Re: LO features


Message posted by Sundog on September 28, 2003 at 1:41:25 PST:

Actually,
The X-32 didn't have a serpentine duct and the fan blades were readily visible in a head on aspect. What has happened, through the use of advanced CFD code and manufacturing techniques is that Boeing and other companies can design a sort of 'guide vane/baffle unit, that will mount in front of the fan. My understanding is that some of these are variable, such that, under take off conditions etc, they allow alot of air in while sacrificing signature. Then when flying they can change the vane angle to allow proper airflow in and keep the signature low hiding the fan face. In fact, many companies are looking at using this technology because it can be significantly lighter and easier to manufacture than serpentine ducts. What I would find interesting is if this technology could, at a relatively low cost, be retro fitted to F-15's and F-16s to hide their fan faces and greatly lower their signatures in the heead on aspect.

As for tailless designs, many contractors have designs which are tail-less and one is reportedly flying at Area 51 (Whether or not this vehicle being referenced was the Bird of Prey, I don't know). In fact, Lockheed has had many proposals to fly a tailless fighter, one version being an F-16XL without it's tail and a new wing, but they never secured funding (At least in the white world.) I have alos seen a tailess Boeing fighter design (on paper). They are also looking at using fluidic controls versus standard mechanical controls as well. In fact, based on what I have seen, Lockheeds X-44 Manta proposal would have relied heavily on fluidic controls, although they only state 'thrust vectoring' as the only controls. Fluidic controls can be used to vector thrust and reportedly were used to vector the X-36's thrust in yaw. My guess is they were using the vectored thrust in yaw on the X-36 for control (aka, like a rudder) and the split ailerons for stability (ala the vertical stabilizer). Now, they actually probably 'mixed' the controls for optimization, but that's how I would have probably set it up.


In Reply to: LO features posted by Magoo on September 26, 2003 at 15:12:28 PST:

Replies:



[ Discussion Forum Index ] [ FAQ ]