Concept aircraft

[Negatory]

Maybe they could use VR/cameras for the landing task? I’d also be concerned about nonstandard g-forces/kinesthetic effects in the cockpit. When you move the pilot position aft, often you will experience a non-intuitive reduction in g (a sinking feeling) initially when you pitch up (as your tail drops). Makes flying by the seat of your pants a lot more difficult.

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

57 minutes ago, brawnie said:

Maybe they could use VR/cameras for the landing task? I’d also be concerned about nonstandard g-forces/kinesthetic effects in the cockpit. When you move the pilot position aft, often you will experience a non-intuitive reduction in g (a sinking feeling) initially when you pitch up (as your tail drops). Makes flying by the seat of your pants a lot more difficult.

Solid points, haven't flown a looong nose aircraft with a way aft cockpit but that makes sense.  Cameras would probably fix that, maybe a trailing link gear system to allow relatively flat fares and absorb a bit more energy in main wheel touchdown.

[kaputt]

On 9/28/2019 at 11:57 PM, Sketch said:

Yep its still there, I drive by the museum regularly. They used to occasionally open up the cockpit for viewing which was cool even though all of the avionics were stripped out, not sure if they still do. Theres also an ex dual-seat RAF harrier sitting in one of the hangars on the west end of the field

Yeah they have some interesting aircraft, including more prototypes. One I hadn’t seen before but they were towing around once was a YF-17, which I believe lost out to the F-16 but with some tweaks ended up becoming the F-18?
 

I probably should donate to them. I walk by their hangars every now and then and get the feeling they struggle with funding. 

[PAWS]

On 7/10/2020 at 10:34 PM, brawnie said:

Maybe they could use VR/cameras for the landing task? I’d also be concerned about nonstandard g-forces/kinesthetic effects in the cockpit. When you move the pilot position aft, often you will experience a non-intuitive reduction in g (a sinking feeling) initially when you pitch up (as your tail drops). Makes flying by the seat of your pants a lot more difficult.

 

 

I’d be more worried about the longitudinal changes in CG during critical phases any phase of flight when multiple passengers get up to “finally get a better view of (insert XYZ) than they’ve ever had before” rather than the pilot’s sight picture.  The German Blohm & Voss BV 141, Burt Rutan’s Boomerang, and The North American F-82 were all aircraft where the cockpit wasn’t even housed along the longitudinal thrust centerline, and modern bush planes don’t have the pilot sitting too far from the mid-wing position.  Granted it’s a very primitive video, but that sight picture doesn’t look like it would take too long to adapt to.

Edited July 12, 2020 by PAWS

[Clark Griswold]

Because we need an updated F-106...

 

[purechaos]

On 11/15/2018 at 5:12 PM, Lawman said:

Edwards had one, but it went somewhere with DARPA.

I recall they only built 2 of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A little late, but here are some YouTube links to a great channel that has awesome interviews with aircrews and walk arounds. These two particular videos are of a presentation by YF-23 test pilots Paul Metz and Jim Sandberg. Also, a walk around with Paul Metz. Enjoy!

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Crusader and Hornet love child...

 

[HuggyU2]

NASA has been doing a lot of interesting sonic boom research... all leading to this demonstrator.  It looks like it might be flying in 2021.  

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/quesst.html

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/team

The pilot doing the first flight says you cannot see out of cockpit:  you land it watching a camera image on an MFD.  

[purechaos]

On 12/4/2020 at 1:16 AM, HuggyU2 said:

NASA has been doing a lot of interesting sonic boom research... all leading to this demonstrator.  It looks like it might be flying in 2021.  

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/quesst.html

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lowboom/team

The pilot doing the first flight says you cannot see out of cockpit:  you land it watching a camera image on an MFD.  

Looks like the KC-46 program needs to take some notes on how a remote vision system is supposed work. First flight is in Summer of 2022. Can't wait to see her fly!

[HuggyU2]

Yes, looking forward to it. 
The pilot doing the first flight is a former Beale U-2 Driver. Great guy, great pilot. 

Edited December 6, 2020 by HuggyU2

[Clark Griswold]

Pretty good vaporware light attack jet :

https://rodrigoavella.artstation.com/projects/YebgAX

[pbar]

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2459225/newly-acquired-afrl-test-aircraft-to-aid-personnel-recovery-research/

The Air Force is thinking of using a XCub bush plane for CSAR?  Wow.  Would be sporty to fly that into hostile airspace. 

[Clark Griswold]

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2459225/newly-acquired-afrl-test-aircraft-to-aid-personnel-recovery-research/
The Air Force is thinking of using a XCub bush plane for CSAR?  Wow.  Would be sporty to fly that into hostile airspace. 

Interesting... and another link on Project Lysander with a picture of the aforementioned Carbon Cub
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/us-afrl-small-aircraft-personnel-recovery-flight-tests/
From the article:  “The Air Force’s CODE (Combat Operations in Denied Environment) program determined that these types of missions could not be executed effectively by the large aircraft that we have been using over the last 20 years in areas where we have air dominance,” Hopper said. “Project Lysander was conceived as a method of rescuing isolated personnel in both heavily defended and undefended airspace. A critical element of the project was determined to be a carry-on kit that could allow such operations.” He explained that the LASH system kit was designed to fill this need and provide pilots with sensory situational awareness required to fly safely, at night, at extremely low altitudes and slow airspeeds.
Just guessing at requirements but:
1 pilot and 1 PJ for crew, capable of 4 pax + gear or 1200 lbs cargo, cruise at least 75 knots, range 200+ NM, rough field TOD of 300' high hot heavy, etc... just my first guess at what would be required but give Mike Patey some numbers and I bet he could come up with something...
A stretched version of Scrappy or Draco is worth looking into:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSvdee86uThqIrloZjWwNVg

 

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Interesting... and another link on Project Lysander with a picture of the aforementioned Carbon Cub
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/us-afrl-small-aircraft-personnel-recovery-flight-tests/
From the article:  “The Air Force’s CODE (Combat Operations in Denied Environment) program determined that these types of missions could not be executed effectively by the large aircraft that we have been using over the last 20 years in areas where we have air dominance,” Hopper said. “Project Lysander was conceived as a method of rescuing isolated personnel in both heavily defended and undefended airspace. A critical element of the project was determined to be a carry-on kit that could allow such operations.” He explained that the LASH system kit was designed to fill this need and provide pilots with sensory situational awareness required to fly safely, at night, at extremely low altitudes and slow airspeeds.
Just guessing at requirements but:
1 pilot and 1 PJ for crew, capable of 4 pax + gear or 1200 lbs cargo, cruise at least 75 knots, range 200+ NM, rough field TOD of 300' high hot heavy, etc... just my first guess at what would be required but give Mike Patey some numbers and I bet he could come up with something...
A stretched version of Scrappy or Draco is worth looking into:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSvdee86uThqIrloZjWwNVg

 

Just got to make sure you adhere to crosswind limits 🙃

[Lawman]

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2459225/newly-acquired-afrl-test-aircraft-to-aid-personnel-recovery-research/
The Air Force is thinking of using a XCub bush plane for CSAR?  Wow.  Would be sporty to fly that into hostile airspace. 

There are a few different communities that have a demonstrated capability in low level clandestine penetration without the gee wiz denied area equipment. This wouldn’t be an unheard of idea either historically or currently.

Basically a question of break into the house like a Ninja relying completely on being unseen/unheard instead of kicking down the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Breckey]

Just make it out of wood like the AN-2 and it'll be undetectable on radar /s.

[Clark Griswold]

Just got to make sure you adhere to crosswind limits 

Yup - but by the grace go any of us and thankfully he and his pax were ok

https://www.globalair.com/Articles/Pilot-Mike-Patey-Okay-After-Crash-That-Destroyed-Draco?Id=149

Draco is back fixed and flying

https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/draco-airplane-the-greatest-bush-plane-ever-built

Maximize composite use and give it a V tail, six blade composite prop, shield the exhaust with a canard, etc... just suggestions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[norskman]

10 hours ago, pbar said:

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2459225/newly-acquired-afrl-test-aircraft-to-aid-personnel-recovery-research/

The Air Force is thinking of using a XCub bush plane for CSAR?  Wow.  Would be sporty to fly that into hostile airspace. 

From that article, I think the goal is just to update current NVD capes with it. Not tracking any update for PR iron (exception being the HH-60W). 

However, if we're talking off-the-wall airlift solutions, I submit the Murphy Moose. Basically a 75% scaled Dehavilland Beaver.

Floats, skis, or boats....it doesn't matter. If it fits in the cabin or even strapped between the floats, it will still fly (probably).   

https://www.murphyair.com/detail/moose.html

 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, norskman said:

From that article, I think the goal is just to update current NVD capes with it. Not tracking any update for PR iron (exception being the HH-60W). 

However, if we're talking off-the-wall airlift solutions, I submit the Murphy Moose. Basically a 75% scaled Dehavilland Beaver.

Floats, skis, or boats....it doesn't matter. If it fits in the cabin or even strapped between the floats, it will still fly (probably).   

https://www.murphyair.com/detail/moose.html

 

But they didn't rule out new iron either so maybe but probably not.

I'm not an expert on light STOL aircraft but if the AF or other branch got serious about this getting the cruise speed up (sts) would be key to justify this fixed wing platform vs a rotary wing along with a range advantage. 

Wiki says a Pavehawk has a 200 NM and cruises at about 160 KTS, if this project did recommend buying new fixed wing STOL capable iron then methinks it would need to at least match it or have some other advantages.  Better and/or lower RCS, lower thermal and acoustic signatures, etc...

Murphy's Moose is now on my Christmas wish list, very cool kit plane:

 

[Breckey]

But they didn't rule out new iron either so maybe but probably not.
I'm not an expert on light STOL aircraft but if the AF or other branch got serious about this getting the cruise speed up (sts) would be key to justify this fixed wing platform vs a rotary wing along with a range advantage. 
Wiki says a Pavehawk has a 200 NM and cruises at about 160 KTS, if this project did recommend buying new fixed wing STOL capable iron then methinks it would need to at least match it or have some other advantages.  Better and/or lower RCS, lower thermal and acoustic signatures, etc...
Murphy's Moose is now on my Christmas wish list, very cool kit plane:

 

The planning cruise speed for the HH-60G is 110 KIAS. There's no way it's getting to 160 with all of the parasite drag hanging off of it without a huge tailwind or being in a dive.

[Lawman]

The planning cruise speed for the HH-60G is 110 KIAS. There's no way it's getting to 160 with all of the parasite drag hanging off of it without a huge tailwind or being in a dive.

Or getting anything like that at altitudes above Sea Level ~ 4K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pbar]

14 hours ago, Lawman said:

There are a few different communities that have a demonstrated capability in low level clandestine penetration without the gee wiz equipment. This wouldn’t be an unheard of idea either historically or currently.

Basically a question of break into the house like a Ninja relying completely on being unseen/unheard instead of kicking down the door.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I still think we should have bought the Goodyear Inflatoplane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Inflatoplane).  If I had to eject over bad guy land, if someone dropped this to me,  I'd take my chances with flying this out of Dodge if the HH-60s couldn't get to me. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by pbar

[Lawman]

I still think we should have bought the Goodyear Inflatoplane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Inflatoplane).  If I had to eject over bad guy land, if someone dropped this to me,  I'd take my chances with flying this out of Dodge if the HH-60s couldn't get to me. 

Honestly what you guys need to be investing in is quality boots, socks, and underwear.

I’ve played in the PR concept planning cell for some of these near peer/peer fights. I think reality is gonna wash out to there being too many customers and losing too many assets trying to recover the first few putting the brakes on that method of recovery. Reality is gonna be either ground/self recovery when the conflict dies down.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

34 minutes ago, Breckey said:

8 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

But they didn't rule out new iron either so maybe but probably not.
I'm not an expert on light STOL aircraft but if the AF or other branch got serious about this getting the cruise speed up (sts) would be key to justify this fixed wing platform vs a rotary wing along with a range advantage. 
Wiki says a Pavehawk has a 200 NM and cruises at about 160 KTS, if this project did recommend buying new fixed wing STOL capable iron then methinks it would need to at least match it or have some other advantages.  Better and/or lower RCS, lower thermal and acoustic signatures, etc...
Murphy's Moose is now on my Christmas wish list, very cool kit plane:

The planning cruise speed for the HH-60G is 110 KIAS. There's no way it's getting to 160 with all of the parasite drag hanging off of it without a huge tailwind or being in a dive.

Yeah, I figured those were on a really good day (not shit talk against the Pave) and probably just taken from the company brochure recycling the numbers from a new slick model, mea culpa as I should have said take with a grain or two of salt.  

This capability / mission could be synch'd up with the proposed resurrection of the Liaison Aircraft mission (WOR articles).

Historical information on the Lysander where the project looking into this gets its name:

Westland Lysander IIIa | National Air and Space Museum (si.edu)

Interesting plane and mission

 

[norskman]

40 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Honestly what you guys need to be investing in is quality boots, socks, and underwear.
 

2 

PR is a primarily a time-based problem

Edited January 5, 2021 by norskman