NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm designing military aircraft for my Nation, and I've not got any real idea of top speed.

There's two aircraft, an interceptor, which is meant to be faster than most Interceptors, as it's based on the old English Electric Lightning, so it's basically a couple of engines with wings and a pilot seat attached.

The other is a fighter/bomber, similar to the F-22, and not the fastest of it's type.

Could someone give me an idea of their top speeds? I don't want them to be under/over powered.

Thanks in advance.

OOC: If you don't know, don't fake it. Just don't specify it. "They go really fast." As a general rule, they go fast enough, or they don't. The numbers aren't so important as the story.

There is, in fact, a plethora of information on vehicle statistics on the web, easily accessible by typing keywords into search engines like Google. But if your role-play is going to focus on the numbers, then you should switch to the International Incidents forum. We're more interested in the role-play.

[/elitist snob]

OOC: Just remember the Lightning broke Mach 1 (the speed of sound) as it went straight up, eventually hitting Mach 2, then flying for five minutes and then landing. Oh, I've read about the Lightning, was reputed to be a beauty. Had little fuel left, or much of a radar... Or armaments. But it looks beautiful.

I can help you design the aircraft. I've got a lot of experience in this field. Interested? :)

I'm to lazy to switch to my main and give you all kinds of useful links in my sig but check some of the stickies in international incidents, some of those have links to posts that help with designing military equipment, in general, for modern tech its easier just to use mach numbers

an F-22 is not a fighter bomber, its an Air Superiority fighter, fighter bombers are more like the F-14 and F-15 (esp the F-15)
an F-22's top speed is about mach 2.2 while F-15's top speed is roughly Mach 2

a good interceptor top speed for what you want is roughly mack 2.7 to Mach 3, but in reality, for an interceptor, anything over mach 2.5 is overkill, most aircraft never reach their top speed in a combat situation and the bigger engines and more fuel are real detractors from the interceptor role

Thanks for the advice.

Free and United, I was only referring to the F-22 in terms of its relative shape, nearest I could think of.

Adejaani, I've TGed you, and yeah, sounds a good idea.

The F-22 has actually be redesignated the F/A-22, as it does have a ground attack capability. Also, it's top speed is only Mach 1.8. Very few aircraft have the capability of flying at or above Mach 2 at all, or for any length of time, and I can only think of a small handful that can do 2.7-3 Mach.

Karma is basically right. And it's not about the engines, it's about the airframe. Most of them would literally fall apart, which is why all Mach 2+ aircraft look so streamlined (almost triangular).

Khwarz, I got your TG... As soon as you give me some general guidelines in aircraft development (ie what missions, speeds, requirements, size, weapons loads etc), I can tell you what can and can't be done.

It;s not that they would fall apart, it's more that at Mach 3, you have to deal with atmospheric heating of hundreds or thousands of degrees along the leading edges of the aircraft.

It;s not that they would fall apart, it's more that at Mach 3, you have to deal with atmospheric heating of hundreds or thousands of degrees along the leading edges of the aircraft.

Perhaps using the ceramic plates they use on NASA's shuttles would be able to stand it.

-------

The Aircraft is principly designed as a high-speed interceptor. Running hit and run aircraft interceptions. Because of its fuel-consumption, it would not be able to run long air patrols. Armament - 4 AA missiles. One pilot. Size, as an estimate, 50/60 ft, wingspan, 30/40ft. It largely looks like the lightning, apart from two small fixed stabilisers at the front with ailerons for a little extra manoeuvrability.

just as a little side-note, don't mind me... but about the heat caused by friction, what if there were some sort of liquid coolant that ran in small pipes along the leading edges... it would increase the weight by a slight amount given the need for more metal and the weight of the liquid and its container, but I can't think of any reasons why it wouldn't work...

and as a side-effect/bonus, would that not reduce the foward-looking thermal image?

OOC:
The problem with that is (and this is pretty much all from memory, so I could be wrong!) that the tiles are expensive, and very fragile. I think they have to be replaced after each reentry, too.

Another problem with fast speeds is apparently that if you try to turn while it's going fast, the craft essentially shreds itself; I couldn't tell you what speed this happens at, but there used to be a fad for scramjets, and there was a dedicated coterie of posters who would go "OMG PLANE-SHRED!" or similar whenever someone announced they had made an aircraft with scramjets...

I couldn't comment on Azazia's liquid coolant idea, alas.

Personally, I'd be with Treznor on this one, and leave the planes alone - while I will quite happily work out climate zones and cultures from topographical data, planes aren't really my thing (so it's probably a good idea to take all this with a grain or two of salt).

Big problem with coolent. Cooling systems take the heat and move it, they don't get rid of it. Once the coolent has absobed the heat from the leading edge, you end up with a lot of really hot coolent. You need to find someplace cool to pump it... or vent it out the back, in which case you'd need a massive resevoir.

i was simply thinking that the coolant removes the heat from the exterior and into the interior body of the aircraft, a refrigeration unit would then recool the thing... it would more than likely be an expensive addition to the aircraft, i just don't know if the costs in terms of weight, systems space, performance, and actual cost to build and operate would be worth the marginal gain in supersonic speed...

OOC: Well, cooling systems are fun, but A: They take up space, B: They are heavy (especially the liquids) and C: If you can get an aircraft that fast... What then? Generally, there's no 'need' for pure speed. It's more about getting the aircraft into the air and then having it light enough to 'fight'.

Khwarz: I just about have the product you need, but it's late, it's hot and I'll spend tomorrow's fishing trip (me and dad always fish on Saturday) mulling it over. I usually do my best thinking there... :confused: I'll get back to you.

and that is why I have never put cooling systems into my aircraft... the total accumulated costs outweigh the marginal gains... but hey, it's merely a harmless suggestion

In the case of the SR-71 (one of that handful that regularly operated above mach 2 and in theis case, mach 3) they did liquid cool certain parts of the aircraft....with its fuel. The Sr-71 used a type of fuel known as JP-8 that had so high a flashpoint that they were able to use it as a coolant, and then dump it into the engine to get rid of it.

OOC: And the SR-71 leaks fuel like a running tap. :rolleyes:

Sorry, Khwarz... I haven't said anything lately... Do you have any 'other' requirements like speed, other ordnance and similar? It would help if you gave me more constraints, since this is a bit open ended...

Only when it was on the ground. At operational altitude and speed, the heat caused the sr-71 to stretch, sealing its tanks.

Actually the F-15 could go mach 2.5, and was one of the fastest planes out there (still considered quick and very manueverable) And it was only topped buy the F-16 (btw the F stand for fighter so the F-15 was a fighter jet, however it can carry bomb armaments like most planes today)

Topspeed: upper end of mach 2/mach3, basically superfast.
Armament: Just capacity for four air-to-air missiles. No cannon or anything like that, limited fuel at such high speed so no point hanging around in the combat area.
Electronics: Radar, and heat sensors, no point in having infra-red.
It is literally designed to fly at short notice, intercept the enemy aircraft and fly home.

OOC: Godby, you're partially correct. The F-15 A/B/C/D versions, the "plain" Eagle is a pure air to air fighter. The air to ground version is the E Strike Eagle. Only the E carries air to surface ordnance like bombs and similar.

Khwarz: Mission endurance? Because we're basically going to create a modern Lightning, I'm trying to figure a way to be different. Will it stay there long and loiter?

How about increased fuel capacity, and a slower cruising speed, so it can run CAP patrols? Thus expanding its options, giving us an air patrol intercepter. Also if itt going to run patrols, perhaps a missile capacity of 6, but then we have to balance that with fuel and weight.

What ideas have you got?

[A small thought - the F-15's top speed was attained in non-combat conditions i.e no weapon loads and low fuel. It's unlikely to obtain that speed with armaments]

I can do the small size and endurance... But I can't do the Mach 2/3 speed without sacrificing something like endurance. As it stands, this design can probably do Mach 2 as a top speed (maybe 2.2 as max), but it won't be able to fly much after. It's probably a fraction bigger than the F/A-18 (certainly more internal volume) and has a similar payload to an F-14.

How about a second version, say 1 interceptor perhaps called Lightning IIA, and a patrol aircraft, Lightning IIB. The IIA having less endurance but faster, and the IIB having more, but slower.

OOC: Yes, the fighter (image/picture) is from Wing Commander, but this is a modern design and only the basic airframe shape is derived from the game and has none of the advanced technologies inside.

Additionally, constructive comments are welcome.

IC: AFD-17 Batwing program

http://home.iprimus.com.au/quincyw/afd-17.jpg

Nicknamed Batwing, the AFD-17 (Adejaani Fighter Design Seventeen) is intended as a lightweight, high speed interceptor, yet capable of long missions. Although endurance is not as capable as its larger cousin, the F-14 Tomcat, the AFD-17 is capable of just over Mach 2 in maximum speed, though it cannot maintain it for long. Typically, the AFD-17 is similar in concept to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, though exchanging the air superiority mission with the interceptor role and is fairly maneuverable.

The large wing (with large internal fuel tanks) gives it fairly good long mission capabilities, though the awkward large wing bulge design hampers turn rates. Underneath the wing, there is capability for up to four AIM-54 Phoenix missiles (or equivalents), as well as the Adejaani indigenously designed older ARS-4 radar to give it a powerful enough fire control system. Although two addition AIM-54 missiles can be carried, it's generally at the expense of fuel. The AFD-17 is not carrier capable, a consequence of its design and overall fragility.

Although the AFD-17 can be armed with AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9 Sidewinder (or equivalents), it is not particularly recommended, as against other fighters, it is a sitting duck and cannot maneuver anywhere fast enough to gain a radar lock.

Full up flight tests are scheduled as soon as the first flight prototypes can be built.