• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Douglas X-3 Stiletto FSX Native

Facts and Figures

Douglas had expected the X-3 to reach speeds in excess of Mach 2, but it became clear at an early stage to both the manufacturer and the USAF that this would not happen.

​
Futuristic design Contemporary engine technology could not match the potential of the advanced airframe design.

​
After completing its test duties the X-3 was handed over to the US Air Force Museum, in Ohio, where it can still be seen.

​
Even in the company of the 0-558-1 Skystreak and 0-558-2 Skyrocket, the 'Stiletto' looks futuristic. The two earlier Douglas aircraft enjoyed far greater success than the X-3.

​
Douglas used a long, slender fuselage with low-aspect ratio straight wings for the X-3.

On 15 October 1952 the X-3 made an unscheduled, but brief, trip aloft and an official first flight five days later.

​
The X-3 used 850 pinholes, spread over its structure, to record pressures and 185 strain gauges to record air loads.

​
There were 150 temperature recording points spread across the X-3 airframe.

​
In its fastest flight on 28 July 1953 the X-3 was clocked at Mach 1.21 in a dive.

​
The X-3 is on display at the US Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

​
The X-3 had one of the fastest take-off speeds in history - 260 mph.
(Note: and that's why the thread kept coming off the tires - and new tire technology was developed to deal with high speed take-offs)

​
The gloss white fuselage and tail surfaces contrasted with the highly polished aluminum wings.
​
 
Last edited:
couldnt resist. I had to go in and give the wings a bright shiny chrome finish after reading that. yeah, i dont know what i'm doing but it doesnt look too terrible..

Thanks to NACA's impeccable data keeping, i'm about a third done with the initial FDE. However, thats the easy third. The hard parts are still ahead.. None the less, a hard roll at M1.05@ causes the nose of the plane to do some interesting things already. Its not what was reported, but its a start..

zldbRNi.png


1rpBCCE.png
 
Yea! It fly's! That's a pretty fast takeoff, I think my fastest speed in a ground trike was a bit over 210 mph... I'll be the X-3 felt a lot like the woman in the motorcycle at Bonneville!
 
LOL Neat!

Today I roughed out a test bed flight model and have been flying and tweaking it.
Liftoff with 3 notches of appropriate flap settings (30*LE-25*TE) at 260 kias.
Tire tread stayed intact ... I guess; haven't modeled them yet. :)

Scott Thomas is working on a 2D panel and I should have that soon for testing.
 

Attachments

  • x3panel (Large).jpg
    x3panel (Large).jpg
    72.4 KB · Views: 1
  • ms-2018-apr-17-002.jpg
    ms-2018-apr-17-002.jpg
    9.7 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
fliger747 said:
Yea! It fly's! That's a pretty fast takeoff, I think my fastest speed in a ground trike was a bit over 210 mph... I'll be the X-3 felt a lot like the woman in the motorcycle at Bonneville!
Click to expand...
i have too much lift on mine. its taking off at 220. Sideslip angle and weathervane is also off.. engie seems ok with top speed just under mach 1 and maxh 1.2 in a dive.. currently my AC is at 75% mac, but it doesnt really seem to matter where i place it on that wing at the moment during subsonic flight.. Thing is, we all know theres a snake in there waiting to bite at the right speed and i havent quite coaxed it out of hiding yet..
 
I think the XF 92A was capable of takeoff at lower speeds as well but with the lower power available they were afraid of early rotation and high induced drag preventing a climb out as well as possible control issues low and slow.

: )
 
Yes, generally the aerodynamic center move aft as the shockwaves establish in the transonic range. This does usually cause a nose down moment, this is often known as "Mach Tuck". One of the issues in WWII fighters touching into this realm.

I have flown the 747 to high Mach numbers and for some reason it did not experience this effect to any noticeable degree. The considerable thrust requited at high mach from the underslung nacelles may have compensated for this.

With a short MAC and a long arm for the elevator, apparently the X-3 had sufficient compensating control.
 
I've only flown the xf-92 once so far, but compared to the x-3 it flies like a cadillac. Very amazing job all around on it.. The X-3 reminds me of a pool queue. I know some people will have trouble learning to fly the xf-92, but it fits so well into the delta wings that were prevelent during my childhood.. Hi speed takeoff, high speed landing, dont use flaps or you might somersault, I fell in love with all the delta's at a very young age, especially the skyrray and i think it was called the sky bat?? Not too sure about that last name at the moment..
 
fliger747 said:
Yes, generally the aerodynamic center move aft as the shockwaves establish in the transonic range. This does usually cause a nose down moment, this is often known as "Mach Tuck". One of the issues in WWII fighters touching into this realm.

I have flown the 747 to high Mach numbers and for some reason it did not experience this effect to any noticeable degree. The considerable thrust requited at high mach from the underslung nacelles may have compensated for this.

With a short MAC and a long arm for the elevator, apparently the X-3 had sufficient compensating control.
Click to expand...

I think maybe perhaps the 747 was a stroke of desperate genius.. Boeing just lost its behind on the 2707 and Tripp wanted a big plane for his company. The 747 i dont think could have been made more perfect, except for oxygen generator locations and cargo door retainer designs..
 
yeahh, you did a great job on the panel.. took a bit to get used to switching from the asi to the mack indicator, but its pretty habitual now..I still think it needs a nose or front wheel cam ::lol::
 
The XF-92A beta release and issues have consumed my time in finishing the exterior X-3 model.

I am still dabbling with the wing flaps actuator housings at the moment.
Then on to the gear bays and gear.
 
No worries Milton.. The XF-92 is your baby and needs you right now.. The X-3 was unexpected to be honest, and moreso than that, it's as much an experiment in flight sim as it wa in real life, because I'm using Nasa's data. The weight, thrust, fuel, everything including the MOI's I'm just copying out of Nasa documentation and plugging into the fde. The plane flies beautifully, at subsonic speeds. i figure it'll give flight sim enthusiasts the ability to directly study and learn about Aircraft design and in this case, the effects of transsonic inertial coupling, if they want too. Since i'm using Nasa's data, enthusiasts will be able to change the variables in the experiment by pulling the changes directly from Nasa's program and plugging them in. It's not my fde you see. It's Nasa's. We can take our time.. Your making that plane is very special to me. The XF-92 is very special to the entire community. There's a difference :)
 
Our 747's didn't use Oxy generators, there were actual O2 Tanks in the fwd cargo hold, one for crew and one for Pax.

In their own way both the XF92A and the X3 were successful in that they led to successful production fighters out of the information they provided.

Should be a fun if wild ride!
 
At the moment, it beyond wild. Its like trying to balance an upside down pyramid sitting on the point of a pin from the top. Of course, this version of the fde is only a trial. It's only been to prove that using real life data will give real life behavior in an fsx aircraft, and too the degree that the data has been available, it has done so magnificently. There is much I have either forgotten or relied too heavily on "inspiration from the gods" in the past, and I am finding myself inadequate to some of the tasks, ( i.e. I do not have an accurate way to calculate Cl, CD0, CD/l or e. ). I'm thinking i can most likely find calculators online to help with some things like CL, but theres some things like "e" which cant be found online. For some of it, I'm waiting for your's and Miltons basic FDE , where i can transfer over NASA's numbers and know i'll be in good shape. No disrespect to Ito-Sama, but his flight models always left me in tears as they were so convoluted and screwed up as to be almost hopeless to repair. Whether we've gotten along or not, you remain one of the four engineers, i hold in respect. So, yeah, It is indeed, a hell of a ride ::LOL::..

History, is a very emotional thing for me these days as i watch the young people of the world, throw so much of it away. Thats why I'm so adamant about these planes. They arent "cool". They havent reigned fire on iraq or afghanistan or cleared the skies of mean nasty old tu-94 bears. But without these plane, those planes couldnt exist. To me thats better than "cool" because it gives the bare roots to understanding the aircraft we fly today in sim and in real life.. I dont feel like I stepped into Chuck Yaegers shoies, or anyones for that matter. It's more like i fly it and my thought is: "You came in THAT hunk of junk? Your braver than I thought!"
 
warchild said:
History, is a very emotional thing for me these days as i watch the young people of the world, throw so much of it away. Thats why I'm so adamant about these planes. They arent "cool". They havent reigned fire on iraq or afghanistan or cleared the skies of mean nasty old tu-94 bears. But without these plane, those planes couldnt exist. To me thats better than "cool" because it gives the bare roots to understanding the aircraft we fly today in sim and in real life.. I dont feel like I stepped into Chuck Yaegers shoies, or anyones for that matter. It's more like i fly it and my thought is: "You came in THAT hunk of junk? Your braver than I thought!"
Click to expand...

You're the cool one giving life to the flight characteristics of different aircraft. You help make it as real as it gets. Thanks for your contribution and look forward to meeting you in Vegas.
 
Here are several approach and landing options. Interesting "contact" touchdown speeds.
 

Attachments

  • ms-2018-jan-26-016.jpg
    ms-2018-jan-26-016.jpg
    25.9 KB · Views: 0
  • ms-2018-jan-26-018.jpg
    ms-2018-jan-26-018.jpg
    27.5 KB · Views: 0
  • ms-2018-jan-26-019.jpg
    ms-2018-jan-26-019.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 0
Some progress on one heat shield, the rudder, LE flaps, and aileron actuator housings.

EDIT: The forward heat shield is now added.
 

Attachments

  • heatshield2.jpg
    heatshield2.jpg
    22.6 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top