![]() ![]() Oh, that perfectly proportioned classy nose/canopy section (like some of the Hawker jets of the same era), old school bare metal finish that just sort of conveys a dirtier, more "industrial" power, an absolutely great looking wing planform with moderate sweep and a fat contra-rotating prop as the icing on the cake. Can't deny the aesthetic appeal though.Īlso, for good measure, I just have to mention my all time fav twin-boomer: But as many have already said, the chief reasons that anybody even went twin-boom in the first place have been kinda negated by developments since the 1950's. If I'm not entirely mistaken, my memory could be failing me, I've actually seen some renders/promo material for a concept twin-boom CAS aircraft, jet-powered, coming from some Russian design bureau. But a competitive fighter today? I doubt it. Totally viable COIN aircraft, and I see no particular reason that a similar configuration couldn't be scaled up and shaped into a subsonic, armored CAS aircraft (A-10/Su-25-style). Anyway, you guys have been talking about twin booms and forward sweep, so here's a sweet combination of the two: Yah, but ground attack isn't exactly what makes a fighter. It sounds like this arrangement is ideal for recon or ground attack. 2nd November 2015 at 05:14 - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00 A flight of six de Havilland Vampire twin boom single engine jet fighters from No.601 County of London Squadron Royal Auxilary Air Force in line astern. Ignoring the someone's utterly useless (as usual) post only directed at flamebaiting me. (Obvious example is Virgin Atlantic Global Flyer, which has flown to a longer distance than any other aircraft)ī) you have dimensional constraints like length/height, or you want an airframe feature that prevents using a conventional design (like the rear entry ramp on Su-80), and you are forced to use twin boom. ![]() So today, for most (if not all) cases, twin boom design end-up preferrable only ifĪ) you want a light, long ranged but slow aircraft, which will not see high speeds so increased drag is not an issue, does not require maneuverability so CG and aeroelasticity problems are not an issue, but lightened structure will provide benefits like increased payload, fuel or reduced wing loading. Moving weight futher away from CG will reduce roll rate, and moving wing structure's CG futher aft of aerodynamic center will decrease resistance to flutter. Simply putting engines underwing, and using a more conventional tail design is better for most scenarios. You can't just fit a modern jet engine into a "boom" with reasonable size. Obvious disadvantage is increased skin area per internal volume, leading to increased drag, Depending on design, booms, tails and elevators MAY cause increased interference drag. It actually offers some structural advantages as some weight is placed towards the middle of the wing (and not at the fuselage end), so bending forces are reduced and airframe could be made lighter. There is nothing prevents such design to be used in a modern fighter.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |