The less than famous loosers....

[AIAS]

I mean that those aircraft were not just loser in the mean that they were nothing worth, but very good aircraft for their time...but didn't make it...

[flex297]

Originally Posted by AIAS

I mean that those aircraft were not just loser in the mean that they were nothing worth, but very good aircraft for their time...but didn't make it...

Sure.. There ain't no bad designs today anymore. Too many clever folks working out on those... But there were better solutions than those, no matter what criteria (technical, financial, political) were used.

[AIAS]

yes same opinion,...but in the case of F-20, it would be a fine solution for a choise between the F-16 and Mirage F1...

[flex297]

Originally Posted by AIAS

yes same opinion,...but in the case of F-20, it would be a fine solution for a choise between the F-16 and Mirage F1...

Undoubtedly. But I think the airframe of the F-16 should be a bit more advanced.. With proper avionics, a Lawndart should have had the edge over F-20. Or were there any issues that would count for the Tigershark?

[Gavin.O]

Originally Posted by JAZZ

Three losers, although MiG-AT may be according to some sources still in the running. Sukhoi S-54 top (evolved into S-55) Myasischev-200, MiG-AT and winner Yakolev Yak-130D

Myasischev-200? I've never heard of it, and I've tried to Google it without finding anything.

Any more info or pics? Perhaps there's another name for that design?

--Gavin.

[aerospacetech]

Try "Myasishchev M-200", might have more success!

Originally Posted by Jungle Boy

This is the Ilyushin Il-102 that lost to the Su-25 Frogfoot.



This is the Lavochkin 250 that lost to the Ilyushin Il-28 Beagle.

has anyone got the performance spec on the il-102? speed, climb, what agility, could it manoeuvere well? was it based on a ww2 design? or the 50s? what did the man in the back do, use the radio?!

Originally Posted by JAZZ

Three losers, although MiG-AT may be according to some sources still in the running. Sukhoi S-54 top (evolved into S-55) Myasischev-200, MiG-AT and winner Yakolev Yak-130D

one clue, she has an all black paint scheme, a 6bladed rear prop, turboprop engine, foreplanes, two tandem seats, twin nose pitiot over the nose, swept back wings with pylons underneath, a high tail plane over the prop... AEROPROGRESS designed her but never built her... we need a real name, performance specs like speed, climb, agility, weapon load etc and some good photos. i think a model is for sale costing 200pounds? the link on here was SOVIET ODDBALL DESIGNS but its deleted now... over to you. this is the nicest plane in looks ever built(next to spit and f-20!)

[Gavin.O]

Originally Posted by aerospacetech

Try "Myasishchev M-200", might have more success!

It helps only a little There's still very little information out there about the design, and I thought someone on the forum might have more.

--Gavin.

[over G]

the f20 was powered by the f404 -i think(im not an aviation fan but an technology fan)- that would be an significative advantage over the f16

[Erez]

The F-20 was indeed powered by the F404, but the F404 is weaker than the F-16's F100 or F110.
The F-20 was a good point defence, short legged fighter. But I wouldn't prefer it over the F-16 as a multirule fighter.

[flex297]

Originally Posted by over G

the f20 was powered by the f404 -i think(im not an aviation fan but an technology fan)- that would be an significative advantage over the f16

I am getting always a bit surprised, how overhyped the F-20 is. Flying wise it is an F-5E with a single Hornet engine, come on, there is little there that the world has not seen so far. Could be something like Gripen or LCA, but with correspondingly less advanced aerodynamics.

Basically, me thinks the F-5G had some very interesting avionics on-board, laser-ring gyro, fancy cockpit with monochrome LCDs, AN/APG-67 (?) radar, but its range and loadout must have been inferior to any F-16 variant. Just look at those gigantic AIM-7 Sparrows under Tigershark's wings!

With a good price tag the F-5G could have stolen some thick orders from Lockheed mostly the previous F-5 users (Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia) but I don't think it was superior to a Charlie Viper anyway.

And yes, she's pretty pretty

[over G]

well, yes im agreed, the airframe was too small, but the 404 is an interesting plus at medium-high level, anyway, yes is an 3th generation airframe-aerodynamic with an new engine, nothing more.

[J Boyle]

Another loser in the B-47 race....the YB-49.
Looking at the B-46, 48 and 49...it looks like the USAF made thr correct choice. The first two weren't advanced enough, the latter has a host of ills, stability and range among them.
Rarely has an operational aircraft broken so much new grounds...airframe design and powerplant...and gone onto a huge production run (2100+), and operational success.

[Jungle Boy]

Originally Posted by junipergoth

has anyone got the performance spec on the il-102? speed, climb, what agility, could it manoeuvere well? was it based on a ww2 design? or the 50s? what did the man in the back do, use the radio?!

Il-102 early design, the Il-40.




Another picture of Ilyushin Il-102. It appear it was a last attempt by the Ilyushin OKB to design a jet-powered successor to their famous wartime Il-2 'Shturmovik'. It really looks like the Il-2.



Now the Il-102 is in this terrible condition.



The second crewmember was supposed to directing guns in the extreme tail.

[JAZZ]

Myasischev-200? I've never heard of it, and I've tried to Google it without finding anything.

My mistake - aerospacetech has given you the correct name M-200 it was entred in the UTS competition. Being lazzy giving info is not usually forth coming from me...pictures say a thousand words. But M-200 some figures

Engines - 2 Ivchenko Progress/klimov/Sarkisov R-35M turbofans 3,748Ibf
Wing span 9.40m
Length 10.37m
Hieght 4.2m
Weight normal take-off 4,700kg
Speed 850km/h at sea level
Take off distance 200m
Landing distance 480m
Normal range 1,400km

[AIAS]

The F-20 would be a cheapier solution for the countries that would nor afford the Falcon....but anyway...

[Meteorit]

Originally Posted by Gavin.O

It helps only a little There's still very little information out there about the design, and I thought someone on the forum might have more.

--Gavin.

The following comes from Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory 1996-1997:

Myasishchev M-200 Master

Wingspan: 9.40 m
Length: 10.37 m
Height: 4.20 m
Wheel base: 4.30 m
Wheel track: 2.70 m
Empty Weight: 3,805 kg
Normal Take-off Weight: 4,700 kg
Maximum Speed: 850 km/h at SL
Cruise Speed: 700 km/h
Take-off Speed: 180 km/h
Landing Speed: 155 km/h
Take-off Distance: 200 m
Landing Distance: 480 m
Ceiling: 13,100 m
Normal Range: 1,400 km
Ferry Range: 2,200 km
G-limits: +8/-3
Allowable AOA: 28-30 deg

The M-200 was developed for the UTS competition launched in January 1991. However, it was apperently judged worst of the four contenders in January 1992 when the first stage of the competiton was summarized. Development has reportedly ended. The M-200 was to have a reprogrammable flight control system and automatic operation of wing control surfaces to enable simulation of various flight conditions with sufficient margin of stability. The M-200 together with the NUTK-200 ground system would have made the UTK-200 training system.

[Meteorit]

Originally Posted by junipergoth

one clue, she has an all black paint scheme, a 6bladed rear prop, turboprop engine, foreplanes, two tandem seats, twin nose pitiot over the nose, swept back wings with pylons underneath, a high tail plane over the prop... AEROPROGRESS designed her but never built her... we need a real name, performance specs like speed, climb, agility, weapon load etc and some good photos. i think a model is for sale costing 200pounds? the link on here was SOVIET ODDBALL DESIGNS but its deleted now... over to you. this is the nicest plane in looks ever built(next to spit and f-20!)

You mean the Aeroprogress T-720 lightweight two-seat combat aircraft. Eight underwing pylons and under-fuselage gun pod. Take-off weight 4,500 kg, maximum speed 750 km/h, range 1,400 km, one TVD-1500 turboprop of 970 kW.
The 1996-1997 edition of Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory features lots of very nice Aeroprogress designs...

[frankvw]

Originally Posted by flex297

Sure.. There ain't no bad designs today anymore. Too many clever folks working out on those... But there were better solutions than those, no matter what criteria (technical, financial, political) were used.

Are you sure of that ? What about a quite recent USN plane?

[flex297]

Originally Posted by frankvw

Are you sure of that ? What about a quite recent USN plane?

Let me put it politely. For that amount of money and effort, there are much better machines. Not speaking about the fact that one of those could be facing an improved Flanker one day...

[elider]

Hope this helps with M-200

Originally Posted by Meteorit

You mean the Aeroprogress T-720 lightweight two-seat combat aircraft. Eight underwing pylons and under-fuselage gun pod. Take-off weight 4,500 kg, maximum speed 750 km/h, range 1,400 km, one TVD-1500 turboprop of 970 kW.
The 1996-1997 edition of Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory


features lots of very nice Aeroprogress designs...

cheers! the very plane indeed. i love the look very nice indeed this is the 1st time ive got a bit of info and a name. good on you...

what is the timeline between the il-40 and the il-102? looks like the only major difference is the cut back intakes. what engines are both using? was the 2nd one using mig29 englines(rd33s), what was the engine power difference and performance difference of the two machines? the rear guns are a nice idea, very old world

[frankvw]

Originally Posted by flex297

Let me put it politely. For that amount of money and effort, there are much better machines. Not speaking about the fact that one of those could be facing an improved Flanker one day...

They'll be able to use the "Q" prefix...

By the way, any picture of one with wing fences yet ?

[Arthur]

The aircraft with the nose intakes above is the Il-40P, those silly intakes being put up front to prevent them sucking up gun gases. The original Il-40 had the same intakes as the Il-102. The Il-40P was actually cleared for production in the late 1950s, but got cancelled because according to the Kremlin missiles were sexier.

The aircraft which was offered as a counter to Sukhoi's SPB/LSSh/T8/Su-25 proposal of the mid-1970s was a refined variant of the Il-40, called Il-42. The Il-102 popped up in the early 1990s, but it probably was again the same prototype.

[JAZZ]

Submissions to OR.343 from Hawker Siddeley and BAC for a medium low level bomber....HS lost BAC with their TSR-2 won. HS P1129 was 22.6m in length and much smaller than the TSR-2's 27.1m length.

[Rocky]

Originally Posted by AIAS

Three aircraft from above were realy winners...the F-107, the Super Crusader and the F-20.....

I can't say about the F-107, but the Super Crusader was one hot jet. I don't think they ever figured out how fast it really could go. It was something like halfway to Mach 3 and still accelerating when the test pilot throttled back. I think it lost because it was less versitile than the Phantom, and only had one engine. The F-20 was real nice too, but we already had the F-16...

[Jungle Boy]

Another loosers.


YF-23 Black Widow II



YF-17 Cobra

[JAZZ]

BAC P.59 proposal for a jet trainer in the early 70's it lost out to the HS Hawk