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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message ... "Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem ... The successful failu the F-16. Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the F-20 Tigershark project ?? In brief : - F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries (F-16 weren't cleared for that) - F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep financial trouble) - F-20 program went down the drain Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and magazines? Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics. Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of conspiracy against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for the entire arospace industry. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Hobo" wrote in message ... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: Scott Ferrin a loser? That has been an elephant in the room for some time now. This is unprovoked. Hardly. Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something doesn't it? Not if they are a loser. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote: (ArtKramr) wrote: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? Regards, Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer Here's a few: TBD Devastator F2A Buffalo B-32 Dominator F-111B F11F Tiger AM-1 Mauler F-20 Tigershark YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24 Mitushibshi A7M Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew) TBY Seawolf F-90 F-107 F-108 The F-108 was cancelled because 1. $$$$ and 2. that's about the time something better came along - the YF-12A. Which was also never purchased. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:12:59 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote: F-107 One of my favorite "what if?" planes, just for the intake placement alone... http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-107_ultra_sabre.pl Pretty little thing, though. Great pic at the bottom of that page. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:48:22 -0200, "Vicente Vazquez"
wrote: "Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem ... The successful failu the F-16. Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of the F-20 Tigershark project ?? In brief : - F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries (F-16 weren't cleared for that) - F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep financial trouble) - F-20 program went down the drain Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and magazines? There's a lot of truth in the sequence. The policy, pre-Carter, was to provide second level (similar to Soviet "export" version) aircraft to third-world/developing nation AFs. These were the folks that were principal customers for the NF-156 Freedom Fighter (AKA F-5A program). Northrop developed a follow-on to the F-5 to sell to existing customers who were not eligible for US equippage, i.e. F-15/F-16 aircraft. There were other contenders, such as the F-16/79--a Viper without advanced avionics and pushed by a J-79 engine. It was a viable market for an arguably competitive airplane. When Carter breached the dike by contracting for F-16As to Pakistan and then S. Korea, the list of potential F-20 customers disappeared as they all demanded first level equipment, i.e. F-16s. Later Northrop tried to flog the airplane to Air Defense Command and as a potential diversification airplane for TAC, but it simply couldn't compete against the already existing Viper base. Having flown the F-20 cockpit (albeit not with F-20 flight models) during F-23 Dem/Val, I would say that the F-20 was not ready to compete with the ergonomics of F-16. Throw in a couple of demo aircraft prangs and you have all the ingredients of a failed program. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
On or about Mon, 01 Dec 2003 04:37:43 GMT, "Ed Majden"
allegedly uttered: "Chad Irby" Not as much as you'd think. Even at close range, you wouldn't "incinerate" a plane. You'd need a fairly dead-on hit to vaporize even one. Small nukes have small fireballs. Any Soviet planes hit by one of these would prettybe blown out of the sky, but the effects would be no worse than getting shot down in the first place. Good thing we didn't have to go through a nuclear war to see who is right! One of our base hospitals had an appropriate sign at the entrance. "What to do in case of a nuclear attack: Answer: "Stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!" Nuke is an acronym..... Notice Flash Unzip trousers Kiss Ass Goodbye Evaporate. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - Drink Faster |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote: (ArtKramr) wrote: I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more? Regards, Here's a few: TBD Devastator F2A Buffalo B-32 Dominator F-111B F11F Tiger AM-1 Mauler F-20 Tigershark YB-40 and YB-41 gunships of B-17 and B-24 Mitushibshi A7M Me-163 (killed more of its own pilots than Allied aircrew) TBY Seawolf F-90 F-107 F-108 The beautiful (but flawed) Chance-Vought Cutlass |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:vKKyb.541308$9l5.70736@pd7tw2no... Fortunately we didn't find out what their accuracy was! If it was as bad as you seem to suggest, what the hell were we scared iof them for. Because we didn't live in hardened shelters. Long before this, V1 buz bombs and V2s hit London. The first strike would have been ICBMs in any event, not bombers. What Soviet ICBMs had the accuracy to destroy hard targets when Bomarc entered service? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:iTLyb.541516$9l5.417832@pd7tw2no... "Keith Willshaw" Contrary to their claims at the time the Soviets did not have the ICBM force they claimed and were believed to have even as late as the Cuban missile crisis.Although NEI estimates put their strength at between 200 and 500 missiles in realty they had only made a few deployments of at most 100 missiles and were not about to expend them on possible Bomarc sites. If what you say is correct, you can't say much for the American intelligence community. Either that, or Ike was right! "Beware of the military industrial complex in America". The military build up was not for security but to keep industries running. I think thats overly cynical. The Russians were claiming they had the weapons , the experts knew they could be developed in the time frame since the USA had done so. Overestimating your enemies capabilities and sizing your forces to match is usually less of a problem than the converse so Intelligence analysts tend to take the pessimistic view. Glad we didn't have to carry out a test to see which concept was the correct one! Indeed. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 1 | January 2nd 04 09:02 PM |