Dash
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 6,652
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
purely performance per se, PAKFA has massive TTW than any fighter present there.
Combat Aircraft Projects & Designs - Index in 2nd post
- Thread starter Manticore
- Start date
purely performance per se, PAKFA has massive TTW than any fighter present there.
Nishan_101
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,826
- Reaction score
- -18
simulator for the Su-35
This is what attracting China and Egypt... to buy it...
gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
It has nothing to do with being Soviet/Russian but more with the mission for the aircraft. Intake/inlet designs are sufficiently sophisticated that any aircraft have dedicated intake/inlet engineers instead of having the engine engineer designing the intake/inlet as a side job.@vostok Why most of the Russian jets have rectangular shape intakes
Try this NASA source for basic understanding...
Inlets
Manticore
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 114
- Country
- Location
Art Contrarian: Pusher Military Aircraft: Failed Concept
Bell YFM-1 Airacuda
YFM-1 was a pre-war concept for a plane that could serve either as a bomber escort or an interceptor. It had a five-man crew including a 37-mm cannon operator in the front of each engine nacelle (and subject to being decimated on bail-out). The planes were too heavy for the power available and the pusher system created pitching problems. There were even more problems -- see the link for an enumeration -- so that even though a test batch had been ordered, the Airacuda never entered full-scale production.
Vultee XP-54
The XP-54, along with the XP-55 and XP-56 were results of the Army's attempt to unleash airplane designers to create wild and crazy stuff. For some reason, all three participants in the program opted for the pusher layout. Every project resulted in disappointment, one important factor being that the engines planned initially were technical failures and replacement motors lacked enough power for performance superior to existing production models such as the P-51 Mustang. The XP-54 was the most conventional design, featuring a twin-boom arrangement to support the tail.
Curtiss-Wright XP-55
The XP-55 was more radical, having a "canard" layout where instead of tail-mounted horizontal stabilizers, they are placed near the nose.
Northrop XP-56
Most radical of all was the XP-56 which had no stabilizers at all, being close to a flying wing design with a fat fuselage. Note that the XP-56 had contra-rotating props with a smaller diameter of arc than a single-prop version might have. This would lessen the risk of prop dig-in on takeoff rotation or landing.
SAAB J21
This Swedish fighter actually reached production and saw service in the late 1940s and early 50s. Interestingly, it was adapted to jet power and that version also was produced.
Northrop XB-35
Two Army pusher configuration "intercontinental" range bomber designs reached prototype and test-batch status in the late 1940s. TheXB- and YB-35s are manifestations of Jack Northrop's fascination with the flying wing concept. Like the J21, the YB-35 was adapted to jet power as the YB-49, but production contracts went to the plane below.
Convair B-36
Several hundred B-36 bombers were built and served in the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air Command during the 1950s. It featured a pusher layout soon augmented with four jet engines mounted in pods below the wings for greater target-dash speed. Although the B-36 had its problems, it stands as the most successful military pusher aircraft since the Great War. The B-36 was replaced by the eight-jet B-52 which has remained in service for more than half a century.
YFM-1 was a pre-war concept for a plane that could serve either as a bomber escort or an interceptor. It had a five-man crew including a 37-mm cannon operator in the front of each engine nacelle (and subject to being decimated on bail-out). The planes were too heavy for the power available and the pusher system created pitching problems. There were even more problems -- see the link for an enumeration -- so that even though a test batch had been ordered, the Airacuda never entered full-scale production.
The XP-54, along with the XP-55 and XP-56 were results of the Army's attempt to unleash airplane designers to create wild and crazy stuff. For some reason, all three participants in the program opted for the pusher layout. Every project resulted in disappointment, one important factor being that the engines planned initially were technical failures and replacement motors lacked enough power for performance superior to existing production models such as the P-51 Mustang. The XP-54 was the most conventional design, featuring a twin-boom arrangement to support the tail.
The XP-55 was more radical, having a "canard" layout where instead of tail-mounted horizontal stabilizers, they are placed near the nose.
Most radical of all was the XP-56 which had no stabilizers at all, being close to a flying wing design with a fat fuselage. Note that the XP-56 had contra-rotating props with a smaller diameter of arc than a single-prop version might have. This would lessen the risk of prop dig-in on takeoff rotation or landing.
This Swedish fighter actually reached production and saw service in the late 1940s and early 50s. Interestingly, it was adapted to jet power and that version also was produced.
Two Army pusher configuration "intercontinental" range bomber designs reached prototype and test-batch status in the late 1940s. TheXB- and YB-35s are manifestations of Jack Northrop's fascination with the flying wing concept. Like the J21, the YB-35 was adapted to jet power as the YB-49, but production contracts went to the plane below.
Several hundred B-36 bombers were built and served in the U.S. Air Force's Strategic Air Command during the 1950s. It featured a pusher layout soon augmented with four jet engines mounted in pods below the wings for greater target-dash speed. Although the B-36 had its problems, it stands as the most successful military pusher aircraft since the Great War. The B-36 was replaced by the eight-jet B-52 which has remained in service for more than half a century.
Manticore
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 114
- Country
- Location
Pushers WW2
Military Analysis: Pushers WW2
This is coolbert:
Here with a collection of images those experimental and prototype warplanes from the era of The Second World War [WW2] referred to as "pushers".
Those aircraft called a "pusher" having the engine in the rear of the cockpit, certain advantages existing with regard to this design:
"The advantages of the pusher propeller/forward canard design was that it opened up the pilot's view, plus the weapons installation was much simplified and could be concentrated. Thedisadvantages would be engine cooling plus an ejection system or propeller jettison would have to be designed for the pilot to safely exit the plane in case of an emergency"
A pilot bailing out might be cut to shreds by the propeller of his own aircraft!!
Advantage and disadvantage "pushers" of that period characterized by the engine in the rear of the warplane, the tricycle landing gear and use of the canard forward.
A whole host of nations obviously interested in the "pusher" that various experimental and prototype designs however UNIFORMLY UNSUCCESSFUL, PERFORMANCE POOR EVEN WHEN COMPARED TO MORE CONVENTIONAL WAR BIRDS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE!!
To the images with commentary:
"The Miles M.35 or Miles Libellula . . . was a tandem wing research aircraft built by Miles Aircraft as a precursor to a proposed naval carrier fighter."
Dig this amazing stuff about the Liellula:
"Flight trials of the M.35 were to commence in 1942, but Miles' chief test pilot was reluctant to take off in the aircraft, whereupon George Miles took over himself."
"The Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose was a prototype fighter built by the Vultee Aircraft Company for the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF)."
"The SAI-Ambrosini SS.4 was an Italian fighter prototype developed in the late 1930s, featuring a canard-style wing layout and a 'pusher' propeller. Development of the SS.4 was abandoned after the prototype crashed on its second flight."
"The SAAB 21 was a Swedish fighter/attack aircraft from SAAB that first took to the air in 1943. It was described as a very efficient weapons platform. It was designed as a twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller is mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward."
This Swedish designed and built "pusher" warplane of all the various experimental and prototype versions does appear to the be the single do-er among all of them. It just LOOKS right! Capable of functioning in combat and doing so well?
"The Kyushu J7W1 Shinden . . . fighter was a World War II Japanese propeller-driven aircraft prototype that was built in a canard design. The wings were attached to the tail section and stabilizers were on the front. The propeller was also in the rear, in a pusher configuration."
"The Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender . . . was a 1940s United States prototype fighter aircraft built by Curtiss-Wright . . . it specifically allowed for unconventional aircraft designs. A highly unusual design for its time, it had a canard configuration, a rear mounted engine, swept wings and two vertical tails"
"A special feature of the XP-55 was a propeller jettison lever located inside the cockpit to prevent the pilot from hitting the propeller during bailout."
"XP-56 Black Bullet. Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet aircraft . . . a pusher configuration driving contra-rotating propellers . . . The XP-56 Black Bullet was a unique prototype fighter interceptor built by Northrop. It was one of the most radical of the experimental aircraft built during World War II. Ultimately, it was unsuccessful" As indeed WERE ALL of these "pushers. That Black Bullet note having one engine but two counter-rotating propellers.
"The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 Utka [Duck] . . . was a Soviet experimental aircraft. Built of wood, the aircraft was designed and built in 1945 to test the novel canard configuration. It also used a tricycle undercarriage, the first used by the design bureau (OKB). It was modified to test a variety of configurations"
"The H.P. 75 Manx [Handley Page] was a British experimental aircraft designed by Handley Page that flew test flights in the early 1940s. It was notable for its unconventional design characteristics, being a twin-engine tailless design of pusher configuration."
Last but not least we have the German Henschel 75. Two engines at the rear with two counter-rotating propellers. "This 1941 aircraft design was to be a possible successor to the Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighter. Although of a unusual configuration for that time, there were advantages (and disadvantages) to its rear wing/forward canard construction."
These innovative designs unsuccessful as they were that entire propeller "pusher" concept rendered MOOT by the advent of the jet engine!
coolbert.
Military Analysis: Pushers WW2
This is coolbert:
Here with a collection of images those experimental and prototype warplanes from the era of The Second World War [WW2] referred to as "pushers".
Those aircraft called a "pusher" having the engine in the rear of the cockpit, certain advantages existing with regard to this design:
"The advantages of the pusher propeller/forward canard design was that it opened up the pilot's view, plus the weapons installation was much simplified and could be concentrated. Thedisadvantages would be engine cooling plus an ejection system or propeller jettison would have to be designed for the pilot to safely exit the plane in case of an emergency"
A pilot bailing out might be cut to shreds by the propeller of his own aircraft!!
Advantage and disadvantage "pushers" of that period characterized by the engine in the rear of the warplane, the tricycle landing gear and use of the canard forward.
A whole host of nations obviously interested in the "pusher" that various experimental and prototype designs however UNIFORMLY UNSUCCESSFUL, PERFORMANCE POOR EVEN WHEN COMPARED TO MORE CONVENTIONAL WAR BIRDS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE!!
To the images with commentary:
"The Miles M.35 or Miles Libellula . . . was a tandem wing research aircraft built by Miles Aircraft as a precursor to a proposed naval carrier fighter."
Dig this amazing stuff about the Liellula:
"Flight trials of the M.35 were to commence in 1942, but Miles' chief test pilot was reluctant to take off in the aircraft, whereupon George Miles took over himself."
"The Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose was a prototype fighter built by the Vultee Aircraft Company for the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF)."
"The SAI-Ambrosini SS.4 was an Italian fighter prototype developed in the late 1930s, featuring a canard-style wing layout and a 'pusher' propeller. Development of the SS.4 was abandoned after the prototype crashed on its second flight."
"The SAAB 21 was a Swedish fighter/attack aircraft from SAAB that first took to the air in 1943. It was described as a very efficient weapons platform. It was designed as a twin boom pusher configuration, where the propeller is mounted in the rear of the fuselage, pushing the aircraft forward."
This Swedish designed and built "pusher" warplane of all the various experimental and prototype versions does appear to the be the single do-er among all of them. It just LOOKS right! Capable of functioning in combat and doing so well?
"The Kyushu J7W1 Shinden . . . fighter was a World War II Japanese propeller-driven aircraft prototype that was built in a canard design. The wings were attached to the tail section and stabilizers were on the front. The propeller was also in the rear, in a pusher configuration."
"The Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender . . . was a 1940s United States prototype fighter aircraft built by Curtiss-Wright . . . it specifically allowed for unconventional aircraft designs. A highly unusual design for its time, it had a canard configuration, a rear mounted engine, swept wings and two vertical tails"
"A special feature of the XP-55 was a propeller jettison lever located inside the cockpit to prevent the pilot from hitting the propeller during bailout."
"XP-56 Black Bullet. Northrop XP-56 Black Bullet aircraft . . . a pusher configuration driving contra-rotating propellers . . . The XP-56 Black Bullet was a unique prototype fighter interceptor built by Northrop. It was one of the most radical of the experimental aircraft built during World War II. Ultimately, it was unsuccessful" As indeed WERE ALL of these "pushers. That Black Bullet note having one engine but two counter-rotating propellers.
"The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-8 Utka [Duck] . . . was a Soviet experimental aircraft. Built of wood, the aircraft was designed and built in 1945 to test the novel canard configuration. It also used a tricycle undercarriage, the first used by the design bureau (OKB). It was modified to test a variety of configurations"
"The H.P. 75 Manx [Handley Page] was a British experimental aircraft designed by Handley Page that flew test flights in the early 1940s. It was notable for its unconventional design characteristics, being a twin-engine tailless design of pusher configuration."
Last but not least we have the German Henschel 75. Two engines at the rear with two counter-rotating propellers. "This 1941 aircraft design was to be a possible successor to the Messerschmitt Bf 110 heavy fighter. Although of a unusual configuration for that time, there were advantages (and disadvantages) to its rear wing/forward canard construction."
These innovative designs unsuccessful as they were that entire propeller "pusher" concept rendered MOOT by the advent of the jet engine!
coolbert.
Similar threads
