okay as well (it's similar to the Chengdu J-20). It looks like it has one-piece flaperons. If the aircraft is limited to Mach 2, I think those would be okay. Beyond that speed, twisting can become a problem for lengthy control surfaces so that they are less effective. This is why the F-22 has separate ailerons and flaps on each wing and the YF-23 had separate inboard flaperons and outboard flaperons. Those smaller control surfaces are more stiff and so do not flex as much under high wind loads.
I'm also a little concerned about the fuel tank that threads between the two engines. That could be a hazard if one of the engines throws a fan blade and thus pierces the tank. I have seen designs that put the fuel tanks close to the engines, though, so it might not be too much of a problem if there are no alternatives.Β
Much of what I know about aircraft design comes from Dan Raymer's book "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach". It goes into a lot of depth, including mathematical analysis, of the aircraft designing process.
π: 0 β©: 1
So things been tired before, that leaves the only option to side intake, at least for air dominance fighter. The problem with button intake is it takes up space for weapons, this could be worked around for none stealth jets, but with internal weapon, it require a large area on the button unobstructed, Su57 is an example of this compromise, it has a very little load capacity. If the flush intake don;t work so well, what about the narrower side intake with standard config, that would also leave enough space for weapons bay.
Do you mean the canard? The main reason to use canard is to provide additional lift sense the plane itself is quite large. Im not sure how these are utilized, but I think most jets do not maneuver that much beyond M2 speed. If that is the case, does this restriction apply to Eurofighters as well? Is there also a risk of damaging coating when going at greater than M2 speed. I don;t know how much thermal stress the coating can stand.Β
I think I head many contrary opinions on engine placement, usually when an engine fan blade exploded, their is a greater chance for entire plane go down. And I don't think that is a case to consider in combat, its usually a one hit kill anyway. But I think I could divide the large tank in two, simply avoid the section where blade an struck.
I think this design is good enough for an art project. Although you are welcome to discuss more.
π: 0 β©: 1
Side intakes probably would work better than flush intakes on the bottom, yeah.
The flaperons are the control surfaces on the trailing edges of the wings which can act as either flaps or ailerons. The F-16 has flaperons on its wings. The canards you have look okay. I'd also like to point out that all-moving canards are not usually used to help provide overall lift, but are instead used to control the aircraft's pitch in the same way that all-moving horizontal tails do.
Stealth coatings are indeed temperature-sensitive, but it could be of use to have a stealth aircraft that can go fast despite that. The F-22 has a classified top speed, but one of its pilots said that it could exceed 1,600 miles per hour (about Mach 2.42).
Yeah, the design looks perfectly fine for artistic purposes.
π: 0 β©: 1
Did some rework on this design, added some more detailed info, would you like to take a look?
π: 0 β©: 0
In addition to what Kryptid says.Β Ventral air intakes would have air intake problems when diving. Having less thrust is less of a problem when diving as apposed to climbing.
On the other hand they do look cool. Β
π: 0 β©: 1
"Ventral air intakes would have air intake problems when diving."
What makes you say that?
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice! You should check out the ADF-11F from Ace Combat 7!
π: 0 β©: 1
Im still waiting season passΒ Β
π: 0 β©: 1
11F is not playable, that is a waste of good design.
π: 0 β©: 1
who knows. they might make it playable
π: 0 β©: 1
Even if it is, it can be an all achievement unlockable. Perhaps that DLC is too good to include in the game these days.Β Β
π: 0 β©: 1
still i hope they can include it. Or at least the experimental aircraft from Ace Combat X series
π: 0 β©: 1
Fenirir isn't my favorite jet, but X has many experimentals. XFA maybe. Im still waiting on the first DLC stuff, its taking 4ever.
π: 0 β©: 1
Kinda wanted to see Forneus or Fregata
π: 0 β©: 1
Those belongs to AC3, AC3 has the best jet.
π: 0 β©: 1
If they remake AC3 I would preorder collector edition a year in advance.
π: 0 β©: 1
Same! That's a title worth remastering!
π: 0 β©: 1
And in reality Im still waiting for that season pass I brought 2 month ago.
π: 0 β©: 0
of course looking cool is super importantΒ Β
π: 0 β©: 0