What aircraft is this?

[Motherland]

He 162

Come on Mother, that's so easy it's almost insulting.

Now about that sleek, sexy mystery plane?

I said it would be pretty obvious

As for your plane, it looks like it's based on the F 16... other than that I can't say.

Bosco's is obviously a 5 series aircraft, as evidenced by the obvious presence of a DB605 engine, but I'm not sure which. Without looking I'd say Re.2005.

At second look it's a G.55.

[hunter128]

Try this:

F-16XL?

[Cthulhu]

I said it would be pretty obvious

As for your plane, it looks like it's based on the F 16... other than that I can't say.

Bosco's is obviously a 5 series aircraft, as evidenced by the obvious presence of a DB605 engine, but I'm not sure which. Without looking I'd say Re.2005.

That's not an Re. 2005, the vertical fin is all wrong. It has the tail of a Macchi, but the gear does resemble that of an Re.2005 and not one of the Macchi's. I'm guessing it's an Italian "Love Child".

F-16XL?

Good job hunter.

That was one of the first major uses of Graphite/Epoxy composite structure. Laying up that wing by hand was one major pain in the butt. (ended up being heavy as Hell too ) Reminds me of another story.....

[Motherland]

That was one of the first major uses of Graphite/Epoxy composite structure. Laying up that wing by hand was one major pain in the butt. (ended up being heavy as Hell too ) Reminds me of another story.....

What was the concept behind using the composite structure?

[Serenity]

F-16XL?

Damn, beat me to it!

[Cthulhu]

What was the concept behind using the composite structure?

Evolving technology. It would have been fine except that there wasn't a long established history with composites at that time, so big factors of safety were heaped onto the design requirements which made everything way too thick and heavy. No surprise that when the two that were built went to Edwards for testing that the planes had lousy acceleration compared to the basic F-16. However, they did have a smaller turn radius due to the higher lift of that big wing.

F-16XL (aka F-16E at the time, they subsequently used the "E" for another variant) was originally called "SCAMP" = "Supersonic Cruise ... Hell I forget . It was intended as a medium/high altitude interceptor. When the AF showed no interest in that, it was repackaged as a strike/interdiction dump truck just like the F-15E. Pretty silly when you consider that the low wing-loading made for one really bumpy ride down low. The AF was unimpressed and went with the Strike Eagle, a much better platform. If I recall correctly, the XL did have better range though because of all the fuel in that wing.

Funny story:
When the first XL was wheeled out for a photo shoot, they decided to unhook the tractor and tow bar to keep them out of the shot. Well everything about the program was behind schedule, including the radar, so the nose was empty. As soon as they unhooked the tow bar, the plane promptly sat back on it's tail. Well obviously that was no way to take a picture, so eventually they had enough shop guys hanging on the front of the airplane to pull the nose back down. They hooked the tow bar back up and took the pics with it attached.

[Cthulhu]

Time to go fly. Later I'll tell you guys about the "interesting" relationship betwen the F-111B (Navy) and the F-14. the 111B was way overweight, especially in the rear fuselage. Care to guess who GD subcontracted the aft fuselage out to??

[Gianlupo]

Deleted it, so here it is again:

Caproni-Vizzola F.6, if I'm not wrong.

[Bosco123]

You got it Gian, I knew that was gonna confuse a few people.

[Gianlupo]

Yep, Italian planes are not that well known... especially the ones that didn't enter service!

EDIT

I did structural analysis/design support for about 21 years. I worked on F-111C Recon, F-111 Pave Tack, F-16 A-D, F-16E/XL, an cheap export version of the F-16 with a J79 engine (a buddy of mine had a patch made for his jacket that said "F-16/J79, The Trailing Edge of Technology" ), testbed variants of the F8U (NASA scissor wing, very bizarre), various missiles for LTV (now Lockheed), and the International Space Station. Now I'm part of IT, supporting the guys I used to work alongside. I make sure their NASTRAN, PATRAN, ABAQUS, etc. functions properly and act as go between with the software vendors. I'm supposed to be the guru when it comes to finite element analysis, but I prefer to spend my time on the AH forum.

You're a lucky man, I'd like to swap jobs with you!

Funny story:
When the first XL was wheeled out for a photo shoot, they decided to unhook the tractor and tow bar to keep them out of the shot. Well everything about the program was behind schedule, including the radar, so the nose was empty. As soon as they unhooked the tow bar, the plane promptly sat back on it's tail. Well obviously that was no way to take a picture, so eventually they had enough shop guys hanging on the front of the airplane to pull the nose back down. They hooked the tow bar back up and took the pics with it attached.

Time to go fly. Later I'll tell you guys about the "interesting" relationship betwen the F-111B (Navy) and the F-14. the 111B was way overweight, especially in the rear fuselage. Care to guess who GD subcontracted the aft fuselage out to??

Let me guess.... Grumman? The same company that designed the plane meant to replace the failed F-111B? That... how was it called.... F-14?

Btw, new plane! Just to make you all happy, another Italian one!

[glock89]

Yep, Italian planes are not that well known... especially the ones that didn't enter service!

EDIT

You're a lucky man, I'd like to swap jobs with you!



Let me guess.... Grumman? The same company that designed the plane meant to replace the failed F-111B? That... how was it called.... F-14?

Btw, new plane! Just to make you all happy, another Italian one!

(Image removed from quote.)

Ugly as hell.

[Furball]

Looks like a 109E nose, C202 cockpit, bolted to the wings of an F4u.

[Gianlupo]

Looks like a 109E nose, C202 cockpit, bolted to the wings of an F4u.

Well, now that you have given us such a copious and accurate description of it, would you care name it, too, dear sir?

[Furball]

Well, now that you have given us such a copious and accurate description of it, would you care name it, too, dear sir?

I name it Mittens.  It is so cute.

[Cthulhu]

(Image removed from quote.)

Caproni-Vizzola F.6, if I'm not wrong.

Like I said. "Italian Love Child"  

Let me guess.... Grumman? The same company that designed the plane meant to replace the failed F-111B? That... how was it called.... F-14?

Yep,
   Grumman was brought on-board because GD had no experience with "carrier suitability" requirements. What I'm most familiar with is the need for proper carry-thru structure to handle catapult and arresting loads. The load paths on the F-111 are a joke, not a straight line anywhere. The biggest problem with the F-111B was high landing speeds, due in no small part to the extra 4000lbs+ of unnecessary flab contributed by Grumman. I know GD went thru at least two subsequent weight reduction programs on the AF 111's, called "Scrape I" & "Scrape II", and the experienced "stress hackers" I met back then had lots of choice "comments" about Grumman's work.
  Don't get me wrong, the F-14 was a vastly superior platform compared to the 111B, all the 111B could do was hurl Phoenix's from range, but many feel the design was undermined at the time.

EDIT

Look what I found.

http://www.f-111.net/t_no_B.htm

BTW, I remember looking at one of the F-111F manuals back then and seeing info on the cockpit ash tray. Ah the Sixties , things sure have changed.