Deviant Login Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
April 26, 2011
Image Size
176 KB
Resolution
1100×473
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
12,067 (1 today)
Favourites
460 (who?)
Comments
65
Downloads
1,550
×
TR Fighter - Viper X-4 by Hideyoshi TR Fighter - Viper X-4 by Hideyoshi
Yep, fun!
Trying to get back into concept art, industrial design more again, woohoo!
Figured I am not knowledgeable enough when it comes to designing functional, purpose oriented stuff.
'Tactical recon fighter', does this sound like a classification a kid came up with? ._.
The wings look lame but I like the rest :P
All done in Photoshop.
Add a Comment:
 
:icondog42a:
dog42a Featured By Owner Jun 19, 2013
Hmm, well the engines are pretty far back, but with the heavy cannon on the nose and the wings set so far back, it shouldn't be too tail heavy to fly.
Any change in pitch or yaw is going to be sluggish with the decentralized weight, but the short wings will give it very high roll rate. It could probably pull a snap-roll or barrel-roll really well. Also the large stabilizers with a little nose weight will make it fly straight and fast.
Looks like it would be fantastic for rapid response ground support, it could buy time for heavier ground support to arrive.
As someone who does radio controlled airplanes, I'm tempted to make a 'foamy' based on this and see how it really preforms.
Reply
:iconhideyoshi:
Hideyoshi Featured By Owner Jul 2, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
well I'd definitely like to see a foamy version of this. doubt it will fly though :P
Reply
:icondog42a:
dog42a Featured By Owner Oct 21, 2013
...huh, ya know what.  I got 3 sheets of 6mm foam sitting next to my dryer.  If you've got some plan views showing it from the top, side, and front, I can see if it can be converted.  I been looking for a quick but unique project anyway.

It's so long, may have to go for a 28-30 inch wingspan to keep it stable.  As a foamy, an E-Flite 400 or equivalent with a pusher prop should get it moving fairly fast.
Reply
:icondog42a:
dog42a Featured By Owner May 8, 2014
Well, I know it's been a while (life happens) but I finally got to doodling a few ideas on how to turn this into an RC plane.  I've got a big motor laying around so I could make one around 5 ft long.

I think I can give the main body just a bit of a wing shape to help reduce wing-loading making it fly a little better.

My only real serious concern is the long nose (assuming I go with a full body version), while its shape would give a lot of horizontal (Yaw) stability, without canards or something similar it may suffer from some vertical (Pitch) instability.

To counteract that I could add some clear plastic canards but Ive always felt like that was cheating.  I could also make two of those tiny fins up front instead of one and angle them out sharply.  Or alter the intakes under the canopy so that they don't stick out too much but the top or bottom blends into a horizontal plate that runs about halfway up the nose giving the impression of a leading edge shoulder like on the F-18, just a little less pronounced.  What do you think?
Reply
:iconsokolniki:
Sokolniki Featured By Owner Aug 11, 2012
I'll give you a lesson I suppose. By modern American Standards anything that is "Recon" would be oriented towards an overall stealthy design, and has been since the U-2, particularly from detection methods originating from below. On this design, the forward intake's positioning in particular would be considered a big no-no, while the intakes for the outboard engines would be considered decently placed with the wings shielding the radar hotspots from ground based radar. Additionally, in regards to evading ground based radar, inward angled stabilizers are a superior approach to outward angled.

Now as far as Fighters are concerned, you'll notice that the three large sized 5th Generation Fighters (F-22, Pak-Fa and J-20) place their radar hotspots (most notably intakes) on the bottom of the aircraft. This is to evade aerial based radar and to allow them to present them a radar dead-zone while maneuvering by exposing the top of their aircraft to the radar source. In otherwords, while the forward intakes are notably well placed, the outboard engines, the mere fact of being external being a no-no for fighter design, the intakes over potential shields against radar detection is particularly problematic. Outward angled stabilizers however, are a good choice for fighters since they provide superior maneuverability characteristics to both vertical and inward angled stabilizers.

I imagine that the forward intakes are indicative of either a a 3/4 engine design, or that the extra intakes are for a VTOL powerplant.

There are Fighter Aircraft that do get re-outfitted for recon duty going as far back as WWII (WWI was more Recon aircraft being re-outfitted for combat duty), but generally, if you are going to design an aircraft that performs a second duty along with being recon, you'd likely see it being a Recon/Attacker since an Attacker's ground oriented primary functions all benefit from the same "Vs Ground" orientation of radar evasion that a recon aircraft would benefit from. "Recon/Fighters" generally favor fighter characteristics since... like said before, they are re-purposed fighter aircraft.

Hope that helps, Cheers ^_^
Reply
:iconjustatry2552:
JustATry2552 Featured By Owner Apr 30, 2012
Really like the way you're drawing war planes
Reply
:iconbowwing333:
bowwing333 Featured By Owner Oct 9, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Is this a surface to low orbit craft? Looks like its space capable.
Reply
:icongottagoturnish:
gottagoturnish Featured By Owner Oct 1, 2011
so pretttyyy *A*
Reply
:iconthelearningcurv:
thelearningcurv Featured By Owner May 19, 2011
this is a damn cool plane!
Reply
:iconmegadolon013:
megadolon013 Featured By Owner May 17, 2011
Reconj and light fighter. I see this in the Starblazer univers, also in battletech, harlock or crusher joe timeline. As for the nose well it could be removable for mission specific items. It is well made including the wing.
Reply
Add a Comment: