Silhouette challenge
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry missed the "next page".
So:
- Not a UAV.
- Not a Firefox (nose was far less pointed, and it was a canard)
- Cockpit at the right, looking from back/above
- Project, of course
So:
- Not a UAV.
- Not a Firefox (nose was far less pointed, and it was a canard)
- Cockpit at the right, looking from back/above
- Project, of course
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's the one Graeme! 
The one and only (afaik) space floatplane ever devised in the history of flight!
As someone pointed out,
OH, I suppose?
The one and only (afaik) space floatplane ever devised in the history of flight!
As someone pointed out,
If you wanted a reusable first stage/suborbital plane there are several features completely out of place:
1:The tail configuration is very stealthy but less optimal then an cruciform 90 degrees f-16, f-16, su-27 style configuration aerodynamically.
An optimized concept would skip it altogeather as low manouvrability can be archived with thrust vectoring.
2:By using an F-22 YF-23 style "flat" engine exhaust you loose 2-3% of thrust and gain extra weight. Stalthy but again suboptimal.
3:If you are using rocket propulsion you are denied the use of atmosperic air for your engine, but instead you gain an thrust to weight of about 1,5-2 (fully loaded)
You would want to reduce wing size (and drag) to a minimum - just enough to transform vertical motion into horizontal during landing. FY-23 wings are designed for
high subsonic - low supersonic maneuvrability and high sustained turn rate, and to hold it's weight in the air. Again unnecessary.
1:The tail configuration is very stealthy but less optimal then an cruciform 90 degrees f-16, f-16, su-27 style configuration aerodynamically.
An optimized concept would skip it altogeather as low manouvrability can be archived with thrust vectoring.
2:By using an F-22 YF-23 style "flat" engine exhaust you loose 2-3% of thrust and gain extra weight. Stalthy but again suboptimal.
3:If you are using rocket propulsion you are denied the use of atmosperic air for your engine, but instead you gain an thrust to weight of about 1,5-2 (fully loaded)
You would want to reduce wing size (and drag) to a minimum - just enough to transform vertical motion into horizontal during landing. FY-23 wings are designed for
high subsonic - low supersonic maneuvrability and high sustained turn rate, and to hold it's weight in the air. Again unnecessary.
.
First Hutter to David.
Your control mate.
Hütter Hü 211 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You guys noticed that "edit" is working much better now?
Your control mate.
Hütter Hü 211 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You guys noticed that "edit" is working much better now?
The edit function has been working for a week Graeme - do get on the correct side of the drag curve mate.
Since everyone today seems to be into the weird and wonderful, here's another, except this one is very easy.
Since everyone today seems to be into the weird and wonderful, here's another, except this one is very easy.
Last edited by Lightning Mate; 17th Jun 2011 at 10:51.
