Clark Griswold Posted January 5 Author Posted January 5 Needs to happen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Biff_T Posted January 9 Posted January 9 On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 PM, Clark Griswold said: Needs to happen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Gotta get rid of that probe though! Put a receptacle on it. 1
Clark Griswold Posted March 3 Author Posted March 3 777 tanker... CaptainSim 777-200 - USAF (KC-46 livery) [Fictional] for Microsoft Flight Simulator | MSFS Shoulda happened but here we are...
Biff_T Posted March 4 Posted March 4 23 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: 777 tanker... CaptainSim 777-200 - USAF (KC-46 livery) [Fictional] for Microsoft Flight Simulator | MSFS Shoulda happened but here we are... Should have kept the 10 around. They were in a rush to dump a useful aircraft. 1
Clark Griswold Posted March 4 Author Posted March 4 Should have kept the 10 around. They were in a rush to dump a useful aircraft. True, a complimenting acquisition with the 46 and 777 tankers using same technology for mil systems (boom, defensive, comms, cargo handling, etc…) would have been my pitch way back in the dayOf course this assumes they would have not fudged up the 46 and would have spun down the 135 also, a fleet of new tanker ironSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
RegularJoe Posted March 6 Posted March 6 On 3/4/2024 at 9:35 AM, Clark Griswold said: True, a complimenting acquisition with the 46 and 777 tankers using same technology for mil systems (boom, defensive, comms, cargo handling, etc…) would have been my pitch way back in the day Of course this assumes they would have not fudged up the 46 and would have spun down the 135 also, a fleet of new tanker iron Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The way I heard it from Boeing when I was at Boeing was they originally submitted the 777-200 cargo for the original RFP but the USAF declined it saying it wouldn't fit in existing hanger, changed the rfp to require the same footprint and let the A300/767 battle begin. The 777-200 apparently crushed every requirement of the original RFP for fuel capacity, cargo capacity and troop transport. 1
SurelySerious Posted March 6 Posted March 6 The way I heard it from Boeing when I was at Boeing was they originally submitted the 777-200 cargo for the original RFP but the USAF declined it saying it wouldn't fit in existing hanger, changed the rfp to require the same footprint and let the A300/767 battle begin. The 777-200 apparently crushed every requirement of the original RFP for fuel capacity, cargo capacity and troop transport.It doesn’t surprise me that the DOD would shoot itself in the foot with requirements.
Clark Griswold Posted August 16 Author Posted August 16 JF-17 cosplaying as an F-104 Good livery IMHO Switching gears LM stealth tanker concept
Clark Griswold Posted November 2 Author Posted November 2 We need a high fast flyer, let's resurrect with the Brits... the Super Lighting https://hushkit.net/2013/02/01/the-ultimate-what-if-bae-super-lightning/ Adaptive cycle engines and lots of gas, mated with conformal recessed AIM-260s, our HVAA killer or long range sniper. 1
O Face Posted November 2 Posted November 2 7 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: We need a high fast flyer, let's resurrect with the Brits... the Super Lighting https://hushkit.net/2013/02/01/the-ultimate-what-if-bae-super-lightning/ Adaptive cycle engines and lots of gas, mated with conformal recessed AIM-260s, our HVAA killer or long range sniper. These guys still have a small squadron of high, fast flyers! https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2024/10/23/starfighters-space-testing-jet-wing-rocket-launches-at-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cape-canaveral/75454852007/ 1
Clark Griswold Posted November 2 Author Posted November 2 These guys still have a small squadron of high, fast flyers! https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2024/10/23/starfighters-space-testing-jet-wing-rocket-launches-at-nasa-kennedy-space-center-cape-canaveral/75454852007/Yup, that looks like one helluva post AF gig They tried to sell an F-104 upgrade but the F-5 beat it in the racehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1200_LancerSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Clark Griswold Posted November 17 Author Posted November 17 Saw these from a FB page: Vought MiG. I think this was a real proposal but went nowhere back in the 80s. From what I found, it was to update and outfit as aggressors for the Navy 21’s and maybe 23’s One more: Czech A-159B Sokol attack design from the late 60s Google translation but the backstory: At the end of the 1960s, the Aero Vodochody company started a team around the designer Ing. Jan Vlček to work on two projects of light fighters. One of them was the L-159 (also A-159B) Sokol project. He set himself the goal of producing a supersonic fighter plane that could represent a replacement for the Su-7b fighter jet. Work on it apparently began in 1967. The machine was to be powered by two engines with a thrust of 19.6 kN, located in nacelles on the sides of the rear fuselage. The arrow wing was supposed to have teardrop-shaped additional tanks at the ends. High-wing, mid-wing and low-wing layouts were considered. Priority was given to the last option. An interesting feature was the design of the main landing gear, which was supposed to have two wheels arranged in tandem on each leg, which was supposed to facilitate the required operations from unpaved surfaces. The armament was to be carried on one under-fuselage and six under-wing racks. The machine was supposed to reach a maximum speed of approx. 1500 km/h (Mach 1.4) and its reach was to be around 15,000 m. A model L-159 (A-159B) was built for tests in the VZLÚ wind tunnel, but the project was stopped in early 1970. Only the presented model, which has a length of 605 mm, a width of 335 mm and a height of 175 mm, has been preserved to this day. The model was acquired for the collection of VHÚ Prague by purchase from a private person in 2022. 1
Clark Griswold Posted November 27 Author Posted November 27 Mega Mirage Mirage MD 750 / 6000 Late 50’s design, Mach 3.5+ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_MD.750 1
Clark Griswold Posted December 7 Author Posted December 7 The venerable OV-10 was brought up in the OA-1K thread and I’m not sure if this intriguing vaporware has been posted on BO yet https://www.icarus-aerospace.com/tactical-air-vehicle-tav/ A bit of Stavatti vibes but I think Icarus Aerospace is real
Clark Griswold Posted December 7 Author Posted December 7 lol really? taco for SA Nah it’s 3 years ago so a Fair, getting old …I liked it then still like it now and think it (Bronco X or TAV) has more uses: SAR for CG, Fire Fighting, UAV control and defense, LE support, etc… and the optionally manned feature solves a few other requirements methinksNo matter and 99.69% a moot point now Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now