Aircraft that never lived up to their promise

"Ed Majden" wrote in message news:Rwxyb.533404$pl3.92056@pd7tw3no...
"Chad Irby" You should remember that with small fission warheads at high
altitudes,
there is very little fallout, and practically zero compared to even a
single megaton-level ground strike.

What makes you think that these would have been high level blasts???
Tactics with the B52 was a ground hugger to avoid SAMS and radar detection.
Incinerating a Bear full of nuclear warheads would have created a severe
nuclear fall out problem!

Not to mention that they planned on using the same size of warhead over
most of the continental US for air defense..

U.S. Bomarc sites were near the Canada/U.S. border

Really? I'd take a gander at a map of US Bomarc sites if I were you,
unless you consider places like Newport News, VA "near the Canadian
border".

Brooks

snip

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...

Really? I'd take a gander at a map of US Bomarc sites if I were you,
unless you consider places like Newport News, VA "near the Canadian
border".


Langley AFB, to be a bit more accurate. Other sites planned "near the
Canadian border" but never completed were Charleston AFB, SC, and Vandenberg
and Travis AFBs in CA.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:19:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.

This is unprovoked.

Hardly.


Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
doesn't it?

Not if they are a loser.

Why don't you prove to us you're not a loser by showing us some
pictures of those strakes? Talk about losers. You paint yourself
into a corner and rather than admit it or at least shut the hell up,
you have to resort to name calling. Sounds like a case of little ****
syndrom to me.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" writes:

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of
the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics.
Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of conspiracy
against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for the
entire arospace industry.

Dangit, John!
I'll say this for you, when you're wrong, you're wrong, but when
you're right, you're right.
Northrop certainly was gambling on selling the F-5G/F-20 to the same
customers who'd bought the F-5A/E - nations that coulsn't get approval
to purchase the Fighter of Choice (F-104 or F-4, in the F-5's day), or
who couldn't affort to fly/maintain the more sophisticated jets.
Unfortunately for Northrop, the world had changed. The export
restrictions were loosened, and a lot of smaller countries realiezed
that they could keep F-16s running.
Sometimes you guess right, and sometimes you guess wrong.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Douglas B-19 & B-19A

Steve Wagner

In article ,
says...

I'll start that one off with the P-39 Aircobra. Any more?

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Ed Majden wrote:

"Alan Minyard"
4. Given the range of the CF-105 and the size of Canada, you would have
huge holes in
your coverage.

66 Voodoo's sure didn't plug these holes! Nor did the Bomarcs at two
eastern bases. Most airports used for dispersal have supplies of jet fuels.
The U.S. had cruise type missiles and I expect the Russians had their own
versions. Don't forget, the Bomarc was used until the early 1970s where
weapons were much better. By the way an Arrow could be equipped with a Geni
as it had a large weapons bay.

That last bit, I think, is highly theoretical, Ed, because it would
have meant that Canada would have to design a system to deliver a
nuke. We did do that with the Argus, but it was always kept 'ush-'ush.

Besides, wasn't the missile armament for Arrow to have been Velvet
Glove?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Douglas DC5, Martin 202, Lockheed 880/990, every Curtiss fighter after
the P40, all the flying automobiles, XP77, XP85, Brabazon, Saro
Princess, sheesh - there's a thousand of them! Barling B9, so slow
it's cruise speed was its top speed and both were just above liftoff
speed. Find a copy of 'Back to The Drawing Board' by Bill Gunston. Oh,
yeah, Me210, unstable around all three axes, for starters. That cost
the LW a bundle of aircraft when they needed every one they could get.
Me 163 - VFR only, 60 mile radius, about 8 minutes powered time . . .
hairy but fun to fly, more danger to its crews as a weapon. For darn
sure killed more German pilots than Allied airmen. This could go on
for pages more but you get the point - they're out there, mostly as
scrap thank God. A few left in museums or on sticks.
Walt BJ

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" writes:

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
"Dweezil Dwarftosser" escreveu na mensagem
...
The successful failu the F-16.

Is it correct to say that the F-16 is also implicated on the failure of
the
F-20 Tigershark project ??

In brief :

- F-20 should be an aircraft cleared for export for non-NATO countries
(F-16 weren't cleared for that)
- F-16 were cleared for export (Seems like General Dynamics was in
deep
financial trouble)
- F-20 program went down the drain

Does that kind of affirmation have some veridical background or is it
just
another BS that can be found in some "not very reliable" books and
magazines?

Northrop developed the F-20 on speculation and all aviation is politics.
Some have lamented the F-16 being made available, as some sort of
conspiracy
against Northrop, but export law changes were a part of the times for
the
entire arospace industry.

Dangit, John!
I'll say this for you, when you're wrong, you're wrong, but when
you're right, you're right.

I remember when you were wrong, Peter.

Northrop certainly was gambling on selling the F-5G/F-20 to the same
customers who'd bought the F-5A/E - nations that coulsn't get approval
to purchase the Fighter of Choice (F-104 or F-4, in the F-5's day), or
who couldn't affort to fly/maintain the more sophisticated jets.

A "closely held" entity like GD can have better personal relationships with
Congress, than a regular corporation can. Perhaps even buy a President a fw
hookers.

Unfortunately for Northrop, the world had changed. The export
restrictions were loosened, and a lot of smaller countries realiezed
that they could keep F-16s running.
Sometimes you guess right, and sometimes you guess wrong.

Northrop bet against Reagan.

"Eugene Styer" wrote in message
om...
Orval Fairbairn wrote in message
.. .

The classic turkey: The Fisher XP-75 Eagle -- supposed to become an
escort fighter, built from parts of several production aircraft.


I can't think of the reference right now, but I remember reading that
one of the purposes of the P-75 program was to give GM(?) a reason to
stay out of the B-29 program - so the Eagle was not entirely a
failure!

Who ever came up with that line should be collecting royalties.

Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:19:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:16:03 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


Scott Ferrin a loser?

That has been an elephant in the room for some time now.

This is unprovoked.

Hardly.


Yeah it really ****es you off when someone calls you on something
doesn't it?

Not if they are a loser.

Why don't you prove to us you're not a loser by showing us some
pictures of those strakes? Talk about losers. You paint yourself
into a corner and rather than admit it or at least shut the hell up,
you have to resort to name calling. Sounds like a case of little ****
syndrom to me.

it twisted his panties beyond spec that the "lurking ground pounder"
proved him wrong. %-)

redc1c4,
i wonder if he's related to Daryl Hunt?
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide