Convair Delta Wing Test

heywooood said:
Thanks to all who contributed to her production and especially to Bjoern for reminding us all to use FSX perfectly like he does and to remember that open forums are places where people go to be told to shut the f up and sit the f down and stop asking for schtuff lol
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sit down, observe and STFU if it's not dealing with bringing a project forward. Just like on public transport.
 
Milton Shupe said:
Oh my! Ain't we having a good time. LOL
Click to expand...

Just another glorious day in this wonderful, friendly, easy-going community we call home. :banghead: and, you know Milton, if you will go building these highly complex experimental aircraft then you have to expect a certain amount of pilot stress. LOL


Just one thing with her; after a prolonged taxi 2000 metres or so followed by a short run up to about 100 kts - I found I was without brakes. A Reset put it right.
 
Milton Shupe said:
Anytime you want to find the VC location, start with the Eyepoint parameter in the cfg file. This is set at the pilot's nose bridge..........
Click to expand...

Thanks, a nice effect. I tied it in with a panel light switch I added.
light.0 = 4, 11.00, 0.00, 1.50, fx_vclight,

EDIT: Added internal VC look as well and corrected some measurements.
 
Ganter said:
Just another glorious day in this wonderful, friendly, easy-going community we call home. :banghead: and, you know Milton, if you will go building these highly complex experimental aircraft then you have to expect a certain amount of pilot stress. LOL


Just one thing with her; after a prolonged taxi 2000 metres or so followed by a short run up to about 100 kts - I found I was without brakes. A Reset put it right.
Click to expand...

LOL This aircraft is a little complicated; the X-3 Stiletto even more so.

I told Rick and Tom those wheel brakes would not hold up in lots of taxi maneuvers but weight was concern, and there's only enough fuel capacity for short test jaunts. We used a tow vehicle to get us to the take off point. :)

It is what it is. :)
 
Milton Shupe said:
LOL This aircraft is a little complicated; the X-3 Stiletto even more so.

I told Rick and Tom those wheel brakes would not hold up in lots of taxi maneuvers but weight was concern, and there's only enough fuel capacity for short test jaunts. We used a tow vehicle to get us to the take off point. :)

It is what it is. :)
Click to expand...

What it is Milton - is an absolutely wonderful piece of work. I love it. Thanks again.:wavey:
 
I was adding the XF92 to my little spreadsheet of aircraft in my hanger and when I got to the column for 'range' I could not find anything online that specified it, so I did a little experiment. I started with full fuel at an airport, climbed to 20k, throttled back to 50%, set the autopilot to maintain the altitude and heading and just let it go until it ran out of fuel, then I glided down and on the ground checked how far I was from the original airport. In this experiment I went about 500nm, does that sound like a reasonable range for this aircraft?
 
blanston12 said:
I was adding the XF92 to my little spreadsheet of aircraft in my hanger and when I got to the column for 'range' I could not find anything online that specified it, so I did a little experiment. I started with full fuel at an airport, climbed to 20k, throttled back to 50%, set the autopilot to maintain the altitude and heading and just let it go until it ran out of fuel, then I glided down and on the ground checked how far I was from the original airport. In this experiment I went about 500nm, does that sound like a reasonable range for this aircraft?
Click to expand...

Experimental test machines were more about how much time was needed to get aloft, test, and get back.

I have not seen anything relative to distance or time for fuel burn.

A significant amount of fuel is burned running afterburners all the way to test altitudes, usually around 30,000'.

You can adjust the fuel flow scalar as you wish for longer flights.
Just decrease it in tenths (10% each notch) until you get what you want.
Does not affect performance.
 
I agree with what Milton just pointed out! The XF-92 was initially developed as a "Point Defense" interceptor meaning that it had very limited range and it was suppose to defend a small area like an airbase. They decided, instead, to use it as a test aircraft. I wonder if they ever flew it from point A to point B? Probably just over Muroc (Edwards AFB) for hi-speed testing.
 
The CONVAIR 7002 aircraft video on YouTube talks about the limited flight time of the XF-92A. So much so that they would tug the aircraft to the runway rather than taxi it under power. That might be something we need to change.
 
000rick000 said:
The CONVAIR 7002 aircraft video on YouTube talks about the limited flight time of the XF-92A. So much so that they would tug the aircraft to the runway rather than taxi it under power. That might be something we need to change.
Click to expand...


She certainly is a guzzler - I took her off at KEDW up to FL 300 today with METAR from AS16 and by the time I got there I was a quarter of the way down the tank - mind you I was shifting.

She certainly wasn't built for endurance. More, get up there, intercept, engage and kill, get back down with a bit to spare - just in case you need to go around the tower for a gear/ damage inspection prior to landing.

She might have ended up testing Delta suitability across airframe builds and configs - but in her heart she's pure Interceptor. After all, she was pulling the Cobra manoeuvre long before it had a name. Air brakes? - "Your wings are the air brakes son!"


Beautiful textures Rick.
 
Last edited:
Milton Shupe said:
Experimental test machines were more about how much time was needed to get aloft, test, and get back.

I have not seen anything relative to distance or time for fuel burn.

A significant amount of fuel is burned running afterburners all the way to test altitudes, usually around 30,000'.

You can adjust the fuel flow scalar as you wish for longer flights.
Just decrease it in tenths (10% each notch) until you get what you want.
Does not affect performance.
Click to expand...

Thanks Milton, I have done that trick before to fix aircraft when they don't have the correct range but in this case I was just curious what the correct range was. From the difference in MTO and DOW I assumed it probably carried about 750 gallons (the model has 526) and a similar engine to whats in the P-80/T-33 (except for the afterburner) so assumed even half of what the P-80/T-33 could do (1,110 nm with drop tanks) would be reasonable if the pilot was conservative with the after burner..
 
Based on one of the documents Rick recommended, I did some rounding just to make it easier, close enough for Rock-n-roll as the saying goes, for the range.

The speeds were all around Mach .70, so using that, at 15000 ft the range would be about 500 miles, at 25000 ft it would be about 600 miles and at 35000 ft it would be about 800 miles. Also, if it's any help, the SFC of the J33-A-29 was 1.12. I assume that isn't an augmented value. Also, those range values didn't take into account the climb, operating on the basis that the fuel you would use climbing would be saved on the descent, so I would base all of it on non-AB use, and let the range when using AB fall-out from there.
 
Seahawk72s said:
What do you imagine for the real aircraft the gear speed limitations were..?
Click to expand...

I did not set the gear limits as I have no data on that (just double-checked).

Since the highest take off speed is like 184kias at full weight, it's a safe bet that the gear limits are well over 200.

Try 225-230 in flight and if nose pitch is not abrupt, that should be okay to use.
 
Gear limits would more likely be set based on tire speed. And likely, is not over 200. I imagine it was probably a very small margin for error. Those speeds are very high and it is doubtful that the gear used was specially designed. Likely had tight landing speed limits. I bet it's in the documentations somewhere..... Would have to go back and look.
 
Not sure if this is relevant or not to the question at hand, but...

After flying the XF-92, I've pulled my Razbam Convair F-102 out of the hangar. The manual clearly warns "Landing Gear Speed Limit 240 Knts IAS."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top