Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on February 13, 2006, 07:33:20 AM
-
by this:
Javelin (http://www.avtechgroup.com/index.asp)
(http://www.avtechgroup.com/images/photogallery/large_60.jpg)
-
WOW.. Talk about pocket rocket lol..
-
i want one.. looks like an F5 that has been rear ended by an F-18
-
it looks like the f-18 that the other f-18s beat in school.
-
F-18 beat something? :rofl
-
Whats with the baby wings? That thing probably climbs/turns like a well-guided rock.
-
Yeah, I was kinda surprised that it didn't have a larger wing area, and at least some provision for external stores (i.e. an ice cream churn on port station and beer keg on starboard). Then again, its a bizjet so economy is the main selling point and I would think a larger wing would create more drag.
Still looks like a pretty sharp little plane to bring to fly-ins. My first thought was that it was an extension of the Northrop F5.
Not rated to break the sound barrier, though. No Mach for you!
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
Whats with the baby wings? That thing probably climbs/turns like a well-guided rock.
Look at the size of the control surfaces compared to the wing area.
-
im suprised it doesnt have an all moving tailplane. wonder if it freezes up at high speed?
-
2.5 million a copy, supposed to be churning em out in 2 years or so
Sharp looking plane.
-
furby,
Without an all-movable tailplane it'll be limited to subsonic speeds. My guess is approx .93 mach unless it has a flutter issue prior to that. All movable horizontal stabs are complex, typically require some sort of pitch stability augmentation to prevent over-controlling at various speeds, and if they fail then the stab tends to move to a "flat plate" position instead of to a streamlined position like you get when a normal elevator control rod fails.
It's MUCH easier to just go with a conventional elevator and give up high transsonic or supersonic speeds. It makes engine inlet design simpler too.
FWIW, the BD-10 crashed because the horiz stab suffered flutter at high speed and ripped the back of the plane off. Bad thing to happen IMHO, and I suspect that if they'd had a subsonic target top speed, it may not have happened.
Yea, it does look like a modified T-38 to me too. But there have been a lot of people saying that the T-38 modified with a new, slightly larger wing, would be a better trainer than the current model. Most front line military aircraft are waaaay easier to land than the T-38 so I personally think that a T-38 with 10-20%ish greater wing area and limited to .95ish mach would make for a fine next-generation advanced trainer or even a civilian hotrod. But that's just my opinion.
Regarding the twin tails, the T-38 gets away with only 1 tail because it has an active yaw damper system. The yaw damper is disabled/non-functional in many USAF T-38s but those specific aircraft have operational limits placed on them to avoid problems that the yaw damper was supposed to fix. My guess is that the javelin team found that they needed the twin tails to avoid having to go with a complex yaw damper system. The T-38 without the yaw damper probably couldn't pass current FAA certification requirements.
-
Wow, good to have experts around. Thanks eagl!:)
-
Why wait?... You can have a twin engine jet right now!
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
-
One of my best friends is a retired KC-135 driver, I used to inquire how he liked the T-38 from his flight training days. He said it had a very very small margin for error when coming in to land. While it was a lot of fun to fly at altitude, he doesnt miss landing em
I also thought they were a really sharp Thunderbird jet way back when
-
Originally posted by eagl
furby,
Without an all-movable tailplane it'll be limited to subsonic speeds. My guess is approx .93 mach unless it has a flutter issue prior to that. All movable horizontal stabs are complex, typically require some sort of pitch stability augmentation to prevent over-controlling at various speeds, and if they fail then the stab tends to move to a "flat plate" position instead of to a streamlined position like you get when a normal elevator control rod fails.
It's MUCH easier to just go with a conventional elevator and give up high transsonic or supersonic speeds. It makes engine inlet design simpler too.
FWIW, the BD-10 crashed because the horiz stab suffered flutter at high speed and ripped the back of the plane off. Bad thing to happen IMHO, and I suspect that if they'd had a subsonic target top speed, it may not have happened.
Yea, it does look like a modified T-38 to me too. But there have been a lot of people saying that the T-38 modified with a new, slightly larger wing, would be a better trainer than the current model. Most front line military aircraft are waaaay easier to land than the T-38 so I personally think that a T-38 with 10-20%ish greater wing area and limited to .95ish mach would make for a fine next-generation advanced trainer or even a civilian hotrod. But that's just my opinion.
Regarding the twin tails, the T-38 gets away with only 1 tail because it has an active yaw damper system. The yaw damper is disabled/non-functional in many USAF T-38s but those specific aircraft have operational limits placed on them to avoid problems that the yaw damper was supposed to fix. My guess is that the javelin team found that they needed the twin tails to avoid having to go with a complex yaw damper system. The T-38 without the yaw damper probably couldn't pass current FAA certification requirements.
Great post! Interesting analysis. About that BD10 crash, it killed the CEO of the company. (Promotional video of the BD-10 here, with CEO speaking about aircraft safety) (http://www.bd5.com/videos/bd-10_1.wmv)Here is the flutter analysis of the tail ripping off, good read:
http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/flutter-analysis.html
Incidently, finite analysis is one of the products I support in our CADCAM org, I really enjoy playing with some of the models the engineers supply me. :)
-
Rudders look bigger than the wings!
-
they are gonna put missiles on that thing what are they gonna shoot down birds?
-
Originally posted by eagl
furby,
Without an all-movable tailplane it'll be limited to subsonic speeds. My guess is approx .93 mach unless it has a flutter issue prior to that. All movable horizontal stabs are complex, typically require some sort of pitch stability augmentation to prevent over-controlling at various speeds, and if they fail then the stab tends to move to a "flat plate" position instead of to a streamlined position like you get when a normal elevator control rod fails.
It's MUCH easier to just go with a conventional elevator and give up high transsonic or supersonic speeds. It makes engine inlet design simpler too.
FWIW, the BD-10 crashed because the horiz stab suffered flutter at high speed and ripped the back of the plane off. Bad thing to happen IMHO, and I suspect that if they'd had a subsonic target top speed, it may not have happened.
Yea, it does look like a modified T-38 to me too. But there have been a lot of people saying that the T-38 modified with a new, slightly larger wing, would be a better trainer than the current model. Most front line military aircraft are waaaay easier to land than the T-38 so I personally think that a T-38 with 10-20%ish greater wing area and limited to .95ish mach would make for a fine next-generation advanced trainer or even a civilian hotrod. But that's just my opinion.
Regarding the twin tails, the T-38 gets away with only 1 tail because it has an active yaw damper system. The yaw damper is disabled/non-functional in many USAF T-38s but those specific aircraft have operational limits placed on them to avoid problems that the yaw damper was supposed to fix. My guess is that the javelin team found that they needed the twin tails to avoid having to go with a complex yaw damper system. The T-38 without the yaw damper probably couldn't pass current FAA certification requirements.
(Sticking to what I know)
Eagl did ya hear that the USAF fleet of T38s are being upgraded to Martin Baker seats. We have a couple of NASA birds here that allready have the mod. The current 38 seats has one of the worst survivability rates in the entire fleet so this comes as pretty good news.
It looks to me that this thing has an MB in it as well
(http://www.avtechgroup.com/images/photogallery/large_58.jpg)
Do non ejection seated air craft seats have Inertia reels and straps? Just asking cause I saw them in the video.
-
I've heard rumors that the T-38C will get an upgraded seat, but every time the rumor comes up it's followed by the hard fact that trainer upgrade dollars are hard to come by, and that particular upgrade keeps getting pushed off to "later".
The T-38 seat is just fine if it's used "in the envelope" and the envelope is fairly good for a 30 year old design, but it's undeniable that there are some T-38 fatalities in the last decade or two that may have been survivable if the seat had been more capable.
I don't think it's a particularly BAD seat though... It just has a limited envelope. Remember that I've spent around 700 hours in the T-37 and it's seat is pitifully weak compared to the T-38 so my pity factor is pretty low. The main issue I have against the T-38 seat is that pilots on the heavy or light side of the envelope may have serious problems during ejection...
There's no reason why any non-ejection seat aircraft shouldn't have inertial reels... They're just heavier, more expensive, and more maintenance intensive than fixed-length shoulder harnesses. Serious acro pilots want harnesses you can snug down really tight, but someone flying a high performance plane could conceiveably want inertial shoulder harnesses for the added comfort.
-
Originally posted by RightF00T
Whats with the baby wings? That thing probably climbs/turns like a well-guided rock.
The Yak-9 has stubs for wings too and it'll turn with most things.
-
Originally posted by eagl
furby,
Thanks Eagl! :)