Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 9/13/2002 8:32:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 9:03:41 PM EST
It wouldn't fulfill the US military's goal of division transport. There are only a few airports in the world capable of handling the AN-225 when it is fully weighed down with cargo and fuel. Lambert Field in St. Louis is one of them, and I believe this plane needs more than a mile or so to land. I'd have to look up the specs. If the US wanted to invade China or Great Britain, I'm sure the infastructure would be in place. Forget Afghanland or Indonesia. Of course, Phantom Works is known for some cool s#$t. Take the X-36 for instance, which used external vaneless thrust vectoring. It's a shame they didn't get the JSF. Boeing's design sucked, and I remember some McDonnell Douglas people being POed about the decision. It was pure money/politics, not who had the best and most advanced design. Anyway, if this Pelican does turn out, I'm sure it'll be able to take off and land over extremely short distances. themao [chainsawkill] ________________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 9:07:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 9:08:19 PM EST
all i have to say is YUK
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 9:41:11 PM EST
themao, You got a picture of the X-36? I can't recall what plane that is. You said Boeing's plane sucked,then that it was ashame "they" didn't get the JSF. A third plane in the competition?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:25:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2002 10:39:55 PM EST by themao]
This is the X-36 tailless experimental research aircraft. They rolled it out right after McDonnell Douglas (Phantom Works) lost their JSF bid, and of course before they merged with those fuckos at Boeing: [img]http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-36/Small/EC97-44294-2.jpg[/img] Details at: [url]http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-36/[/url] This was MDC's entry into the JSF: [img]http://www.geocities.com/xplanes2000/a396076.gif[/img] [img]http://pollux.com/defenseweb/1996/sept96/jsf-mdc.jpg[/img] Note the tailess design compared to Lockheed's X-35 piece of dump. I need not compare either two though to the fat ass cost cutting Boeing X-32. The MDC entry could actually carry two AMRAAMs and two 2000 lb JDAMs in its internal bay. It was larger than Boeing's and Lockheeds. It may have been "more complex" due to the advanced composites and stealth materials employed, along with of course it's complete reliance on thrust vectoring for horizontal stabilization (hence, replacing the need for large radar reflecting vertical tail booms like the F-15, etc. They make great targets for Su-37s! [:D] ). The military did it on those grounds publicly (since the details are officially classified). I think what killed it though was the fact that MDC went for using a SECOND jet engine transversely mounted behind the cockpit for vertical take offs and landings on the Marine Corps version. It was a dumb way to go, but this is what happens when you have to design a plane for the Marines, Navy and Air Force (can anyone say: F-4 PHANTOM????? and yes I know it was meant to soley be an interceptor from the get go). Lockheed, who won the whole damned thing, utilized the Yak-141's brilliant lift fan system, which of course could have been put on the MDC's entry, had MDC paid the Russian Yakolev f#$kwads off with the right amount of cash. Lockheed still doesn't own the technology necessarily. Sigh. I used to think all this s#$t was important back when I was a teenage neocon. Now I want my money back from these thiefs. themao [chainsawkill] ____________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:32:35 PM EST
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Perhaps it can land in the water?
View Quote
It said fly over water at low level. I presume this is to help avoid being picked up by radar when low flying is necessary. For whatever reason, it's still a BIG aerial target to be flying into any "hot" combat zone. themao [chainsawkill] ______________________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:36:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2002 10:42:40 PM EST by byron2112]
Ahhhh kewl! Thanks. I recognize both pictures. Isn't the first an unmaned aircraft? I agree.The plane they picked doesn't really look big enough to do all the jobs required. And that Marine version looks pretty damn complicated considering about a dozen different doors and flaps have to open. I guess there hoping for no battle damage eh? Have you seen pictures of the proposed F/B-22 bomber version? Its lengthened and tailess. Looks quite like the X-36 You ever see that Antov plane in the flesh? I saw it about 10+ years ago at Payne Field,Everett Wa. That is one HUMUNGOUS piece of equipment.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:41:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2002 10:42:08 PM EST by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:44:39 PM EST
Yeah, the X-36 is unmanned. All the V/TOL aircraft suck in terms of worrying about debris, etc. You can't make a fast, ultra high performance aircraft yet with A-10 warthog durability. With the A-10's commericial aircraft engines, it has loose enough tolerances where they can eat up frozen chickens being sucked in at 400 mph. That's the kind of crap they need for a low flying and slow gunnery platform to replace the A-10. To be honest, i don't think they have to replace the A-10. They should just modify it. I haven't seen the F/B-22, but I have seen Northtrop's proposal for a F-111 replacement quite some time ago. It's supposed to "exist" right now according to Popular Science (cough cough), but I think the AF is more concerned about trying to keep itself afloat than investing in something that could cost $200 million per plane. themao [chainsawkill] __________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:46:44 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:46:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: I know what it said. In my view, it would be a little illogical to design a plane that can fly 20 feet above water, without giving it the ability to land in the water. I surmised that the low flight over water is to take advantage of the ground effect, much as the Russians did many years ago with their water skimming cargo planes.
View Quote
Hhehehehehe. Maybe they think they can outdo Howard Hughes. [:D] Maybe Phil Condit of Boeing should grow a beard and go crazy. [:D] themao [chainsawkill] _____________________________ Got ice picks?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:54:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/13/2002 11:00:50 PM EST by byron2112]
I agree,its a big mistake to replace the A-10(didn't know they were). Its a tool suited perfectly for its mission. Its used under air superiority anyhow,so I don't see why stealth and all that other hightech crap means anything as far as its mission is concerned. They ought to save the tax payers some money and just keep using the most awsome close air support weapon ever put in the air. Who cares about "new". If it gets the job done thats goos enough. You probably did see the F/B-22 then.It was on the cover of PM. Don't remember them saying it existed,but they did mention its primary purpose would be to replace the F-111's deep strike mission. Although they did hint at the possibility of a naval version. The hypothetical perfomance,range and payload was extremely impressive.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 10:56:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 11:58:59 PM EST
I was listening to the John Carlson show about Boeing management from the floor and office workers at Boeing. They seem to think that MacDac took over Boeing more than Boeing took over MacDac. They point out that most of the board members of Boeing are made up of ex-MacDac board members, and that Condit is nothing more than a MacDac mouthpiece, Mulally is the one who would have been the CEO of Boeing if MacDac had not been merged with Boeing. "They rolled it out right after McDonnell Douglas (Phantom Works) lost their JSF bid, and of course before they merged with those fuckos at Boeing:" ********************************** The F-4 was built for the US Navy. The US Air Force adapted it for their use. You may be thinking of the TFX, it spawned the F-111 and the F-14. "It was a dumb way to go, but this is what happens when you have to design a plane for the Marines, Navy and Air Force (can anyone say: F-4 PHANTOM????? and yes I know it was meant to soley be an interceptor from the get go). ********************************** The US did use the original USSR stealth data research to get a head start on our stealth aircraft program, however, Jack Northrup knew all about stealthy aircraft. The first few times that the XB-49 went flying it was next to impossible for air traffic control to track it. "An intrinsic aspect of this design is it's stealth characteristics. Even the all metal YB-49 was practically invisible to radar. On it's first flight, the dumbfouned controllers had to come out of their building to find the plane above their heads. While stealthiness is godsent for millitary use, it may cause unwanted trouble in civilllian use. The people on the ground have to know clearly where you are in order to guide you!" "We got Stealth technology from the Russians too. They didn't see the value in it, so they shared their little secret." *********************************
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 6:01:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2002 6:02:33 AM EST by AeroE]
Here is a little first hand info - The X-36 is a fancy model airplane, shaped to look somewhat like a full scale airplane. This machine is a relatively low cost method of proving out the flight control laws required to make this aerodynamic configuration work. This new freighter/heavy lifter proposal is a Ground Effects Machine operating exactly like the Soviet Ekranoplanes. The idea is to fly in ground effect where induced drag is about half of flight at altitudes more than a wingspan above the ground. This vehicle will operate like a ship, not a conventional airplane. The wasy Boeing is proceeding this vehicle would most likely be built in China or other #rd world country. The MacDonnel Douglas submittal to the JSF competition had a lift engine. When a Marine general sits across the table and tells you that you will lose if your design has a lift engine, you'd think we would listen, especially given MDC's prior history of telling the customer what they need, instead of listening to them and figuring out what they want. Even if you can provide data that indicates the lift engine is not an operational probem, if the US doesn't wnat it, don't draw it in your proposals. In early 1990 when I joined the A/STOVL (Advanced Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing) program, the MDC aircraft had a shaft coupled lift fan - pretty slick, except that no one in the world knew for sure how to build a "hypershaft" that was about 10 feet long, transmitting 25000 HP at about 1000 RPM. (Smaller hyuper shafts have been around on helicopters for a while, but they are tiny in comparison.) About March 1990 or so, a copy of the patent awarded to Lockheed came throught the office causing quiet panic amongst some of the program management - Lockheed's patent covers the aircraft from the top to bottom of the lift fan, down the drive shaft, and right out the flow diverters and nozzles. Okay, no big deal, we can still field a superior airplane, we will just pay Lockheed a license fee for the patent when we win -wrong, about a week later the program starts looking at the design of a gas coupled lift fan. This means pumping hot turbine air forward through the airframe to the lift fan, and driving a turbine wheel in the fan. This is hard. At this time A/STOVL still had a super cruise requirement (supersonic flight without afterburner), so the airframe cross section was sqeezed down to reduce supersonic wave drag. The problem is tht there isn't real estate left in the airframe for the hot air ducting to the lift fan. This is not good, we can't hang engines and other equipment on sky hooks (although the first cut at new design starts that way). The other problem with the gas coupled lift fan, other than the thermodynamic inefficiency, was the temperature of the the exhaust gas. The fan exhaust was predicted to have a hot core of air at about 900F after it passed through the turbine - this is a problem on carrier decks. Well, if you ahve an exhaust temperature problem anyway, and probably can't make a gas coupled lift fan work in an airframe that meets the performace spec, then you might as well install a lift engine! Shortly thereafter, your company gets bought by The Big B. Everyone (the US, Britain, USSR, and Germany) has had some idea of radar signature reduction since the invention of RADAR - the target's radar cross section (RCS) is a key factor of the governing "RADAR Equation" (look it up on the internet, there are many sites with info). Dennis Overholzer's breakthrough was in recognizing an algorithm for calculating, and to some extent controlling, the specular component of RCS. Prior attempts at reducing RCS by capturing the incident energy were used on the U-2 and SR71, but mostly no one really had a good handle what to do about it. Anyway, "stealth" technology didn't come from the Russians. Finally, I want to clear up some misconceptions about the JSF as it now stands. STOVL versions will go to the Marines, just 300 or so. The USAF buy is several thousands (maybe), and the USN buy is a couple of thousand or so - maybe. The Marines need a replacement for the AV-8B, and the USAF and USN got JSF jammed down ther throats. Without JSF, Marine Aviation is in big trouble. With JSF, the USAF and USN get a piss poor airplane. This is a generality of airplane design, but it might as well be Law Writ in Stone - aircraft designed for disparate missions will invariably have such poor, compromised performance as to be nearly unuseable, unless you just need machinery for airshows. If this country doesn't get its aviation act together, we are going to be in the same boat as the UK, unable to design and field military aircraft of our own design (the AV-8B and T-45 are US redesigns of British airplanes, but all we started with was the basic configuration). There is more, but I am tired of typing and I'm afraid I already exceeded the word limit - let's see ...
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 6:24:05 AM EST
I recall a Popular Mechanics issue that talked of big birds like that. But the one on the front page of their issue a while back was jet powered... It was described as like a flying ship...skimming the surface.
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 6:25:19 AM EST
DVD is correct the Boeing is not an aircraft in the purest sense. Its a air-effect skimmer. It creates enough lift under its wings to cut resistance. The creator of the Russian version which was built several years a go lives in the US. He was trying to build a small version for civilians. I would not doubt that he is a consultant with Boeing. The skimmer could technically deliver ttoops and materials right onto a beach. The Russians did wonderful research but did not have the Yankee Ingenuity to use the technology.
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 7:06:23 AM EST
Many people are now aware that scientists were working on aircraft stealth technology since the early 1960's, however many are unaware that the first real attempt at stealth technology was in 19th century Britain long before the first powered flight was ever thought possible. Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell derived a set of mathematical formulae to predict the manner in which electromagnetic radiation would scatter when reflected from a given geometric shape. German electromagnetic scientist Arnold Johannes Sommerfield further refined these equations. The work of these two scientists was revisited in the 1960's by the Russian Dr Pyotr Ufimtsev at the Moscow Institute of Radio Engineering. He was able to simplify the technology by concentrating on electromagnetic currents at the edge of geometric shapes, and published a paper entitled 'Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction'. It was thought that the applications for this theory were based on very simple two-dimensional shapes, but when it was combined with other work it provided the mathematical basis for stealthy aircraft.
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 5:08:05 PM EST
Lets hear some more AeroE.
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 7:32:59 PM EST
I wonder how well it skims in 50 foot seas? My dad once told me he was almost assigned to a destroyer that came under heavy seas in WWII, the bow broke off, and the damn thing sank. So, you have to wonder how well that thing could handle similar weather.
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 10:19:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By USNJoe: While stealthiness is godsent for millitary use, it may cause unwanted trouble in civilllian use. The people on the ground have to know clearly where you are in order to guide you!"
View Quote
Are you familiar with [b]Aircraft Transponders?[/b] Bill
Link Posted: 9/14/2002 10:41:47 PM EST
We could test out this Pelican transport by invading Cuba.
Top Top