Forum: Technology

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

-3D TV
- F100-PW-232
- no tail
- rear of the wing enlarged with larger control surfaces capable of providing yaw, pitch and roll control.
- 1 row of 3 AMRAAMs added on each side. Missiles ejected at 45 degrees.
- standard a/a config : 1 centerline tank + 10 AMRAAMs.
- 2 FAST for a/g + wing stations.

Supercruise with 10 AMRAAMs : Mach 1.8.
Top speed with 10 AMRAAMs : Mach 2.3.

F-16.net Sponsor

Should I point out you're hanging missiles where a good portion of the wing root structure is located? Or where those nifty conformal tanks hang?

Or is this a jet for "Combat Aces XXIII"? Poke

TEG

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Why would it be impossible to attach the AMRAAMs there? The conformal fuel tanks are attached there usually and they're very heavy. On the F-16XL the AMRAAMs were semi-recessed in the wing-root too.

The section along the fuselage would have to be modified to attach the AMRAAMs with the lowest drag possible. Maybe it would even be possible to semi-recess the missiles in the angle.

This picture shows well the side of the fuselage: http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/airshow01/ ... e/f15c.jpg

The CFT would have to be modified to interface with the new fuselage contour. The missiles could not be carried with the CFT, so for strike mission, the F-15 would still rely on the missiles carried under the wing. Anyways for a/g the aircraft would be flying at subsonic speed so reducing drag is not as critical.

I was thinking also, the first missile of the row could be an AIM-9X. The F-15 needs WVR missiles, and the AIM-9X is going to be modified to be ejectable for the F-35. The Aim-9X would be mounted so that the seeker would be in front of the wing root for better field of view. One AIM-9X would look at the right hemisphere and the other at the left hemisphere.

The wing could be made larger if necessary.

The AMRAAM has a relatively small sectional area. 4 rows of missiles would not generate too much drag so the aircraft would be FAST. I wouldn't even be surprise if it had an even better t/w ratio than the F-22 and less drag.

This being said, I know that investing in the F-15 at this point is rather pointless. Maybe 10-15 years ago it would have been worth it.

The guy underneath the blue arrow is me Smile

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Rare shot of Akruse21 loading an AIM-120C on an F-15X!

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Rare shot of Viperalltheway testing the maximum speed of the F-15X..

akruse21 wrote:

The guy underneath the blue arrow is me Smile

An engine run there? Noting the bucket and the inlet screen...

I bet the airflow's nasty under there... separation tests would not be fun.

Viperalltheway wrote:

Why would it be impossible to attach the AMRAAMs there? The conformal fuel tanks are attached there usually and they're very heavy.

I guess I don't understand your argument.

Different type connection point than a missile mount, though.

Plus, CFTs are now only used on E models, and of course, the CFT weapon stations are not located there.

This is the problem that I usually have with theoretical aircraft that were never intended, and will never see the light of day. I tend to analyze it from the point of what's real, and what isn't.

Viperalltheway wrote:

Why would it be impossible to attach the AMRAAMs there? The conformal fuel tanks are attached there usually and they're very heavy. On the F-16XL the AMRAAMs were semi-recessed in the wing-root too.

Not really. The F-16XL AMRAAMS were not recessed into the wing root, they just looked that way. The wing roots were not recessed, although for a production airplane that was the plan. The XL AMRAAMs were only the lower half of a missile. To put the airplane CG in the right place, the aft set of missiles was ballasted to normal weight, but the forward missiles were made of wood.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

akruse21 wrote:

The guy underneath the blue arrow is me Smile

An engine run there? Noting the bucket and the inlet screen...

First run out of phase at PSAB. Caption read Crew readies aircraft for combat sortie Smile

Where you plan on placing that "extra" hard point is in the direct path of high speed bleed air exhaust. Hot and continous bleed air. Won't work.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

You're sure? I checked the dimensions for a row of 1 AIM-9X and 2 AIM-120s. The third missile would end like 1 foot or 2 earlier than on the picture. Also the missile would be protected by the structure of the aircraft. The missile would be ejected at 45 degrees away from the aircraft.

But maybe you're right I don't really know..

As for mounting the missiles in the wingroot, the AIM-9 and AIM-120 are relatively light, so heavy hardpoints would not be required.

I'm not sure that the missile could be semi-recessed. I tried to find drawings of the wingroot so see if there's room for that but I have not been able to find something detailed enough. But one thing's for sure, the AMRAAM is relatively small. The wingspan of the C/D is short and the diameter is only 7''. The slot for the missile would have to be only 3.5'' deep.

But here again I'm not sure.

This being said, I have another idea. The F-16XL wing was really great. Why not try to mount it on the F-15? I checked all the pictures and the drawing that I could and maybe it would not be too difficult. The length and the wing area seem to be just find.

As for interfacing the F-15 fuselage with the F-16XL wing, the aft section of the fuselage could be modified at will because the aircraft would have no tail. Hopefully the rear section of the wing would not have to be changed. The mid and front section of the wing would be modified to attach to the existing frame.

Here's a drawing of the F-15 wing and fuselage: http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h ... 1%26sa%3DN

Other things I would do is:
- modify the front AMRAAM missile station to be able to launch a sidewinder ( the sidewinder is going to be modified to be ejectable for the F-35 ).
- try to have an AMRAAM semi-recessed at the back like on the F-16XL. That station could be used with the CFT.
If the 4 AAMs are mounted there, there would be no need for wingtip missile which increase drag.
- of course I would keep the rows of wing stations of the XL to reduce drag, but I would make sure that one station could carry the F-15 external tank.

The standard a/a configuration would be 2 AIM-9Xs at the front of the wing, 2 AIM-120s semi-recessed at the back, plus 2 rows of 2 AMRAAMs along the fuselage or on the CFTs like now. The missiles would not create too much drag and the aircraft would have a good range with a centerline tank. Once the centerline tank is dropped it would supercruise fast so there would be no need to use the afterburner. Supersonic autonomy would be about 3 times better than now ( more fuel in the wing, less drag, supercruise ).

The F-15 would carry much more fuel in the wing, which would compensate for the wing fuel tank in most cases. That would free all the wing weapon stations. For instance instead of carrying 1 tank on the wing, it could carry 3 2000lbs bombs and the fuel in the wing. The aircraft could carry much more weapons than now on the wing in any circumstance.

I guess the a/c would be faster too with a comparable ordnance.

The wing would be further back than on the F-16 XL, but maybe the extra weight would be compensated by the lack of tails.

If the aircraft has a problem of pitch, maybe the thrust vectoring could be used to correct that in real time.

LM would build the wing. They've worked on it extensively so it would be easier for them to do the modification. They could even improve it.

MAYBE, I say MAYBE that would be possible at a acceptable cost.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

I bet the airflow's nasty under there... separation tests would not be fun.

Note that the AMRAAM is 1/3rd lighter than the sparrow. The ejectors were designed originally for the sparrow. The AMRAAM would be ejected 50% faster.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

TC wrote:

Viperalltheway wrote:

Why would it be impossible to attach the AMRAAMs there? The conformal fuel tanks are attached there usually and they're very heavy.

I guess I don't understand your argument.

Different type connection point than a missile mount, though.

Plus, CFTs are now only used on E models, and of course, the CFT weapon stations are not located there.

This is the problem that I usually have with theoretical aircraft that were never intended, and will never see the light of day. I tend to analyze it from the point of what's real, and what isn't.

What I wanted to say is that the structure in the wingroot is very strong. You don't have the kind of limitation that you would have say at the wing tip.

The AIM-9 and AIM-120 are relatively light. Chances are good that they could be attached there. Now is there enough room inside to put the ejector that's the question.

Viperalltheway wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

I bet the airflow's nasty under there... separation tests would not be fun.

Note that the AMRAAM is 1/3rd lighter than the sparrow. The ejectors were designed originally for the sparrow. The AMRAAM would be ejected 50% faster.

I was talking about the fictional wing-root ones. There's probably a reason they don't put stuff there- pylons are there for a reason.

Forum: Technology

Super Eagle