Time travel

[Jim[_10_]]

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)

[Gordon[_1_]]

Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71
and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites
if it were built with everything available today. It would end up
needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS!

v/r Gordon

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71
> and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites
> if it were built with everything available today. It would end up
> needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS!
>
> v/r Gordon
>

What modern engines would you fit to an SR-71 that would not destroy its
aerodynamic profile yet enable it to work both in the earth's atmosphere and
outside it?
Such engines don't at the moment exist. The scramjets being tested are built
into the aerodynamic structure of the craft so are out of the question given
the restrictions you have been handed, adding rocket motors to the SR-71
would be impractical (you might mount one on the top of the fuselage where
the old drone attachments are situated I guess, but I doubt that would drive
it up to over 200km altitude).
Vacuum sealing the fueltanks and avionics bays would also be a major
problem, certainly if you don't want to replace the entire airframe
structure and panelling with different materials.

Let's try a more modest approach, the TSR.2.
Fit it with the avionics and weapons systems of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 and
the engines of the F-22, add some RAM to critical areas (leading edges
mainly), and I think you have a rather interesting ground attack/penetration
strike platform with limited multi-role capabilities.

[Gordon[_1_]]

Jeroen Wenting wrote:
> "Gordon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71
> > and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites
> > if it were built with everything available today. It would end up
> > needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS!
>
> What modern engines would you fit to an SR-71 that would not destroy its
> aerodynamic profile yet enable it to work both in the earth's atmosphere and
> outside it?

Did the original poster say I had to solve all the engineering
questions to make it work? No. It was a simple "what if", which I
answered.

> Such engines don't at the moment exist. The scramjets being tested are built
> into the aerodynamic structure of the craft so are out of the question given
> the restrictions you have been handed, adding rocket motors to the SR-71
> would be impractical (you might mount one on the top of the fuselage where
> the old drone attachments are situated I guess, but I doubt that would drive
> it up to over 200km altitude).

For several years, they tested a "canoe" with an X-33 prototype engine
in exactly that location. Is that what you meant?

No where in the original post did he say I had to come up with the
engineering changes and adapter kits to make it work. Forget I
bothered to post.

Gordon

[Jeroen Wenting]

"Gordon" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>> "Gordon" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Why not start with the ultimate 50s-60s-70s aircraft? Take an SR-71
>> > and do wizard stuff to that - it would have some amazing possibilites
>> > if it were built with everything available today. It would end up
>> > needing docking capability for refueling from the ISS!
>>
>> What modern engines would you fit to an SR-71 that would not destroy its
>> aerodynamic profile yet enable it to work both in the earth's atmosphere
>> and
>> outside it?
>
> Did the original poster say I had to solve all the engineering
> questions to make it work? No. It was a simple "what if", which I
> answered.
>
I did read it as stating that major changes to the airframe design are not
allowed, only minor changes like to the size of the engine bays.

[John[_1_]]

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

[TV]

F-14 or F-15 from the 70's.
F-4 from the 60s.
F-8 from the 50s.

Because they're all proven airframes. Maybe redo the Scooter from the 50s
if you want a strike platform.

[Jim[_10_]]

Jeroen Wenting wrote:
>
> Let's try a more modest approach, the TSR.2. Fit it with the avionics
> and weapons systems of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 and the engines of the
> F-22, add some RAM to critical areas (leading edges mainly), and I
> think you have a rather interesting ground attack/penetration strike
> platform with limited multi-role capabilities.
>
>
How about the same approach to the RA-5C of which appears to be a direct
offspring?


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)

[WaltBJ]

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

[John[_1_]]

Good answer . . . but. . . . wouldn't GPS be better than LORAN (cripes
I hope I dont start a flame war over this.

Blue skies . . .

John

P.S.: Walt . . . you seem to have a fair number of interesting flying
stories . . . did you ever consider writing a book?


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

[John[_8_]]

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

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article om>,
"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

[Dave Kearton]

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

[J.McEachen]

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
>

[John Keeney]

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.

[[email protected]]

> *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.

[WaltBJ]

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

[John Keeney]

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

[M. B.]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> 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