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
  #11  
Old December 20th 06, 04:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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
Ads
  #12  
Old December 20th 06, 04:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default 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  
Old December 20th 06, 06:35 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
Dave Kearton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,453
Default 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  
Old December 20th 06, 07:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
J.McEachen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default 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  
Old December 20th 06, 07:29 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old December 21st 06, 02:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old December 21st 06, 05:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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  
Old December 21st 06, 06:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
John Keeney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default 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  
Old December 22nd 06, 05:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.military.naval
M. B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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

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 09:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.