FA+
Shop
422
Views
Views
6
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 768 x 960
File Size 58.3 kB
Report this content
More from Blacktail_F-A
This design was inspired by the prototypical eastern bloc-style tactical fighter. I wanted a Mig-23 Flogger-like aircraft, but without the delicate, maintnance-intensive variable geometry wings. Fitting it with a pair of simple (slightly) anherial swept wings fit the bill, though the rounded airscoops with shock cones and splitter plates hint at the Mirage F1. This thing would have been a holy terror in 1970's-era air battles --- not only would this fighter be highly maneuverable and fast, but it's small, simple fuselage would mean little money or materials would be needed to build lots of them. They could be built in the tens-of-thousands.
It's not without it's faults, though. The dorsal fin ang low landing gear make landings, take-offs, and even taxiing very tricky. All of those antennas poking out everywhere ramp up the EM emissions, probably making the Rapier's RCS very large. Finally, the cockpit is EXTREMELY cramped, and rear visibility is laughable. Also, as there's no room for any internal guns, there are two 23mm conformal gunpods instead, which would give lousy gun convergeance, precious little ammo (probably just 200 rounds, total), alligning them would be difficult, and maneuvers over 9G's could snap them right off.
But at least 7 hardpoints let the Rapier carry plenty of missiles. Also, the size of the wings might allow them to hold fuel internally, which would give the Rapier something the Mig-19, 21, 23, and 27 never had --- a decent range on internal fuel alone.
It's not without it's faults, though. The dorsal fin ang low landing gear make landings, take-offs, and even taxiing very tricky. All of those antennas poking out everywhere ramp up the EM emissions, probably making the Rapier's RCS very large. Finally, the cockpit is EXTREMELY cramped, and rear visibility is laughable. Also, as there's no room for any internal guns, there are two 23mm conformal gunpods instead, which would give lousy gun convergeance, precious little ammo (probably just 200 rounds, total), alligning them would be difficult, and maneuvers over 9G's could snap them right off.
But at least 7 hardpoints let the Rapier carry plenty of missiles. Also, the size of the wings might allow them to hold fuel internally, which would give the Rapier something the Mig-19, 21, 23, and 27 never had --- a decent range on internal fuel alone.
Category Designs / Miscellaneous
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 768 x 960px
File Size 58.3 kB
The disadvantage of not having a gun build in to the airframe would make it as good as a dog fighter as the F-4 Phantom. That is, not the best dog fighter. With out any stealth capibuility, chances are it's going to get in to a dog fight, range too close and G's too high for missiles to be effective. A fighter with out a gun is like a knite with out a sward.
Nice design.
Nice design.
Thanks for thoughts. Keep in mind, though, that the Rapier represnts the norm for the early 70's, when many bureaucrats and armchair generals were STILL convinced that missiles were a valid substitute for mobilty, range, and guns in fighters. Now they just think missiles are a substitute for speed. :(
The front half looks vaguely F-102-ish. :P I would have to say that it sounds like a plausible design from the late 60's-early 70's. They felt that guns were obsolescent because of missiles, and thus eliminated them (on the F-4, for instance, or the MiG-25 [I think]).
One suggestion I have is that those airbrakes seem slightly small to slow an aircraft that large. I know that it wasn't really designed for dogfighting, but airbrakes come in handy in other situations as well. :)
A thought occurred to me just as I was about to hit "add reply." Might this be a long-range interceptor design? It has potential in that role (the similarity to the F-102 in the nose section triggered that thought).
One suggestion I have is that those airbrakes seem slightly small to slow an aircraft that large. I know that it wasn't really designed for dogfighting, but airbrakes come in handy in other situations as well. :)
A thought occurred to me just as I was about to hit "add reply." Might this be a long-range interceptor design? It has potential in that role (the similarity to the F-102 in the nose section triggered that thought).
Well first of all, this was based mostly on the Mig-23 Flogger and the Mirage F1, so it was no small surprise that you mentioned the F-102 Delta Dagger--- not because there IS a slight resemblance, but rather because the design you equated the Rapier with was (unlike the 23 and F1) wonderfully worthless. The F-102 had a pillar that ran right up the front of the canopy, so there was no forward visibility. The only weapons the 102 could use were the AIM-4 Falcon (which was already obsolete when the F-102 entered service, by then replaced by the AIM-9 Sidewinder), and the AIR-2 Genie rocket, whose nuclear warhead (intended to destroy large aircraft formations) made it useless (if you really want to know, I'll explain later). The aerodynamics were so bad, that before area-ruling was applied, supersonic speeds were impossible, even with afterbuner power. The giant delta wings, coupled with the blatant absence of horizonal stabilizers, spelled extremely bad manuverability. The engine was prone to choking in steep climbs and dives, and rain would not only smother it, but also DAMAGE it. In addition to engine issues, the F-102 could only operate in clear weather, because it's FCS could not see through rain or clouds --- as it had no night optics or lookdown ability, the F-102 could only be used in broad daylight. Last, and worst, the only combat record of the F-102 is from an encouter between Turkish 2 F-102s and 2 Greek F-5s during the Cypruss War, with an F-102 gbeing shot down with a Sidewinder --- that's it. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about that.
Now, as for the airbrakes, they are patterned after those used on the Mig-23, my main inspiration for the Rapier. The advantage is that they amount to the same overall area of much larger airbrakes, with a more even distribution of drag (and thus, greater stability and controlability while braking).
The disadvantage is the greater mechanical complexity, with many more moving parts, and thus more weight and things that can break. The power drain they cause is also greater than on aircraft with simpler and/or fewer brakes.
Concerning range, the Type 278 Rapier has a range of only about 700nm, which isn't too short for the Intercepor role. Also, Interceptors require high vertical mobility (mostly meaning a high rates of climb and descent)to rapidly change fighting positions, if neccessary --- the Rapier is designed primarily for horizontal mobility, and without some kind of support (e.g., SAMs, AWACS, Interceptors, etc.), would struggle to defeat approaching threats.
Thus, the Rapier is a Tactical Fighter, just like the Mig-23 it is based on.
Now, as for the airbrakes, they are patterned after those used on the Mig-23, my main inspiration for the Rapier. The advantage is that they amount to the same overall area of much larger airbrakes, with a more even distribution of drag (and thus, greater stability and controlability while braking).
The disadvantage is the greater mechanical complexity, with many more moving parts, and thus more weight and things that can break. The power drain they cause is also greater than on aircraft with simpler and/or fewer brakes.
Concerning range, the Type 278 Rapier has a range of only about 700nm, which isn't too short for the Intercepor role. Also, Interceptors require high vertical mobility (mostly meaning a high rates of climb and descent)to rapidly change fighting positions, if neccessary --- the Rapier is designed primarily for horizontal mobility, and without some kind of support (e.g., SAMs, AWACS, Interceptors, etc.), would struggle to defeat approaching threats.
Thus, the Rapier is a Tactical Fighter, just like the Mig-23 it is based on.
I see. Sorry if I made you angry. I think maybe I was thinking of the F-106, which also had a similar nose section, but was much improved over the -102. Also, I never new that the -102's only combat record was that poor. XD
I don't think I noticed the airbrakes on the underside. That would add a significant amount of drag, and you're right that it would be more controllable than the normal system. It would be markedly more complex, however, so you're right on that point, too. :)
I've not done much research into Russian aircraft designs, so please forgive me if I didn't recall what the MiG-23 was like when I posted. It's the swing-wing one, right? Just like you said in the description. :P
Do you mean that the range is too short for the interceptor role? I'm not sure, because I don't recall comparison figures off the top of my head, but I would think that 700 nautical miles would be plenty. I will, however, defer to you on that, since you obviously have a much better recall for that sort of thing than I do. :)
I know that interceptors need a good climb rate. In fact, I was about to suggest that an interceptor version be up-engined, just in case the production engine didn't have enough power. My thinking about an interceptor was triggered by its superficial similarities to Convair's interceptors and the fact that I had it lodged in my head that the F-4 was originally designed for a fleet-defense role. I'm probably wrong on that, though. :P
I don't think I noticed the airbrakes on the underside. That would add a significant amount of drag, and you're right that it would be more controllable than the normal system. It would be markedly more complex, however, so you're right on that point, too. :)
I've not done much research into Russian aircraft designs, so please forgive me if I didn't recall what the MiG-23 was like when I posted. It's the swing-wing one, right? Just like you said in the description. :P
Do you mean that the range is too short for the interceptor role? I'm not sure, because I don't recall comparison figures off the top of my head, but I would think that 700 nautical miles would be plenty. I will, however, defer to you on that, since you obviously have a much better recall for that sort of thing than I do. :)
I know that interceptors need a good climb rate. In fact, I was about to suggest that an interceptor version be up-engined, just in case the production engine didn't have enough power. My thinking about an interceptor was triggered by its superficial similarities to Convair's interceptors and the fact that I had it lodged in my head that the F-4 was originally designed for a fleet-defense role. I'm probably wrong on that, though. :P
Hey, it's cool. I wasn't angry, I'm just an military info junkie --- I just found your referrence to the F-102 to be a great excuse to say describe how bad it was. :)
For Mig-23 features, you can find refferences all over the 'Net. In fact got to https://www.globalsecurity.org to see a 3-view drawing of it (and note it's unique landing gear configuration, which the Rapier emulates).
As for he issue of range, the Mig-25 Foxbat DID have a short range (just 500mn), and this proved to be problematic --- the proof being it's replacement (the Mig-31 Foxhound) which has more than double that range. Thus, 700 isn't really enough for a good Interceptor.
Up-engining the Rapier would definitelymake it a more effective Tactical Fighter, but enhancing it's performance alone doesn't change what type of aircraft it is.
It's like what Dr. Phil McGraw once said; "You can put feathers on a dog, but that won't make it a chicken!"
Post any replies you want, as I love to explain how my designs work!
For Mig-23 features, you can find refferences all over the 'Net. In fact got to https://www.globalsecurity.org to see a 3-view drawing of it (and note it's unique landing gear configuration, which the Rapier emulates).
As for he issue of range, the Mig-25 Foxbat DID have a short range (just 500mn), and this proved to be problematic --- the proof being it's replacement (the Mig-31 Foxhound) which has more than double that range. Thus, 700 isn't really enough for a good Interceptor.
Up-engining the Rapier would definitelymake it a more effective Tactical Fighter, but enhancing it's performance alone doesn't change what type of aircraft it is.
It's like what Dr. Phil McGraw once said; "You can put feathers on a dog, but that won't make it a chicken!"
Post any replies you want, as I love to explain how my designs work!
I can understand where you're coming from. :P The F-102 had to be one of the worse designs of its day. Its sibling, the F-106, was a much better plane all around, though it still had significant problems of its own (such as the landing AoA that a delta wing requires).
I did go to that website you mentioned. There's a lot of good stuff there, and I think I will need to bookmark it. :) I can see what you mean about the landing gear. It does look similar.
I was unaware that the Foxbat had such a problem with range. However, I can see how that would cause difficulties. :) Interceptors are meant to interdict incoming bombers before they can launch their payloads. This is preferably done outside of the range of said payloads. :P Sorry about that brain glitch.
I suppose I was focusing more on the climb rate than on anything else. But, if anything, an up-engined Rapier would likely have an even shorter range than it already does, unless the engines are somehow more fuel-efficient. Therefore, that would decrease its potential for the interceptor role.
Also, you're right about the fact that it wouldn't change what it intrinsically is. You wouldn't use a F-104 as an attack plane, for example. :P You make some very good points, and I have to concede that you obviously know your stuff much better than I do. :P
I happen to love military technology as well, but I'm still learning. Thank you for clarifying those points. I think I need to go do some reading. :P
Your designs are quite impressive, and your ability to explain how they work is also very good. You make a lot of sense. :)
I did go to that website you mentioned. There's a lot of good stuff there, and I think I will need to bookmark it. :) I can see what you mean about the landing gear. It does look similar.
I was unaware that the Foxbat had such a problem with range. However, I can see how that would cause difficulties. :) Interceptors are meant to interdict incoming bombers before they can launch their payloads. This is preferably done outside of the range of said payloads. :P Sorry about that brain glitch.
I suppose I was focusing more on the climb rate than on anything else. But, if anything, an up-engined Rapier would likely have an even shorter range than it already does, unless the engines are somehow more fuel-efficient. Therefore, that would decrease its potential for the interceptor role.
Also, you're right about the fact that it wouldn't change what it intrinsically is. You wouldn't use a F-104 as an attack plane, for example. :P You make some very good points, and I have to concede that you obviously know your stuff much better than I do. :P
I happen to love military technology as well, but I'm still learning. Thank you for clarifying those points. I think I need to go do some reading. :P
Your designs are quite impressive, and your ability to explain how they work is also very good. You make a lot of sense. :)
Comments