![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71
and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites if it were built with everything available today. It would end up needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS! v/r Gordon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gordon" wrote in message ups.com... Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71 and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites if it were built with everything available today. It would end up needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS! v/r Gordon What modern engines would you fit to an SR-71 that would not destroy its aerodynamic profile yet enable it to work both in the earth's atmosphere and outside it? Such engines don't at the moment exist. The scramjets being tested are built into the aerodynamic structure of the craft so are out of the question given the restrictions you have been handed, adding rocket motors to the SR-71 would be impractical (you might mount one on the top of the fuselage where the old drone attachments are situated I guess, but I doubt that would drive it up to over 200km altitude). Vacuum sealing the fueltanks and avionics bays would also be a major problem, certainly if you don't want to replace the entire airframe structure and panelling with different materials. Let's try a more modest approach, the TSR.2. Fit it with the avionics and weapons systems of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 and the engines of the F-22, add some RAM to critical areas (leading edges mainly), and I think you have a rather interesting ground attack/penetration strike platform with limited multi-role capabilities. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeroen Wenting wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message ups.com... Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71 and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites if it were built with everything available today. It would end up needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS! What modern engines would you fit to an SR-71 that would not destroy its aerodynamic profile yet enable it to work both in the earth's atmosphere and outside it? Did the original poster say I had to solve all the engineering questions to make it work? No. It was a simple "what if", which I answered. Such engines don't at the moment exist. The scramjets being tested are built into the aerodynamic structure of the craft so are out of the question given the restrictions you have been handed, adding rocket motors to the SR-71 would be impractical (you might mount one on the top of the fuselage where the old drone attachments are situated I guess, but I doubt that would drive it up to over 200km altitude). For several years, they tested a "canoe" with an X-33 prototype engine in exactly that location. Is that what you meant? No where in the original post did he say I had to come up with the engineering changes and adapter kits to make it work. Forget I bothered to post. Gordon |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gordon" wrote in message ps.com... Jeroen Wenting wrote: "Gordon" wrote in message ups.com... Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71 and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites if it were built with everything available today. It would end up needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS! What modern engines would you fit to an SR-71 that would not destroy its aerodynamic profile yet enable it to work both in the earth's atmosphere and outside it? Did the original poster say I had to solve all the engineering questions to make it work? No. It was a simple "what if", which I answered. I did read it as stating that major changes to the airframe design are not allowed, only minor changes like to the size of the engine bays. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jeroen Wenting wrote:
Let's try a more modest approach, the TSR.2. Fit it with the avionics and weapons systems of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 and the engines of the F-22, add some RAM to critical areas (leading edges mainly), and I think you have a rather interesting ground attack/penetration strike platform with limited multi-role capabilities. How about the same approach to the RA-5C of which appears to be a direct offspring? 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) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Good answer . . . but. . . . wouldn't GPS be better than LORAN (cripes
I hope I dont start a flame war over this. Blue skies . . . John P.S.: Walt . . . you seem to have a fair number of interesting flying stories . . . did you ever consider writing a book? 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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 11:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 10:45 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 10th 04 12:35 AM |