HOME | DD
Venom800TT β C-XX ATT wip 1
Published: 2012-01-15 17:20:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 3520; Favourites: 43; Downloads: 52
Redirect to original
Description
And now a random transport, this one a bit smaller than C-50...C-XX Advanced Tactical Transport, it is a multirole transport comparable in size to a C-141 Starlifter, but far more versatile. It can carry up to 3 Stryker armored vehicles, along with both defensive and offensive weapons (think heavier AC-130 mixed with some bomber). Potential weapons include most US/NATO air to surface munitions, air to air missiles for defense, and large caliber guns (haven't figured out what guns yet).
Related content
Comments: 47
Nice work 
I think the engine should be lower to the wing or perhaps having extra "guiding surface" extending from the nozzle straight to the wing so that the flow will "attach" .
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks
Most likely I will add vanes in the exhaust/bypass flow to direct it downward towards the wing. Either that or make the entire nozzle downturned, similar to an F-4 Phantom.
π: 0 β©: 0
So, its basicaly a C-141 mixed with B-52: can haul or cargo, or bombs inside? It have "typical" bomb bay doors, or weapons are droped from other hatch, or rear loading doors? If it have "typical bomber" doors, how it is compromised with cargo bay floor?
And last question: did you show your work in other places than DA?
π: 0 β©: 1
It will have separate weapons bays aka payload bays, which can be reconfigured to hold more fuel or sensors. Only other places I post my stuff are a couple Ace Combat fourms and sometimes GT Planet (mostly my car stuff there).
π: 0 β©: 0
Very cool. Not only is it very aerodynamic, it is also relatively stealthy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks
While it isn't really stealthy from radar, the aircraft would be extremely quiet and have a very low IR signature.
π: 0 β©: 1
You mean low radar signature, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
Doesn't have a very low radar signature due to the exposed engine faces. But, because the engines are mounted above the fuselage, their Infrared signature is nearly eliminated from the bottom. Really though, this aircraft won't fly into enemy territory until air superiority is obtained and most air defenses have been disabled or destroyed. It also would rely on escort aircraft such as my F-XX ALF or F-56 Magnum.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, it would. Flying wings would have a lower radar signature already because of its design. The best example would be the YB-49. In the 1950s, radar operators noticed that this plane had a low radar signature in comparison to planes of the same area and it was not a stealth bomber by any shape or fashion. So compared this to a 747, it would have a low radar signature. However, like you said, this is not going into enemy airspace until the FA-22 does its job or if it had escort fighters with it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, that is true. RCS will be lower than a normal tube and wing aircraft, but still not to "true" stealth levels of a purpose built stealth aircraft.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said that it would be a stealth aircraft. I said that is radar cross signature would be lower. I know that there are things on your aircraft that would prevent it to be a "true" stealth aircraft, lift the engines sticking out. Big radar reflector. As well as the vertical stabilizers being perfectly vertical. Perfectly vertical tail stabilizers will reflect the radar very good and gives the radar operators a strong reflection. The only way to have them not to do that is to have at an angle like the vertical stabilizers of the SR-71 Blackbird, F-22 Raptor, and the F-117 Nighthawk or get rid of it like on the B-2 Spirit. I know it is not a true stealth aircraft, but then, I did not say that in my original comment about it.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, I was just kinda, I dunno lol...
Anyway the vertical stabilizers were removed in my newest update. Probably will post another update tonight or something.
π: 0 β©: 1
Either way, it is very cool and I do hope that something similar to it will exist in the future. We kind of need them.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well done! I think that there is enough lateral stability in the winglet size that those twin tails can be left off, but then I'm a Flying-Wing nut!
I would like to add a pointer to your design in a post to the model builders at the What-if Aero designs forum. That engine placement is new for BWB type designs, which all put them in the back strictly.
Could imagine Boeing, Airbus or Antonov building these.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I probably will get rid of the fins. Anyway thanks!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hmm... I'm not convinced by the reactor's position setup (it looks like a big boeing's, but upside down... are they close to the center of gravity ? ahead of any turbulence ?), but it looks great !
π: 0 β©: 1
Engines are slightly ahead of the center of gravity (increases stability). They are up high to prevent them from sucking up dirt or debris on whatever surface the aircraft is landing on. They also improve lift by using the "CoandΔ" effect.
π: 0 β©: 0
Can lift a single main battle tank, although that really isn't something it will normally be used for. Usually tanks are shipped by sea, since you can carry more on a ship than on a plane
Mostly I see this carrying lighter vehicles into places they normally wouldn't be able to get to by larger transports such as a C-17 or C-5M.
π: 0 β©: 1
But why have the rudders straight up rather than at an angle, wouldn't that provide better yaw?
π: 0 β©: 1
They are at a slight angle. I may give it split ailerons and remove the vertical fins entirely.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wouldn't that compromise yaw ability?
π: 0 β©: 1
The B-2 manages just fine without vertical stabilizers
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm still wondering how they do that.
π: 0 β©: 1
The B-2, like the YB-49, XB-35, and Ho-229 all used what are called "split ailerons", and they act as rudders in a flying wing design. When split open, they create drag, which slows down that side of the plane, creating yaw. When both sides open at the same time, it acts as a speed brake. Like the B-2, this aircraft is fly by wire, so the computers keeps things in check. Although, it can be flown without the computers (unlike the B-2), but that means you also can stall or otherwise get the aircraft into a dangerous situation.
π: 0 β©: 1
I see. In that case it would be better.
π: 0 β©: 0
Of course. Gotta be mad to come up with creative designs
π: 0 β©: 1
Eheh, that reminds me of something! xD
π: 0 β©: 1
No, not the plane, lol, the statement.
π: 0 β©: 1
wow this is cool! but if I were you I would forget about guns and have various electronics and infrared jamming and dazzlers instead. most transports don't carry heavy guns unless it is part of the cargo.
and if it does carry any integral weapons systems think Osprey or Blackhawk: sufficient to protect the aircraft but so heavy that it defeats the entire thought process behind that function of the aircraft.
Good concept overall, love the blended wing body anyway. will watch this to see the progress.
π: 0 β©: 1
Will already have a massive amount of countermeasures and jamming systems, since it is a tactical aircraft after all. Also due to the position of the engines, IR jamming is basically not required, although it will have various IR countermeasures. From below you won't see the IR signature of the engines.
As for the gunship concept though, I may drop it and just keep missile/smart bomb based weapons. Gunship role might go to an enlarged version of my Mule transport, which is more conventional in design. The upscaled Mule will also be a bit smaller than this (roughly C-130J sized), improving agility (which is needed for a gunship). Dunno when I will start that design though.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well it seems that you have a good idea going here just don't try to create a flying battleship ok?
π: 0 β©: 1
lol, though I have considered a flying "cruiser", which would have been my C-50 Titan with tons of vertical launch missiles...
π: 0 β©: 1
Now you are verging on being silly, like some of those behemoth Soviet planes of the Cold War or the Spruce Goose.
π: 0 β©: 1
haha, all I did for C-50 was scale up the Boeing BWB proposals to Boeing Pelican Concept levels of size. Completely realistic, though would probably cost an assload of money...
C-XX is more akin to a C-17 in size, just a bit shorter, but wider in span.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the design is looking good but have you thought about designing the inside?
π: 0 β©: 1
I would like to, but I doubt I will due to laziness lol...
π: 0 β©: 1
I know that feeling! LOL
π: 0 β©: 0