Military Newsreel

Loading...

Nuffnang Ads

Military and Defense Newsreel

Loading...

Sunday, November 21, 2010

F/A 37 Talon: Real OR Fake?



Below are photographs of a prototype aircraft known as the Talon. Reportedly it was taken onboard the USS George Washington CVN-73 for catapult fit checks. It noted that it was not exactly still Top Secret but certainly not yet made public.  

The type design is an interesting concept shown in 'Stealth' movie, yet I don't know how practical it is. 
 
F/A-37 Talon Specification:
  • ·         Speed: Mach 3.5
  • ·         Top Speed: Mach 4+
  • ·         Classified Aircraft:  Super-Cruise Stealth Fighter / Bomber / Interceptor
  • ·         Flying Range: 4,000 Nautical Miles (nm)
From some information I have, Talon has a 10,000 hour life airframe and engines that require replacement only at failure or signs of trouble.



My standpoint: It was FAKE! Why???


From wing stand-point: 

  • Look at the wings while they are folded up. The control surfaces are facing forward. It would be extremely hard to control the aircraft especially since there is no way to control the yaw. I know the B-2 has no vertical stabilizers but it does have double-flapped ailerons that open and cause that half of the plane to slow, therefore turning it.
  • Although the design is fantastic, the foldable wings can prove faulty.  It should be extremely difficult to control and if it does it would be to slow to even maneuver around tracers.


From an engine stand-point:

  • 1.   The intakes seem smaller than that of the Vipers (Which just feeds the F100-PW-229) You wouldn't get enough airflow to any engine to make that much power with small inlets.
  • 2.   Intake position is poor for high Angle of Attack, AOA flight. Ever notice fighter intakes are on the sides or bottom of most combat aircraft.
  • 3.   Cannon position directly ahead of intakes. Allows gun gas ingestion problems.
  • 4.   The "spare engine" shown in the movie doesn't look like it would fit in the length / height of the available fuselage. (Then again it looks as if most known engines wouldn't fit anyhow?)
Now if a "true engine" used Methane for fuel: ?

Methane has a flash point around -300*F (-187*C). For comparison the "special" fuel needed for the SR-71 Blackbird (JP7) had a flash point of 140*F (60*C) Now how do you keep methane under control in an aircraft traveling MACH 3+ when it begins to heat?



If the F/A 37 not a Fake, Nothing can I say. AWESOME!!.  Another generation of aviation engineering was born. 



The Concept Design of The Aircraft 

Odd design cuts the cost of high-speed flying. Rolling down the runway, the little twin-engine jet looked like any rich man's weekend toy, but as it picked up speed over the California airstrip and began climbing, the craft underwent a bizarre and visually unsettling transformation. Its wing began slowly to swing around—its right half angling forward in the direction of flight, the left back.

This flying pair of scissors looked like the joke of some eccentric inventor. In fact, the 38-ft.-long aircraft is a test design that comes from the same no-nonsense people who created the space shuttle. Pursuing what NASA officials refer to as the "small A" (for the less publicized, low-budget aeronautics in their agency's name), they built the single-seat model to overcome two major obstacles in supersonic flight: high fuel consumption and thundering noise.


At high speeds, an aircraft operates most efficiently if its wings intercept the air at an angle. Trouble occurs when the plane is flying at slower, subsonic speeds: swept-back wings reduce lift and increase fuel consumption. One way designers have tried to overcome this problem is by creating "variable geometry" aircraft that can swing back their wings at higher speeds and bring them forward for reduced speeds, especially during takeoffs and landings, when the plane needs maximum lift.

But swing-wing planes are difficult to build. They require greater structural strength, weigh more and burn more fuel than a comparable fixed-wing aircraft. As far back as 1945, Robert T. Jones of NASA's Ames Research Center, who proposed the first U.S. swept-wing aircraft, saw a simple solution: a single, rigid wing that would swing on a single pivot point. The oblique wing, as he called it, would vastly simplify the structural problem. The fact that one end of the wing would be pointing forward might look odd, but it was, he realized, aerodynamically unimportant. In high-speed flight, what matters is the angle at which the wing meets the onrushing air.


 

U.S. was seriously considering construction of a large SST, a commercial supersonic transport, and wind-tunnel tests confirmed that the oblique wing should do the things he claimed it could. At supersonic speeds conventional swept-back wings create noticeable pressure on each other, like two motorboats speeding side by side through the water and slamming waves into each other's hulls. But this mutual interference is reduced when one boat pulls ahead of the other. Despite raised eyebrows at the plane's odd appearance and fears that the forward wing might break off at high speed, NASA finally built a test version at a bargain basement tab of $218,000, and has found it performs up to expectations.


Oblique wing is heading into an uncertain future, nevertheless. A full-scale plane big enough to carry 150 passengers should be twice as fuel efficient as the 100-passenger Concorde. But its maximum speed of 1 ½ times the speed of sound (Mach 1.5) would be 25% less than the Anglo-French craft's Mach 2.04. A likelier role for a scissor plane might be as a military patrol craft whose pivoting wing would allow both long flights and the bursts of speed needed for hot pursuit. NASA thinks the flying scissors also has a role as a cost-cutting corporate jet.


Another top secret is "Project Aurora"

Project Aurora is about a high-speed, low altitude stealth bomber, not a single-pilot stealth fighter. I will come with the article later.
 

18 comments:

SAJEEV said...

ya man nice share....hope that I know it....because of you...thanks

H Quah said...

I wonder if FA 37 can take off and land on carrier with it's wings open, since the outer most tip of wings could easily touch the carrier's deck during landing.

But downward wings could provide better lift.

Lórqs3 said...

FODASTICO MUITO LOKO MESMO.......

Lórqs3 said...

FODASTICO MUITO LOKO/SINISTRO...!!!

Lórqs3 said...

MUITO LOKO/SINISTRO......

Fighter Archive said...

thanks for the information and please add more information about the aircraft or helicopter gunships .....

Unknown said...

Something the author fails to take into account is the increasing reliance on computer control in maintaining the apparent stability of the aircraft. In the old days planes were designed to be as stable as possible; this decreased their maneuverability. With the advent of computer-control, designers can now create increasingly unstable aircraft which gives them a much higher potential for maneuverability since the more powerful computers can compensate for the plane's inherent instability.

mellor10 said...

This is all fake! Unless of course Jessica Biel has quit acting and taken up a job as a test pilot. This was shot for a movie with Jaime fox. Came out a few years back, forgot the name.

wwwwweeeeeeeeeeeee said...

you said that the foldable wings will be to hard to control? the f 14 and x-02 both have foldable wings and are both brilliant jets and there is more then 1 way to controll a jet dumb ass

Mike said...

These are shots of the plane from the movie "Stealth". And yes, Lt. Kara Wade was Jessica Biel's character from the movie. How this damn rumor is still circulating after 8 years is beyond me.

Here is the proof:
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/uss_abraham_lincoln_cvn_72_filming_stealth.htm

SAJEEV said...

Bro did you see the Titanic Film...Is they build a new Ship for that movie...same situation here........

andre dubouzet said...

It is more difficult to control because a swept back wing at it's "swept back" or "folded position" generates less lift...it's because of it's highly advance avionics that makes controlling it easier than it should be. And as pointed out in the article, swept back wings needs a stronger foundation compared to fixed wings adding more weight to the aircraft. Heavy, generates less lift, burns more fuel (to compensate for the weight and for less lift generation) to generate thrust, and expensive to maintain ; means bad investment..ever wonder why the US no longer use the tomcat???

andre dubouzet said...

It is more difficult to control because a swept back wing at it's "swept back" or "folded position" generates less lift...it's because of it's highly advance avionics that makes controlling it easier than it should be. And as pointed out in the article, swept back wings needs a stronger foundation compared to fixed wings adding more weight to the aircraft. Heavy, generates less lift, burns more fuel (to compensate for the weight and for less lift generation) to generate thrust, and expensive to maintain ; means bad investment..ever wonder why the US no longer use the tomcat???

Darin-James Lizardo said...

Liquid methane does not burn unless subjected to high pressure (normally 4–5 atmospheres)insulated tanks withing the aircraft (not the wings) would work.

agremlin said...

Forward swept wings on a fighter class jet is called Dehydral Wing. It is highly experimental, or was years ago. It gave the advantage of theoretically being able to out turn anything in the skies and needed a lot of processing power from computers to keep it stable in flight. Because it's very unstable by nature as long as the computers could keep it under control it would have been an awesome and hard to beat aircraft in combat.

Shadow Man said...

I have heard recently of people seeing a plane looking like the F/A 37 flying late at night near the Nellis Test Range,Area 51 location. Perhaps this design was for a movie, but perhaps the U.S. military decided to build a prototype using advanced engine technology.

Boss Hogg 97 said...

all true and besides the su 47 berkut has swept forward wings just like it the only differnce is it doesnt retract and look like the shape of our current fa22 raptor were using so i don't see the problem why this plane wouldn't work the only thing i see is as and always will be Hatteerrssss now go drink your hater aid lol hahahaha this plane will be next in future warfare
"trust and believe"

Grams79 said...

The heat would be cooled by liquid nitrogen ejection.
There are fighter craft up right now that if seen by any of you commenting here would make your hair stand. The F-22 was OLD HAT 26+ years ago.
WAKE UP!