By: Gavin.O
- 1st January 2004 at 19:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's an interesting photo, and that wind tunnel model might very well have been part of the MFI project. But there are so many significant differences between it and the 1.44 that I would hesitate to draw any conclusions. The forward fuselage has a pronounced "duckbill" shape that reminds me of the MiG-27, while the 1.44 had a conical shape. And Meteorite is correct, the LERX does not seem to allow for canards. This might be a photo of an early configuration that was tested but then discarded.
I can, however, see the influence of this model on Aerospacetech's concept drawing ... If he ever makes a 3-view, I hope he will post and share.
--Gavin.
New
By: Anonymous
- 2nd January 2004 at 04:51Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?"
If they didn't allow for it in the design and it was fully and successfully tested but later they found they couldn't fit a weapon bay they'd look a little silly. It is intended to be stealthy and to use an internal bay... why leave it out? It would be a handy place to put test equipment during testing anyway.
By: SOC
- 2nd January 2004 at 07:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by Meteorit Is the picture representative of the front fuselage configuration as a whole? I can't see anything where the canards could be attached, for example.
Do you have any sources for your information about the 1.42? I remember reading somewhere it might have had MiG-31 type tandem mainwheels. This somewhat makes sense, as the undercarriage bays of the prototype seem excessively large. Also there have been some statements that the 1.42 would have had internal weapon bays. But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?
No, that's not representative of the entire forward fuselage, but the intake profile is similar to the 1.42 design. As for the 1.44's conformal AAM carriage, I have no idea. It also has two underwing pylons, decidedly unstealthy features. This could be explained away by the Keldysh plasma stealth device, but still.
By: Gavin.O
- 2nd January 2004 at 07:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?"
Here's a theory that I've seen at other aviation forums, although I don't know how legitimate the idea is: The production MFI would have carried AAMs inside conformal pods that would have completely encassed the weapons. The pod presumably would be jettisoned after the AAM is launched.
According to this theory, the conformal pods would have been a stealthy way to carry the weapons, without resorting to an internal weapons bay.
I've never quite known what to think of that theory .... but who knows?
By: Vortex
- 2nd January 2004 at 10:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that won't work...no window seats...
New
By: Anonymous
- 3rd January 2004 at 03:48Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"Here's a theory that I've seen at other aviation forums, although I don't know how legitimate the idea is: The production MFI would have carried AAMs inside conformal pods that would have completely encassed the weapons. The pod presumably would be jettisoned after the AAM is launched."
You mean like the (non stealthy but low drag) pog on the Hustler bomber?
I think an internal weapon bay makes more sense... the air intakes have to be curved anyway so that is going to make a space anyway.
By: SOC
- 3rd January 2004 at 04:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yup, the intake ducting curves upwards over the main gear bays, providing a nice convenient spot for an internal weapon bay. Since the primary weapon considered was a folding-finned R-77, the bay didn't need to be huge or anything either. And of course, the serpentine intake duct also helped to lower RCS.
Posts: 104
By: Gavin.O - 1st January 2004 at 19:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's an interesting photo, and that wind tunnel model might very well have been part of the MFI project. But there are so many significant differences between it and the 1.44 that I would hesitate to draw any conclusions. The forward fuselage has a pronounced "duckbill" shape that reminds me of the MiG-27, while the 1.44 had a conical shape. And Meteorite is correct, the LERX does not seem to allow for canards. This might be a photo of an early configuration that was tested but then discarded.
I can, however, see the influence of this model on Aerospacetech's concept drawing ... If he ever makes a 3-view, I hope he will post and share.
--Gavin.
By: Anonymous - 2nd January 2004 at 04:51 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?"
If they didn't allow for it in the design and it was fully and successfully tested but later they found they couldn't fit a weapon bay they'd look a little silly. It is intended to be stealthy and to use an internal bay... why leave it out? It would be a handy place to put test equipment during testing anyway.
BTW thanks for the interesting photos guys.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 2nd January 2004 at 07:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, that's not representative of the entire forward fuselage, but the intake profile is similar to the 1.42 design. As for the 1.44's conformal AAM carriage, I have no idea. It also has two underwing pylons, decidedly unstealthy features. This could be explained away by the Keldysh plasma stealth device, but still.
Posts: 104
By: Gavin.O - 2nd January 2004 at 07:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"But as the 1.44 prototype never was intended to be fitted with operational equipment, why was it then (apparently) built with conformal AAM carriages in the first place?"
Here's a theory that I've seen at other aviation forums, although I don't know how legitimate the idea is: The production MFI would have carried AAMs inside conformal pods that would have completely encassed the weapons. The pod presumably would be jettisoned after the AAM is launched.
According to this theory, the conformal pods would have been a stealthy way to carry the weapons, without resorting to an internal weapons bay.
I've never quite known what to think of that theory .... but who knows?
--Gavin.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 2nd January 2004 at 08:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's a very quickly done and VERY provisional drawing of the 1.42, produced by altering a 1.44 three-view.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 2nd January 2004 at 09:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's another interesting concept, the Tu-344. The idea was to convert BACKFIREs for use as SSTs :rolleyes:
Posts: 3,131
By: Vortex - 2nd January 2004 at 10:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that won't work...no window seats...
By: Anonymous - 3rd January 2004 at 03:48 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:06
"Here's a theory that I've seen at other aviation forums, although I don't know how legitimate the idea is: The production MFI would have carried AAMs inside conformal pods that would have completely encassed the weapons. The pod presumably would be jettisoned after the AAM is launched."
You mean like the (non stealthy but low drag) pog on the Hustler bomber?
I think an internal weapon bay makes more sense... the air intakes have to be curved anyway so that is going to make a space anyway.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 3rd January 2004 at 04:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yup, the intake ducting curves upwards over the main gear bays, providing a nice convenient spot for an internal weapon bay. Since the primary weapon considered was a folding-finned R-77, the bay didn't need to be huge or anything either. And of course, the serpentine intake duct also helped to lower RCS.
Posts: 4,082
By: Deino - 6th January 2004 at 14:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thank You guys for that just fabulous tread .... are there some more concepts, studies out there which are new for me !!!
Thanks again and keep up that excellent work !
Deino :)