| Author |
Message |
|
nusna_moebius
|
 Posted: Apr 05, 2011 - 11:53 PM
|
 
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 28, 2011 - 01:43 AM
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
Always found the original plane to be one of the most aesthetically pleasing fighters ever, and it's very sad to see the definitive Tiger get the cold shoulder thanks to Lockheed Bribery.
Interesting idea for missile installation:
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 25, 2013 - 11:41 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
geogen
|
|
Posted: Apr 09, 2011 - 05:03 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2804
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
I like the flip-down ventral fin on the tail - ironically I was immediately thinking the exact design concept just before i scrolled down to the las pic and said; 'wow, that's cool'. 
Was the ventral fin fixed, a la F-16 type, or moving to give enhanced ACM adavantage? It looks like a potential candidate also for late-life upgrade involving intake-mounted canard? Pretty bird for the time, no doubt. |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnwill
|
|
Posted: Apr 10, 2011 - 04:23 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 24, 2007 - 09:06 PM
Posts: 1364
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Status: Offline
|
Geogen,
I can't see any mechanism for moving the ventrals (other than unfolding them), so I think they were fixed. More than likely, the Super Tiger, with it's higher mach capability. needed additional directional stability, not directional control power. At the higher machs, the existing vertical tail would be experiencing elastic loss of effectiveness. The ventrals, shorter and stiffer, could have replaced that loss.
Similar devices were used on the MiG-23/27 and Vought's XF8U-3. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prinz_Eugn
|
|
Posted: Apr 10, 2011 - 05:21 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Aug 03, 2008 - 04:35 AM
Posts: 859
Status: Offline
|
| How exactly were they expecting to load that...? |
_________________
"A visitor from Mars could easily pick out the civilized nations. They have the best implements of war."
|
|
|
|
|
|
outlaw162
|
|
Posted: Apr 10, 2011 - 08:10 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Feb 28, 2008 - 02:33 AM
Posts: 968
Status: Offline
|
Very carefully.
OL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnwill
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2011 - 01:04 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 24, 2007 - 09:06 PM
Posts: 1364
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Status: Offline
|
How did they load the overwing stores on the Jaguar? I was also wondering about the effects of the aft missile plume on the vertical tail.
Take a close look at the photo taken from the left rear quarter. You can see the canopy is slid up and back and the forward part of the forward missile seems to be attached to the canopy, while the rest of the missile is attached to the upper fuselage. I think they still had a few problems to solve before the mounting was perfected. Reminds me of the wooden AMRAAMs attached to the lower surface of the F-16XL without bothering to cut troughs into the airplane lower surface. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
outlaw162
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2011 - 02:42 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Feb 28, 2008 - 02:33 AM
Posts: 968
Status: Offline
|
I am thinking that shooting that aft missile under 4 or 5 positive G's would not be that great for the front of the aircraft either.
At a very minimum I think the pilot would need additional ear protection.
Except for the 'Super' Sabre I can't think of any fighter officially named the "Super Something" that ever made it. (I'm sure someone will though.)
OL
(edit: and Super Hornet) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnwill
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2011 - 06:21 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 24, 2007 - 09:06 PM
Posts: 1364
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Status: Offline
|
Super Etandard
Not a fighter, but the B-29/B-50 Superfortress seems to have had a good result. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
flighthawk
|
|
Posted: Apr 11, 2011 - 08:06 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Jan 10, 2007 - 08:06 PM
Posts: 372
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
nusna_moebius
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2011 - 12:41 AM
|
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 28, 2011 - 01:43 AM
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
| Yeah that pic with the "broken" AIM-9 was just a mock-up pick (at least the missile's were mock-ups, though I think the plane was real). I still would've loved to seen how this jet would've done over Vietnam in comparison to the F-8 in terms of close-in dogfighting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: Apr 12, 2011 - 05:18 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1193
Location: Phoenix, Az
Status: Offline
|
| F-11F Super Tiger vs F-8U Super Crusader... Nah. |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
madrat
|
|
Posted: Apr 26, 2011 - 01:26 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 986
Status: Offline
|
| It looks like it would have had good cockpit visibility, low wing loading, and low drag relative fighters that used external stores. What were its drawbacks relative the F-104A Starfighter that beat it out? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
