An Earlier F-20?

elmayerle · June 02, 2007, 10:24:10 PM

QuoteSo basically the F-20 fuselage would a good basis for this then?

IMHO, most likely that's the best place to start, perhaps use a F-5A canopy. Since the J52 is a slightly smaller diamter engine, use the nozzle from a 1/100 F-15 or F-16 for the afterburning J52 nozzle and resculpt the back of the fuselage to blend it in. With the enlarged wing, you'll likely have some "fun" reshaping the LERX, too; though I don't remember of the F-5A/B had that much of a LERX (perhaps an addd-on for this version?).

Shasper · June 03, 2007, 07:04:59 AM

The F-5A/B/C/Ds had a midget LERX when compared to the E/Fs and the F-20. *evil grin* I used a 1/100 F100 nozzle from a F-16 for my TF-20Ex:

Shas B)

Archibald · June 03, 2007, 11:57:02 AM

Quote
Quote
QuoteIMHO, the best approach would be an afterburning J52 which had considerable potential and was a most flexible engine (basic core was produced as turbojet, turbofan, and afterburning turbofan).
More infos on these J-52s derivatives ? (afterburning turbojet, and turbofan) ?
it gets a whole lot simpler if I point out that the P&W designation for the J52 is JT8B. The turbofan version is the JT8D and the afterburning tubofan is the RM8 built for the Viggen. The afterburning version of the turbojet was proposed for the FC-1; at the moment I don't remember the P&W designation for this version of the engine (I do believe this has been discussed over on the Secret Projects forum).

I see now

. Our "super F-5" would have a kind of viggen engine, Ie a BRUTE power (to say the least).
Fascinating stuff!!

Shasper · June 03, 2007, 05:42:38 PM

OK, kinda off-topic, but what kind of camo are you looking at for your RoCAF 'Shark? I'm trying to get my interest up to finish a monogram kit in RoCAF mkgs but havent settled on a paint job yet.

Shas B)

Shasper · June 04, 2007, 07:36:43 AM

Ah, similar to mine except I was thinking 2-tone ADF grays and adding either Sparrows or 'RAAMs

Shas B)

ysi_maniac · June 04, 2007, 08:39:54 AM

QuoteOur "super F-5" would have a kind of viggen engine, Ie a BRUTE power (to say the least).

Would look COOL

Shasper · June 04, 2007, 06:01:11 PM

Wouldnt look too far out of place, just use a canope that would permit good rear visibility (or as much as can be offered)

Shas B)

elmayerle · June 06, 2007, 09:32:51 PM

Quote
Quote
Quote
QuoteIMHO, the best approach would be an afterburning J52 which had considerable potential and was a most flexible engine (basic core was produced as turbojet, turbofan, and afterburning turbofan).
More infos on these J-52s derivatives ? (afterburning turbojet, and turbofan) ?
it gets a whole lot simpler if I point out that the P&W designation for the J52 is JT8B. The turbofan version is the JT8D and the afterburning tubofan is the RM8 built for the Viggen. The afterburning version of the turbojet was proposed for the FC-1; at the moment I don't remember the P&W designation for this version of the engine (I do believe this has been discussed over on the Secret Projects forum).
I see now . Our "super F-5" would have a kind of viggen engine, Ie a BRUTE power (to say the least).
Fascinating stuff!!

Actually, our "super F-5" would have the core of the Viggen's engine, still a turbojet rather than a turbofan (interestingly, if you run the numbers on by-pass ratio, an early JT8D is more suited to afterburning than the TF30). Still, it would have more than adequate power as a straight turbojet.

elmayerle · June 06, 2007, 09:35:59 PM

QuoteOne last query, what work would be required to navalize an F-20? Besides the usual structural beefing up that is?

Well, you'll definitely need more wing area to deal with carrier approaches, even the F-5A/B underwent considerable redesign to be offered for carrier use as the N-285B. The forward fuselage was also redesigned for better over the nose visibility on carrier approaches.

elmayerle · June 06, 2007, 09:41:42 PM

QuoteHad some further thoughts on this one, may well graft an F-5F fuselage on and fill in the back seat to use the space for extra tankage.

Considering the basic design of the F-5/F-20, I'd move all the equipment I could into that space and use the freed-up volume in the center and aft fuselage for fuel. The modular nature of the F-5 fuselage makes that a lot easier.

Archibald · June 10, 2007, 04:42:15 AM

Quote
Quote
QuoteHad some further thoughts on this one, may well graft an F-5F fuselage on and fill in the back seat to use the space for extra tankage.

Considering the basic design of the F-5/F-20, I'd move all the equipment I could into that space and use the freed-up volume in the center and aft fuselage for fuel. The modular nature of the F-5 fuselage makes that a lot easier.
Right, I'll keep that in mind.

Thanks for the input Evans, much appreciated!

So now we have a single F-5 powered by a reheated J-52, carrying one 30mm revolver cannon and using an F-5F forebody with the back seat taken up with equipment and the mid fuselage taking on extra tankage for fuel. On top of this we have an enlarged wing planform. I think this will look good in South East Asian Camo, or maybe I'll think up an interesting new early stab at a low-viz scheme....

I think this will definitely be a firm build project, after I complete my RoCAF F-20, my "secret" crazy project and my VTOL group build for Telford..... etc, etc, etc!

O.K.