Time travel

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

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

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.