Convair Delta Wing Test

[Bjoern]

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

Exactly. Sit down, observe and STFU if it's not dealing with bringing a project forward. Just like on public transport.

[Milton Shupe]

Oh my! Ain't we having a good time. LOL

[Ganter]

Oh my! Ain't we having a good time. LOL

Just another glorious day in this wonderful, friendly, easy-going community we call home. 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.

[Seahawk72s]

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..........

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.

[Milton Shupe]

There is a panel light switch on the electrical panel by your left knee ... just FYI. :-)

[Milton Shupe]

Just another glorious day in this wonderful, friendly, easy-going community we call home. 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.

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. :-)

[Ganter]

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. :-)

What it is Milton - is an absolutely wonderful piece of work. I love it. Thanks again.

[blanston12]

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?

[Milton Shupe]

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?

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.

[MrZippy]

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.

[Mach3DS]

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.

[Ganter]

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.

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.

[Seahawk72s]

There is a panel light switch on the electrical panel by your left knee ... just FYI. :-)

Thanks..
I am trying a 2D panel to see how it feels....

[Milton Shupe]

Thanks..
I am trying a 2D panel to see how it feels....

That looks great; well done. :-)

[blanston12]

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.

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..

[Sundog]

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]

What do you imagine for the real aircraft the gear speed limitations were..?

[Milton Shupe]

What do you imagine for the real aircraft the gear speed limitations were..?

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.

[Mach3DS]

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.

[WarHorse47]

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."

[Milton Shupe]

May be correct there Rick ...

But the X-3 has gear down available under 300kias, but tire contact and spin-up is constrained to 201 knots, the touchdown speed.

So, I see no issue with gear down at 220-250 for drag and landing config set up as long as the pilot understands tire spin-up constraints.

[Seahawk72s]

Thanks, good info...

[Ganter]

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.

So far I've gone with that thinking... not jacks and metal but, rubber limits. After all - this is the 1950's.
I haven't dared deployed gear above about 190 KIAS - Just because of the drag - you already have that in bucket loads on the wings when you stick back. I've certainly been shy of putting the rubber on the ground at anything above 175'ish...Kiss the tarmac at 145'ish and you're a champ.

The thing really has to be thought through for landing and you really seriously want to make it as soft as you can; if you bring it in hot it's going to spit you out, melt your rubber and everything else that's horrible. I would agree with Rick and say upper limit on touchdown is most definitely no higher than 200 KIAS - and that's on the limit - because it screeches side to side with that huge great vertical stab at the whim of the cross wind, etc.

And then you're putting that early rubber technology through the extra long roll out until eventual stop.
Stopping a 777 is much, much easier;

but definitely no where near as fun.

[Milton Shupe]

See the Gear limits on the X-3 attached ....

I think big jets also have a much faster gear deployment than touchdown speeds.

Need the drag and time to get aircraft trimmed for landing configuration.

[Mach3DS]

Sorry guys, for the confusion on my part, I was thinking landing speed and takeoff speed limits! Not gear operation speed.... Duh! That's my misunderstanding! Gear Up/down speeds may be very limited by the type of gear doors and how the gear is extending into the air stream... Don't want to rip off those doors!