Thales/QinetiQ Scorpion for ASDOT
Hmm, Tutt says increasing the sweep angle should correct the slightly too far aft C of G, Huh? Surely, moving the outer wings back 4 Deg would add aft C of G
Forget the aesthetics anyway. Adding wing-sweep is not beneficial to the niche that this aircraft is seemingly aimed at - if you want easy handling (for moderate ability pilots), ISR loiter time, possibly light CAS - why do you need wing sweep?
"What about the Hawk?"
Agreed, might as well use a real, and known airplane.
Agreed, might as well use a real, and known airplane.
Adding to what Tourist is saying, 'We' won't be buying the aircraft, 'we' will be buying the capability from Qinetiq etc if they win the program. Someone else may propose Hawk for it.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of Trim @ post 10
Perhaps adding a swept wing will move lift aft thereby reducing the moment arm between Centre of Gravity and Centre of Lift and achieving the design intent.
Perhaps adding a swept wing will move lift aft thereby reducing the moment arm between Centre of Gravity and Centre of Lift and achieving the design intent.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/t...national-ink-/
Also note the Thales report in Flight mentions
Also note the Thales report in Flight mentions
Once introduced, the ASDOT system will also draw on the use of military assets, such as BAE Systems Hawk jet trainers and some of the Royal Air Force’s Tranche 1 production-standard Eurofighter Typhoons.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The 24th and a Half Century
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks DaveF! So Draken have gotten some of the Kahu Skyhawks the Kiwis got rid of, that's not a bad capability for all the mission sets. Did I read correct in Flight that Draken's L-159s are providing aggressor duties at Nellis?
DD24.5C,
Yes - USAF 65 AS with the F-15C has been disbanded and Draken have been contracted on a trial basis with the A-4K initially.
Official Nellis AFB video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJdfA0tRr0U
Articles here:
http://www.drakenintl.com/news-2015-6.html
Why Is the Air Force Using Jet-Flying Mercenaries? | The National Interest Blog
http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.co...retirement-gig
Company Website: http://drakenintl.com/
Yes - USAF 65 AS with the F-15C has been disbanded and Draken have been contracted on a trial basis with the A-4K initially.
Official Nellis AFB video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJdfA0tRr0U
Articles here:
http://www.drakenintl.com/news-2015-6.html
Why Is the Air Force Using Jet-Flying Mercenaries? | The National Interest Blog
http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.co...retirement-gig
Company Website: http://drakenintl.com/
Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 16th Jul 2016 at 05:05.
DD24.5C,
The Hawk T1 is now 42 years old so what is your point about the age of a type? The ex-Swiss Hunter F58 airframes are very low life and upgrades keep old airframes going for many years. The F58 is capable of 550 KIAS+ at 50 ft ASL and a sustained IMN at 40,000ft of between 0.88 and ~0.96 depending upon external stores configuration and with a respectable sustained turn capability; the Hawk of any Mark has nowhere near this performance and nor does it have the internal space for additional systems. Other platforms with these capabilities cost considerably more to purchase and to operate. The devil is in the detail so beware of pre-conceived ideas!!!
With respect to HHA's contracts, their airframes are UK military registered and their operation is regulated by the MAA. If they did not have contracts that were in the interest of UK MoD they would not be able to operate the aircraft with such registration. And please tell us more about what made you chuckle about the Air Clues article.
JustT,
Sweeping the wing back does indeed move the aerodynamic centre (lift) aft but that is to increase the static margin (distance between the c.g and the aerodynamic centre) in order to increase the longitudinal static and manoeuvre stabilities. There is an interesting historical precedent for this - the Short Sunderland had the same done for the same reason (and the engine mounts were not modified so the thrust lines are angled outwards from the longitudinal fuselage datum).
Out Of Trim,
You are correct that sweeping the wings aft will move the overall mass distribution aft but that mass is a very small percentage of the whole whereas the lift acting at the aerodynamic centre essentially equals the AUW of the aircraft in 1g flight.
The Hawk T1 is now 42 years old so what is your point about the age of a type? The ex-Swiss Hunter F58 airframes are very low life and upgrades keep old airframes going for many years. The F58 is capable of 550 KIAS+ at 50 ft ASL and a sustained IMN at 40,000ft of between 0.88 and ~0.96 depending upon external stores configuration and with a respectable sustained turn capability; the Hawk of any Mark has nowhere near this performance and nor does it have the internal space for additional systems. Other platforms with these capabilities cost considerably more to purchase and to operate. The devil is in the detail so beware of pre-conceived ideas!!!
With respect to HHA's contracts, their airframes are UK military registered and their operation is regulated by the MAA. If they did not have contracts that were in the interest of UK MoD they would not be able to operate the aircraft with such registration. And please tell us more about what made you chuckle about the Air Clues article.
JustT,
Sweeping the wing back does indeed move the aerodynamic centre (lift) aft but that is to increase the static margin (distance between the c.g and the aerodynamic centre) in order to increase the longitudinal static and manoeuvre stabilities. There is an interesting historical precedent for this - the Short Sunderland had the same done for the same reason (and the engine mounts were not modified so the thrust lines are angled outwards from the longitudinal fuselage datum).
Out Of Trim,
You are correct that sweeping the wings aft will move the overall mass distribution aft but that mass is a very small percentage of the whole whereas the lift acting at the aerodynamic centre essentially equals the AUW of the aircraft in 1g flight.
Last edited by LOMCEVAK; 17th Jul 2016 at 23:44.
Some aerodynamic fixes are often perplexing...
Student (to QFI with shiny new A2): "Sir, why does the F-14 have two fins?".
QFI (quick as a flash after recalling all that hard A2 preparation work): "To improve directional stability at high Mach No." - followed by nicely drawn multi-colour diagram of fin AoA and dCL/dα curve.
Student: "Ah, thank you sir, I understand now, sir. But sir, why does a Shackleton have two fins?"
Student (to QFI with shiny new A2): "Sir, why does the F-14 have two fins?".
QFI (quick as a flash after recalling all that hard A2 preparation work): "To improve directional stability at high Mach No." - followed by nicely drawn multi-colour diagram of fin AoA and dCL/dα curve.
Student: "Ah, thank you sir, I understand now, sir. But sir, why does a Shackleton have two fins?"
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Jul 2016 at 10:47.
Beags - from1971.
"Why have Westlands mounted the Lynx's engines behind the rotor mast?"
" To balance the 7cwt of lead in the nose of course".
"Why have Westlands mounted the Lynx's engines behind the rotor mast?"
" To balance the 7cwt of lead in the nose of course".
Last edited by Haraka; 19th Jul 2016 at 17:21.
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wales
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Anybody read as to who else may be competing given the variety of mission sets?"
Only two other firm bids in the offing that I know of, it isn't exactly a mature market and one of them is effectively vapourware..
The Scorpion was tested, more than once, and laughed out of town. Everyone thinks a cheap jet like the Textron is a great idea, until they fly it. Hence the no orders situation.
Various potential players have been harassing Saab trying to get the older Gripens, though it's a no go as the Swedish government isn't playing ball. For odd reasons.
The Hunters mentioned are attractive from an operator point of view, though fail to simulate anything but a museum's corporate party event. Typhoons are obviously the main focus for DACT and there is a strange thought that an aggressor has to have some part of the envelope to play in. Better than the current Falcons I guess.
Discovery Air Defence, teamed with two companies who should know better, have the most crackpot scheme though. They'll buy surplus Israeli F-16 block 10s, as far as anyone can tell purely for the teen series wow bid factor. The fact that the OEM won't support them, nor the major parts thereof ( engine, radar), which means the CAA won't allow it didn't even dent their stride. There's a reason they are cheap. They'll go on the Canadian military register instead!
Yeah....
Draken's bid has firmed up, definitely not A-4s though, they've got their eyes on Belgium's Alpha Jets.
About 90% of the requirement doesn't need anything fast or pointy, so I wouldn't hold my breath on anything more agile than a target tug.
Only two other firm bids in the offing that I know of, it isn't exactly a mature market and one of them is effectively vapourware..
The Scorpion was tested, more than once, and laughed out of town. Everyone thinks a cheap jet like the Textron is a great idea, until they fly it. Hence the no orders situation.
Various potential players have been harassing Saab trying to get the older Gripens, though it's a no go as the Swedish government isn't playing ball. For odd reasons.
The Hunters mentioned are attractive from an operator point of view, though fail to simulate anything but a museum's corporate party event. Typhoons are obviously the main focus for DACT and there is a strange thought that an aggressor has to have some part of the envelope to play in. Better than the current Falcons I guess.
Discovery Air Defence, teamed with two companies who should know better, have the most crackpot scheme though. They'll buy surplus Israeli F-16 block 10s, as far as anyone can tell purely for the teen series wow bid factor. The fact that the OEM won't support them, nor the major parts thereof ( engine, radar), which means the CAA won't allow it didn't even dent their stride. There's a reason they are cheap. They'll go on the Canadian military register instead!
Yeah....
Draken's bid has firmed up, definitely not A-4s though, they've got their eyes on Belgium's Alpha Jets.
About 90% of the requirement doesn't need anything fast or pointy, so I wouldn't hold my breath on anything more agile than a target tug.
"
Discovery Air Defence, teamed with two companies who should know better, have the most crackpot scheme though. They'll buy surplus Israeli F-16 block 10s, as far as anyone can tell purely for the teen series wow bid factor. The fact that the OEM won't support them, nor the major parts thereof ( engine, radar), which means the CAA won't allow it didn't even dent their stride. There's a reason they are cheap. They'll go on the Canadian military register instead!
Discovery Air Defence, teamed with two companies who should know better, have the most crackpot scheme though. They'll buy surplus Israeli F-16 block 10s, as far as anyone can tell purely for the teen series wow bid factor. The fact that the OEM won't support them, nor the major parts thereof ( engine, radar), which means the CAA won't allow it didn't even dent their stride. There's a reason they are cheap. They'll go on the Canadian military register instead!
