| Warthog Territory Forums http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| UASF tanker - what direction should they take? http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6252 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | boomer [ 03 Jun 2004, 10:30 ] |
| Post subject: | |
so you think the B-2 R&D was a waste?? oooooookkkkkkk. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 03 Jun 2004, 10:41 ] |
| Post subject: | |
the R&D was as important as the aircraft itself. We knew next to nothing about RADAR before the B-2 development program other than how to exploit it. Much of the knowledge gathered in the B-2 R&D was used in the F-22 program ( I HOPE anyway). "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | Type 7 [ 03 Jun 2004, 10:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Problem with the 767 tanker wasn't the jet, but the screwed-up lease deal that would've screwed Mr/Mrs Taxpayer out of some serious cash. IMO, there's tons of DC-10s sitting at Pinal Airpark, Goodyear, and Kingman Arizona. Could potentially be re-engineered into KC-10s. Also, when we got rid of the EC-135 Looking Glass nuke command platforms in the mid-'90s, all those jets were already equipped with booms, since they doubled as tankers. Additionally, they could receive (something most KC-135s can't do). But instead, we sent the ECs to AMARC and junked most of them. Maybe the airframe cycles were too high, I'm not sure, but that was a potential option if there were no other problems. |
|
| Author: | 30mike-mike [ 03 Jun 2004, 11:05 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'll show this to 30mm Jr and have him poll his fellow 126th CC's. As long as it's not -135E's, they'll be happy! As for folding wings...fold 'em all you want, it'll still be a tight squeeze on the USS Abe Lincoln!<img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle> "Live every day like it's the last, 'cause one day you're gonna be right!" Ray Charles |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 03 Jun 2004, 14:59 ] |
| Post subject: | |
If you need hundreds of tankers it would justify a purpose built design, optimized for the job. How about this? <img src="http://www.lmaeronautics.com/gallery/products/ada/adv_mobility/usaf.jpg " border=0> Better description here: http://www.lmaeronautics.com/products/a ... anker.html If you are wishing for an open competition, the U.S. airframers are all going to propose new designs that beat any converted airliner (on paper anyway). It will be a long, drawn-out, "by the book" procurement. Maybe they would be operational by 2020. Maybe the project will be canceled after two are built. Call out the soothsayers and let the prognostication begin. |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 03 Jun 2004, 17:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>My mistake. I thought you were open to a high tech, innovative approach with a potential perfomance pay-off. I agree you should go low tech with a tanker. No sense taking more risk than necessary. Gotta watch those taxpayer dollars <img src=icon_smile_shy.gif border=0 align=middle>. If Lockheed decides to build Airbus designs here they'll have to do it without me, I'm afraid. I'll be working for the competition <img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle>. Edited by - a10stress on Jun 03 2004 4:55 PM |
|
| Author: | Horrido [ 03 Jun 2004, 18:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hrmm, with a box/diamond wing, you could put a powerful phased-array radar on that thing and make a pretty good AWACS. Too bad the-powers-that-be are too corrupt and thieving to make anything like this a cost-effective reality. I don't just think outside the box...I turn it inside out with my mind. |
|
| Author: | Warthog30 [ 03 Jun 2004, 22:53 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not to be too droll (Main Entry: droll Pronunciation: 'drOl Function: adjective Etymology: French drôle, from drôle scamp, from Middle French drolle, from Middle Dutch, imp : having a humorous, whimsical, or odd quality), but I could give a crap, just give me gas. I don't care if it's a DC-10, 767, or a stinkin'C-5... ATTACK!!!!!!! |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 04 Jun 2004, 11:34 ] |
| Post subject: | |
you wont get your tankers for a VERY long time now unfortunatly. We had a chance and the pols screwed it rather than turn over a slight bit of procurement power. EVERYTHING proposed will cost more money than the 767 deal, and if recent history is any guideline it'll be late and do less. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | a10stress [ 04 Jun 2004, 12:57 ] |
| Post subject: | |
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> you won't get your tankers for a VERY long time now unfortunatly. We had a chance and the pols screwed it rather than turn over a slight bit of procurement power. EVERYTHING proposed will cost more money than the 767 deal, and if recent history is any guideline it'll be late and do less. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Affirmative Boomer. |
|
| Author: | Horrido [ 04 Jun 2004, 13:15 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just out of curiosity, how would they position the boom operator(s) for the box-wing, since the booms are on the wingtips? Remote video? And would wingtip vorteces be a greater problem than wake turbulence from directly behind and below the tanker for a refueling aircraft trying to maintain position? I don't just think outside the box...I turn it inside out with my mind. Edited by - Horrido on Jun 04 2004 12:17 PM |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 04 Jun 2004, 16:14 ] |
| Post subject: | |
remote video? yes, not much reason for it not to be automated either. Vorticies? Because of the verticle strut that conects the wingtips there might not be much of a vortice created from the lower wing. I've been looking at joined wings for a long time, if they would remove the wing join strut at the tips and join the 2 wings either directly or via a rod/tube joining the front wingtips trailing edge to the rear wingtips leading edge it would increase drag but the strength gain (and thus ability to produce a lighter wing structure) might offset the drag increase. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|