eagle2007
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 1
ALCON,
Sorry I've missed out on all the fun fellas. Been having some wonky internet all day.
I have been tracking this story since this morning however, in between sketchy connections..
Here are my observations for what it's worth:
Sorry I've missed out on all the fun fellas. Been having some wonky internet all day.
I have been tracking this story since this morning however, in between sketchy connections..
Here are my observations for what it's worth:
- Control Surfaces- I'm not aeronautical engineer so I won't try claim I know about whether those wings/canards work. The one thing I will say is this: the thickness of the wing isn't what bothers me, it's more that the wing's leading edge seems to barely have any edge to it at all. Perhaps because the canards are mounted directly in front of them? No clue there but it is unusual. (and yes Mohsen, I did look closely and the X-32's wing and it has MUCH more edge to it than the F-313's).
- Engines- Given the F-313's apparent size, I think J85s are a logical guess. Whether they've got afterburners installed or not, can'be certain. Their positioning will help somewhat with their IR signature but given they're turboJET engines, it's going to be difficult to hide regardless. As a rule, turbojets operate at much higher temperatures than turbofans (hence why even small engines like the J85 use titanium).
- Sensor Ball- Definitely takes away from the aircraft's authenticity in IMHO. While it is fairly small, you don't generally installed round sensor balls on a high-speed aircraft without making it flush with the airframe somehow (see how the MiG-29's IRST is mounted or even Japan's upgraded F-15s).
- Intakes- As I've said before, from my various readings of aviation books that cover "stealth" aircraft, the idea of high-mounted intakes like this does help when trying to reduce your RCS from ground-based radars. Likewise however, given how they're mounted and my basic understanding of aerodynamics, if you're pulling high angles of attack, the airflow into those intakes will be reduced compared to more traditional later intakes. With reduced airflow, comes the increased possibility of an engine stall. There's likely a reason these type of intakes are fairly rare and only sported by dedicated attack/bomber type aircraft (F-117, B-2, to name a few), they aren't design to maneuver!
- Size- This just a pure eyeball-test but I'd say the F-313 is about the same size as an F-5, though with a greater wingspan I'd wager. It looks bigger in same angles because it's "thicker" than the F-5. It's control surfaces are much thicker, as is the main body itself. This isn't a bad thing, the F-5 was VERY "skinny" for it's size.
- 1) Do those engines have afterburners? If not, almost no chance it can achieve supersonic speed.
- 2) To Mohsen's point of about the F-5 being supersonic and being "made out of metal": The F-5 is also "thinner" than the F-313, aka it's wings and vertical stabilizer are VERY thin/sharp. This was done to, you guessed it, achieve as much speed as possible with an airframe with just 10,000lbs of afterburning thrust. The F-313 has much thicker control surfaces and high-mounted intakes (so less airflow than the F-5's lateral intakes, especially in higher AoAs).
- 3) So even it had the same amount of thrust available and used a high % of composites, I suspect it's top speed wouldn't be any better than the F-5E's, possibly less even.
- 4) Assuming the previous point was true, that's not really that important. Higher supersonic speeds are highly overrated in today's combat aviation. Mach 1.5 or so is considered plenty fast these days for a fighter of the F-313 apparent size (see KAI T-50 for example).