A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Time travel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 19th 06, 01:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Jim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Time travel

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  
Old December 19th 06, 04:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Gordon[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Time travel

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  
Old December 19th 06, 09:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Jeroen Wenting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Time travel


"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  
Old December 19th 06, 09:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Gordon[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Time travel

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  
Old December 19th 06, 02:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Jeroen Wenting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Time travel


"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  
Old December 19th 06, 07:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Time travel


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

  #7  
Old December 19th 06, 11:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
TV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Time travel

F-14 or F-15 from the 70's.
F-4 from the 60s.
F-8 from the 50s.

Because they're all proven airframes. Maybe redo the Scooter from the 50s
if you want a strike platform.


  #8  
Old December 19th 06, 11:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Jim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Time travel

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)
  #9  
Old December 20th 06, 03:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Time travel

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

  #10  
Old December 20th 06, 03:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Time travel

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.