tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post2612346275146140016..comments2024-03-28T23:57:50.103-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #29: How to design an aircraftPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-70889636537030045692009-03-26T17:11:00.000-05:002009-03-26T17:11:00.000-05:00Hi Peter, It sure helped. Thanks for enlightening ...Hi Peter, <BR/><BR/>It sure helped. Thanks for enlightening me.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11835324836636063533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-20300938425076950332008-12-10T23:22:00.000-06:002008-12-10T23:22:00.000-06:00Vincent, the F-20 differed from the F-5 in a numbe...Vincent, the F-20 differed from the F-5 in a number of ways, most importantly in having only one engine (which provided far more thrust than the two smaller engines of the F-5 family). It also had a more advanced radar and weapons system, capable of handling radar-guided missiles, as well as the IR missiles (e.g. Sidewinder) of the F-5 series.<BR/><BR/>As for the Fokker F27, I agree, in its day it was a very successful aircraft: but it's been out of production for over 20 years! As such, it's not included in this article, as it's not a candidate to replace commuter jets. You can find details and pictures of the F27 on Wikipedia at:<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/y7acqo<BR/><BR/>or:<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_F27<BR/><BR/>Hope this helps.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-66871526291319475362008-12-10T14:49:00.000-06:002008-12-10T14:49:00.000-06:00A nit to pick, as Leatherneck pointed out, the air...A nit to pick, as Leatherneck pointed out, the airfoil shape is VERY important, more so (IMHO) than the planform. Try using a standard airfoil shape on a Mach 2 swept wing fighter and the result will be very bad. The combination of the airfoil and the planform is a common area of research as some airfoil shapes work better with certain planforms than with others.<BR/><BR/>And yes, the Wikipedia is not the best explanation of lift.MadRocketScientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01361101727751874921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-68084884720966599092008-12-09T19:34:00.000-06:002008-12-09T19:34:00.000-06:00Dear Bayou Renaissance Man, Thanks for this articl...Dear Bayou Renaissance Man, <BR/><BR/>Thanks for this article. Short as can be and very much to the point, with great examples and even better picture. <BR/><BR/>One question though: You state that the Northrop F-20 didn't make it. Yet its predecessor, the F-5, did rather well and is still in use in various forms. So: What is the paramount difference between F-5 and F-20? <BR/><BR/>And a remark: you give the Bombardier turboprop as an example of efficiency and economy in its class. Rightly so. <BR/>But, for chauvinistic reasons, I'd really like to see at least mention of the Fokker F-27, pioneer in its field - if not a picture as well to show the similarity between the two crafts.! Please, humor me !<BR/><BR/>Hope to hear from you, <BR/>cheers, <BR/>VNCCCUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11835324836636063533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-42281819894003400872008-12-08T12:17:00.000-06:002008-12-08T12:17:00.000-06:00I agree with reflectoscope: that WIKI definition o...I agree with reflectoscope: that WIKI definition of lift is messed up. In reality. lift is the difference in static pressure between the top and bottom of the wing caused by what we call airfoil, plus whatever dynamic pressure is applied to the bottom of the wing by angle of attack.<BR/><BR/>But excellent article, Peter, and very interesting.<BR/><BR/>LeatherneckAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-73225117852148951932008-12-07T09:21:00.000-06:002008-12-07T09:21:00.000-06:00Excellant article. My only disagreement is the USA...Excellant article. My only disagreement is the USAF was forced to take the F4. They never wanted the Navy plane but economics drove the decision. Col John Boyd documented the limitations of the Phanthom for Air Force missions and it lead to the development of the F15 and F16.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-14550836182682184732008-12-07T01:56:00.000-06:002008-12-07T01:56:00.000-06:00Excellent article! I enjoyed reading it, although...Excellent article! I enjoyed reading it, although I disagree with that analysis of the cause of lift. The explanation that reduction occurs on both sides of the wing, but that the net force acts upwards, makes much more sense to me.<BR/><BR/>Also, the "M' in A400M I believe stands for Maybe. We nearly got suckered into getting on with that project, but bought C-17s instead. What a great way to fly: Decent seats, real lav, and quiet enough that ear defenders are enough. Jim<BR/><BR/>Also - The F-20, the best fighter no-one ever bought. Beautiful design, really. If you compare an F-5, the YF-17, and an F-18A/C you can watch evolution step by step.<BR/><BR/>Also further - The F-18 can carry the Nitehawk and Sniper XR pods on station 4, on the left side of the fuselage. That way instead of losing the centerline station, a station for an AIM-7 or AIM-120 is lost, and one missile is less of a loss than an external tank.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com