Got bored at work, made a fighter.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-03-15 08:00pm

The other alternative would be to move the intake forward, like the Falcon (also like the Typhoon and the MiG 1.42). That nets you more space for underbelly pylons.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2005-03-16 11:59am

OK folks, had a bit of time today so have redone the design to more fit in with the suggestions of the group. The wings are now seperate parts that I can articulate and move as I wish, the intake is larger and moved forwards like the Falcons, and twin tails was the most popular so thats there too. We have more space for weapons, but it does look a little more conventional than the original wide design.

Dont worry about the lack of engines, once I freeze the shape and begin detailing the fighter i will chop off those stub-ends and place in vectored flat nozzles like the Raptor has.

Any more suggestions for your fighter, dudes? There's no real limit to what we can try if I get the time each day.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-03-16 12:53pm

It should have a way to land without touching the ground with the final part of the wings. Or it is meant to dock at something in air?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2005-03-16 04:42pm

Melchior wrote:It should have a way to land without touching the ground with the final part of the wings. Or it is meant to dock at something in air?

Way to just jump in, and not read the thread at all. The wingtips are articulated, like the B-70's.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-03-16 04:54pm

Looks good. From the size of the cockpit, I presume it's a light fighter?

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-03-16 05:07pm

Beowulf wrote: Way to just jump in, and not read the thread at all. The wingtips are articulated, like the B-70's.

The opening under the nose is still about as low as the fingertips.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-03-16 05:09pm

No, the wingtips are considerably lower than the inlet. On the other hand, as has already been mentioned, the tips are variable geometry, so it's not a problem.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-03-16 05:46pm

Try putting the foil tail setup back on the plane. See what that does to the new design. Tha twould also help give it the more futuristic look you want while incorperating the more traditional elements you did.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2005-03-17 04:15am

OK, I'll have a look at a different tail design, the spoiler look of the original probably, and I'll see what other tweaks I can make. I'll certainly add some cylindrical fairings on the wingtip joints so that it's obvious even to Melchior that it's articulated (like the Valkyrie) and I'm thinking I'll make this a single engine light fighter. Once the body shape is finalised and I 'freeze' it into shape I'll cut out one wide, vectoring flat nozzle like the F-22 has on each of it's engines, so that this thing is manoueverable and more believable given that it's Falcon sized and looks more single that twin engined anyway. I'll then post pics and you can all suggest away...

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-03-17 05:08am

Personally, I say this design is too F-16ish. I prefer the original one, the one with the fancy hind wings. The only thing wrong with the old one was the nose and the small engines, aside from that, it was really unique and original.

And you don't really need to use a F-22ish thruster to make your craft vector-thrust capable. The Russians were the ones who pioneered vectored-thrust and the asses of their most advanced aircraft look nothing like the 22.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-03-17 08:18am

That, and flat nozzles would be useful only for 2D vectoring. Although the Russian designs are also 2D, there have been studies into 3D vectoring (X-31 comes to mind).

Anyway, yes, the original design looked better, at least as far as rear end/cockpit detail was concerned. Only the nose and inlet needed to be changed. For the latter, I'd pick a more square inlet, to go along with the rest of the design.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2005-03-17 10:52am

Here's another update using yer input, so dont blame me if it lookes like and F-16 if you have me move the intake and so forth to the same position as an F-16.

This time I've gone for the spoiler T-tail shape, enlarged the swivel wingtips slightly, lengthened the whole craft at the front, added an air probe, fairings for the swivel tip joints, flattened and widened the air intake (more like a Typhoon now), given the wings a dihedral angle, the canards are now anhedral, widened the strakes/wingroots and slightly beefed up the body all over.

I've been reading up a lot on the XB-70, the only other fast mover I can find data on that has swivel wingtips, and they do make a lot of sense for high-speed, low-drag travel. I thought they just looked a bit different, but they do work well for sustained high speed. As for the engine nozzles, they will go in last so I'm not too fussy about them at the moment. The 2D vector nozzles will fit well and look topical, that's why I mentioned them. 3D Vectoring would be even better, but the engines dont sit proud enough for that on this design and it seems more geared to high speed that anything else anyway. As for cockpit detail, window frames etc, I cant add them in until I freeze the model, so they go in last with the other small details.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2005-03-17 11:08am

Kenny, you might want to keep it with two engine outlets so you can get 3d thrust vectoring on the plane.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-17 12:37pm

This fighter is starting to look mighty badass. I can't wait to see the finished product.

I agree with the assessment of 2-D thrust vectoring. It would just fit better stylistically.

Comosicus · Post by **Comosicus** » 2005-03-17 05:19pm

Viewed from below, the last fighter looks like a big bad shark to me.

Kenny_10_Bellys · Post by **Kenny_10_Bellys** » 2005-03-24 11:10am

OK, got some more time at work today to play around with this a little more. This time we've got a compass-ghost style paint job, weapons added, control surfaces added, antennae dotted around and articulated the canards and wingtips. Still not had time to do the engines though, will get to that sometime soon...

As for coming up with an excuse for this, think of it as a new version of the Typhoon with a mission adaptive wing. The wingtips are raised flat for takeoff, landing and slow cruise. For high speed, high level cruise the wingtips are fully lowered and reduce drag significantly (check the XB-70 sites for data on this effect) and for mid/high speed low level stuff they are raised for stability and clearance. How's that sound?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2005-03-24 04:40pm

Hmm... looks like the first entry in this quarter's CG contest...

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-03-24 10:23pm

Amazing!

Still, I also liked the original's boxiness, it's....X-wingish. Sure, that's not really good for a realistic fighter plane, but why don't you try and make a starfighter using the original as your template (or whatever you call that)?