if it existed here is the imagination no flame on this one aietus


and here is the imagination on paper

lol it would be called an f-18

----------------------------------------
And all of this controversy circles me
And it seems like the media immediately points a finger at me
So I point one back at 'em
But not the index or the pinky or the ring or the thumb
It's the one you put up when you don't give a ****
When you won't just put up with the bull**** they pull
Cause they full of **** too

no it wont because its not made by booing this is made by another company called General Dynamics
Lockheed Martin if they had a name for it i recon F16 double falcon

It would quickly run out of gas.

Inlets frontal area are way too small for the engine exhaust con-di nozzles.

If one wanted this to work, a reduction of engine size (regardless of their thrust) of 25/35% would be a lot better.

With the same engines as the mono engine, the TWR of such aircraft would be close to unmanageable.

The two engine are positioned WAY too close to each other although the inlets are well separated, and as SpudmanWP was pointing out, it would be limited in internal fuel by lack of space for the tanks due to double its original specific fuel consumption, fuel fraction is one hell of an important design point.

The interest of separation between engines is not only internal volume for fuel (F-14) it also increase the chances of survival in case of one of one shreading a turbine or engine fire (example Jaguar).

Keeping the same (wet) wing surface is also a mystake, not only would the wingload go down but also the structural load per wing, this leaves a lot to fuselage lift which is not what one is looking for for good turn rates.

Finaly, the "Artist" made a nice begginer's design fault, on the front view the fins are quanted outward, they are vertical in the top view.

These are better done on 3D where such details are not a problem.

My conclusion:

Climb rate of a Saturn V, Turn Rate of a F-105, short legs.

Thunder Supports Rafale

http://rafale.freeforums.org
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

it'd look like the MIG-29.
it'd be heavier because of the second engine and the additional fuel capacity....long story short..it'd end up looking exactly like MIG-29 with better engines

It would be called F-32 (16+16)... But in fact it really exists and it's called the F-15... Both share the same powerplant. A twin-engine Gripen would be called F-18...

-------------------------------------------------------
"Las Malvinas fueron, son y ser¨¢n Argentinas"

to say this, as Thunder witheld from it, but...
it looks a tad like a big blocky Rafale. There's a
link to that in his signature, i believe!