If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
On 19 Dec 2006 10:48:01 -0800, "John" wrote:
Ha ha . . . I wonder if I would be crazy to suggest . . . the Vought F7U Cutlass (aka Gutless, aka Ensign Killer [probably one of several deserving of that name[) Replace the POS's that it had for engines with a pair of real powerplants (no, I'm not sure what would fit), I suspect a pair of J52's would fit nicely. Just think what that machine would do with nearly 20,000# of thrust????? Hell, even the GE85's of the T-2 and T-38 would have been an improvement - at least they were reliable! If I can get someone very clever to the play with the aerodynamics, figure out a way to trick the air flowing over the wings in such a way that it could be flown slow with less deck angle, to improve visibility and to allow for a shorter and lighter nose gear. Bleed air boundary layer control would probably help with that, along with an improved slat design. A better fix might be to just extend the forward fuselage a few feet. Always seemed to me to be a tail-heavy design. John Alger USN(ret) 1972-1997 // 1310,1320 TA-4J, A-7E, EC-130Q, P-3B |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
In article . com,
"John" wrote: Good answer . . . but. . . . wouldn't GPS be better than LORAN (cripes I hope I dont start a flame war over this. With modern avionics, you can have both -- and save a lot of weight and power requirements. Add a Strikefinder, NEXRAD, etc. WaltBJ wrote: Either a turbo DC3/C47 or a PBY5 with an added PT6 on centerline. Good autopilot, radar and loran/loran-C. I'm not the least bit interested in getting back into combat. Either of those birds can go just about anywhere that matters to me. Walt BJ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
WaltBJ wrote:
Either a turbo DC3/C47 or a PBY5 with an added PT6 on centerline. Good autopilot, radar and loran/loran-C. I'm not the least bit interested in getting back into combat. Either of those birds can go just about anywhere that matters to me. Walt BJ with somewhere to mount the fishing rods from the waist blisters. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
Why not a Super DC-3/R4D-8/C-117 with its wet wing, larger vertical
stabilizer to handle more powerful engines, wheel well doors, and larger interior room? USN and USMC sure preferred them, they lasted a long time. Joel VAH-5 WaltBJ wrote: Either a turbo DC3/C47 or a PBY5 with an added PT6 on centerline. Good autopilot, radar and loran/loran-C. I'm not the least bit interested in getting back into combat. Either of those birds can go just about anywhere that matters to me. Walt BJ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
John wrote: Jim wrote: We haven't played with this for some time now. Seeing as how we have newer members let's see how this plays out. You have the opportunity to travel back to the '50s, '60's, '70s'. You may select any airframe of that era and "rebuild" it with modern engines, avionics, etc. The basic dimensions of the airframe must remain reasonably the same. (translation: the fuselage might be expanded to accommodate a more modern engine, but not go from a single engine to a dual engine design) Of course ultimately you might need to engage your pick in combat against the newer aircraft. So which would you pick? And why? U.S. or other airframes. ACC USN ret. NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85 & 74-77 Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval) Ha ha . . . I wonder if I would be crazy to suggest . . . the Vought F7U Cutlass (aka Gutless, aka Ensign Killer [probably one of several deserving of that name[) Replace the POS's that it had for engines with a pair of real powerplants (no, I'm not sure what would fit), install a triple, no quad (it is a Cutlass afterall) redundant fly-by wire system. Wire it for AMRAAM and a short range IR dogfight missle). Replace the canopy with something the pilot can see out of towards the tail. If I can get someone very clever to the play with the aerodynamics, figure out a way to trick the air flowing over the wings in such a way that it could be flown slow with less deck angle, to improve visibility and to allow for a shorter and lighter nose gear. The FBW should help with this. Since I am at the end of my lunch hour, I will stop here . . . but that's a start. I always thought the F7U was a pretty plane, maybe it could be tamed and made friendlier. And don't bother . . . I already know about the crazy part Blue skies . . . John Oddly enough, that was the plane I was thinking of too. Better engines should be trivial; we're allowed to place fast & loose with fit & balance. Curing that nose high landing would be nice: improved flaps & slats would help. I don't think FBW is really needed: my understanding was that it was a well behaved plane once in the air and the engines kept working. I don't know that I consider it a "pretty" plane so much as I like it simply for being unique. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
*From:* Jim
*Date:* Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:36:23 -0600 We haven't played with this for some time now. Seeing as how we have newer members let's see how this plays out. You have the opportunity to travel back to the '50s, '60's, '70s'. You may select any airframe of that era and "rebuild" it with modern engines, avionics, etc. The basic dimensions of the airframe must remain reasonably the same. (translation: the fuselage might be expanded to accommodate a more modern engine, but not go from a single engine to a dual engine design) Of course ultimately you might need to engage your pick in combat against the newer aircraft. So which would you pick? And why? U.S. or other airframes. ACC USN ret. NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85 & 74-77 Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval) I'd actually produce the TSR-2. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
The Gutless - I made a stick and paper model of the F7U when I was a
two-striper before cadets and that baby flew surprisingly well when launched off the second floor landing of the barracks stairs. Alas, after too many crash landings (It was a Navy plane!) it went down in flames like most all built-up models. By the way doublke slotted flaps, LE slats and canards would probably reduce that God-awful deck angle and allow reducing the weight of the nose gear about 500 pounds worth by sawing off about 3 feet. BTW speaking of the PBY some oil exploration company owned a couple back in the 50s. They had fishing chairs in the blisters and a pair of Grumman aluminum canoes contoured to fit snugly under the wing hung from the weapons racks. Oh, yeah, they had somehow contrived a sundeck atop the center section. Now that is my idea of a real yacht! Enough room inside the hull for real plush living, too. Turn an Italian yacht designer loose on the insides, yessir! Walt BJ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
WaltBJ wrote: The Gutless - I made a stick and paper model of the F7U when I was a two-striper before cadets and that baby flew surprisingly well when launched off the second floor landing of the barracks stairs. Alas, after too many crash landings (It was a Navy plane!) it went down in flames like most all built-up models. By the way doublke slotted flaps, LE slats and canards would probably reduce that God-awful deck angle and allow reducing the weight of the nose gear about 500 pounds worth by sawing off about 3 feet. OK, that's atleast four of us for the Cutless. BTW speaking of the PBY some oil exploration company owned a couple back in the 50s. They had fishing chairs in the blisters and a pair of Grumman aluminum canoes contoured to fit snugly under the wing hung from the weapons racks. Oh, yeah, they had somehow contrived a sundeck atop the center section. Now that is my idea of a real yacht! Enough room inside the hull for real plush living, too. Turn an Italian yacht designer loose on the insides, yessir! Now, that is what I'm talking about when I want a private plane. Though keep the Italian designer away: he might add something I'm afraid to get dirty. PBY might be a little too big for some the lakes I'ld like to visit too, perhaps something a little smaller. Walt BJ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
"Jim" wrote in message news We haven't played with this for some time now. Seeing as how we have newer members let's see how this plays out. You have the opportunity to travel back to the '50s, '60's, '70s'. You may select any airframe of that era and "rebuild" it with modern engines, avionics, etc. The basic dimensions of the airframe must remain reasonably the same. (translation: the fuselage might be expanded to accommodate a more modern engine, but not go from a single engine to a dual engine design) Of course ultimately you might need to engage your pick in combat against the newer aircraft. So which would you pick? And why? U.S. or other airframes. ACC USN ret. NKX, BIKF, NAB, CV-63, NIR 67-69 69-71 71-74 77-80 80-85 & 74-77 Founder: RAMN (rec.aviation.military.naval) Hmmm... Maybe I'd go back to the 70's and select the EA-6B. Chop the crew down to two, give it afterburners and AMRAAM, MIDS and RWR. ....oh, wait.... I guess that's not really an original thought. -MB |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mini-500 Accident Analysis | Dennis Fetters | Rotorcraft | 16 | September 3rd 05 11:35 AM |
Gyrocopter Speed | Mark | Rotorcraft | 36 | August 16th 05 11:28 PM |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |