Bristol Brabazon?

[Absinthe_1900]

Indeed. There are only two birds I'd rather strap into if I had to fly an interceptor sortie than the CF-105:

One interceptor that should have been built was North American's F-108 Rapier.
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/august/i_history.html

 

[Tony in Tarzana]

I wondered why I hadn't seen it in a long time. There was a time when I had a small mountain of old issues of Airpower/Wings. She who must be obeyed made me get rid of them. Mistake! They will soon be collectors' items. LOVED that magazine! The stories of airplane development are fascinating, and there are so many lessons beyond aviation to be learned. So many of the things that have happened in the evolution of the computer industry parallel what happened in the aviation industry. Darn!

The good news is, all their back issues are available in .pdf format on CD-ROM. http://www.airwingmedia.com/

Of course, I had just paid for a year's subscription right before they went belly-up. :rage:

 

[Diamondback]

OT: Actually, there were seven distinct riffs on the Blackbird theme.

A-11 (became A-12 with addition of the chines): 60-6924 to '26, '28-'33, '37-'39. A-11/12 design was dedicated single-purpose optical photorecon.
A-12T (2-seat trainer, raised rear cockpit): 60-6927, Titanium Goose. Displayed at CA Science Center, LA.
YF-12A: As Twitch previously described. Slightly raised front cockpit for visibility.
M-21: 60-6940 & '41, 2-seater "stretch models" redesigned as D-21 drone launchers. Former on display in Seattle.
SR-71A: Further stretch for ECM and electronic-intel using modular loads in four bays (approxmately same size/location as F-12 missile-bays) and interchngeable nose sections.
SR-71B: Operations-capable trainer version. Two built.
SR-71C: 981, hybrid from SR-71A structural mockup front half converted with -B rear cockpit and rear half of wrecked YF-12A #934.

And actually, when F-108 went down in flames, a lot of the systems designed for it were carried over to the F-12; as its systems in turn helped to springboard for the F-14 (specifically, the radar and Phoenix missile were derived from F-108/F-12 technologies). Not to brag, but I crashed a party with a bunch of SR-drivers and one of the guys who saw it through initial development last month, including a former 9th SRW "Wing King".

 

[Twitch]

dhermann1- Yeah I actually wrote stuff for Challenge Publications. Boy were they lousey in paying on time even in the early 1990s!:rage:

 

[dhermann1]

Twitch: What subjects???

 

[Twitch]

I wrote a lot of air combat simulation stuff back then and a little historic stuff.

 

[dhermann1]

The plot thickens

Apparently there is a world wide widget shortage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/business/10cnd-boeing.html?hp

 

[Diamondback]

To be honest, Dan, those of us "in the know" around the Big B were expecting this--that big overdramatic rollout that Her Highness Queen Christine*snort* brought so many foreign guests in for? The plane you saw was just a mostly-empty shell, they started disassembling it and moving it right back to the line to be finished as soon as the last event attendee left.

I've seen the 787 program as it's progressed through an insider's eyes, and I'm not impressed at all.

 

[dhermann1]

787

Hmmm . . . Interesting, disappointing, and a little scary. The plane will be airworthy, right? Is it as big turkey as the 380? What are the major shortcomings? If there's anything that will make you want to puke, it's the phony rollout of anything. You only worsen your credibility in the long run. Better to say there's a problem right out front. Makes life SO much simpler. This way only compounds the problems.

 

[Diamondback]

787 will probably be safe, but I'm a little less-than-confident in it's "Lego-set" construction--all Boeing really does is final-assembly, for the most part. The fuselages are built complete elsewhere and flown in on specially-converted 747s--Google "747 LCF".* Even the employees who volunteered to work on the rollout weren't allowed to see the event, it's a far-cry from 777 where it was "this company is a team, if you can get yourself to Everett we'll either have or make room for you and your family." With 787 it was "You aren't getting in without a ticket, we're renting Qwest Field for you pee-ons, and if you didn't get it already you're screwed, ha-ha." Just like that [REDACTED] Stonecipher ran McDonnell Douglas...

All in all, 787 seems to be a hype-over-substance situation to me, and the gory details of the rollout ceremony reflect that.

On the upside, it has some really good overhead-stowage compartments. I'm not gonna call it a turkey like A380, nor great like the 314 or the 747, but it does have potential to go either way. The weakest link is the outside vendors who're building the major sections like the fuselage.

*"Large-Cargo Freighter--like a 747 Super Guppy, but the entire tail hinges and it requires a special "opener/support-brace" vehicle for ground-servicing equipment.

 

[Twitch]

Boeing should get smart and build B-52s again. They're the only thing sure to make some money too.

And you know what they say -when the last B-2 is flown to the boneyard a Buf will be there to fly the crew home.

 

[Diamondback]

Actually, Twitch, I had presented a written "concept proposal" to a contact in B-52 program-management about some thoughts for a next-generation "SuperBUFF". My crashing the 50th Anniversary party? The primary objective was to secure face-time with her to pitch my ideas. Everything else, including being declared "unofficial SAC personnel" by a bunch of BUFFers, was just really cool fringe bennies...

Ever read any of Dale Brown's early novels? Imagine the Old Dog--yes, most of that beast was technically viable--enlarged to 747-size, with a new, more-swept (stock 35-degree outboard of the outer nacelles, 45 between nacelles, and around 60 in a major leading-edge extension between inboard and fuselage) wing and the GE90-115B engines of 2 777s... (Actually, the concept called for 125,000-lb. thrust engines; I met with some of the GE reps during a Boeing PSD* open house, and the told me that if I signed the check and had an application papered out that day, they could start GE90 evolution to my 1/8-kiloton engine as soon as the check cleared.)

*PSD's the guys who take the engines off the railcars and build 'em up into complete engine/nacelle/pylon units just before they go on the planes.

 

[dhermann1]

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

DB, you're a regular Dr Strangelove, and I mean that in the nicest way.

 

[Diamondback]

Actually, would you believe my package was designed to hunt down fighters and air-defense systems, not as a strategic bomber? (Also, capable of being reconfigured as a combat-capable "command ship" so that a theater-commander could personally lead missions in his AO.)

The idea was, make one of these monsters a lead aircraft, paired with two standard BUFFs, and use it to clear a path for the other two. If you want "Dr. Strangelove", perhaps I should give you a limited brief-in on "Project Infiltrator", which you've already previewed if you saw Dinerman's architecture/Google SketchUp thread... lol

 

[Twitch]

I've heard of the less engines with more thrust each before and it makes sense. There are times when ya wanta sneak in and blow their azzes away and there are time when ya want to come with music playing and make a visible impact. The B-fitty two is perfect for those times.

 

[Diamondback]

The other goal on my project was to get the BUFF's thrust/weight ratio past 1:1--existing gross is 488K, I'll bet even with the upsize my "plastic monster" would still come in lighter for empty-airframe, and with half a million pounds' static thrust installed... Ever imagine a '52 accelerarating straight up?

There's "less engines, more thrust"--Boeing was pitching CFM56's or RB211's, and then there's "less engines, MUCH more thrust"--the old fighter-squadron CO who worked with me on this believed we'd have to totally rewing the design for anything bigger than those, which was why I added a sharper sweep on the inboard sections. (Long as we gotta redesign the wing anyway, might as well imporove it as much as possible, right?)

 

[dhermann1]

Is the airframe strong enough for the stresses? What would be the maximum speed? It still couldn't go super sonic, could it? Are you giving away sensitive top secret information by divulging this info? Could you tell me, but then have to kill me???

 

[Diamondback]

Dan, this project was completely unclassified--after all, it was a college-student and one of his professors working on it, just the two of us.

"Col. Norm" raised the concern about the wings taking the stress (he believes the fuselage can take it, as could the wing-fuselage join with a little reinforccement), so we arrived at the conclusion that a new wing would be required. (Not unprecedented, Boeing had designed a delta-wing hotrod B-47 at about the same time as the XB-52.)

Our goal was for longer range and a higher subsonic speed, around Mach 0.95-maybe Mach 1, but under some conditions this beast might be able to barely crack supersonic--with particular altitude/ambient air temperature/weather/load combinations; it wouldn't be an everyday or even as frequent as "uncommon" thing.

That, and to create a bomber so well defended at any fighter-jock or air-defense-artilleryman would void himself in fear at the idea of facing it. The mission? Tear gaping holes in even the best of air-defense networks, for the rest of the Air Force and Naval/Marine Air to follow through. Once the holes are opened, just loiter and wait for "targets of opportunity" like enemy supply convoys... We had proposed redesignating the conversion "B-52HK", as in "Hunter/Killer". And I have enough confidence in what we created, I would bet my life on it--quite literally, as in my price I mentioned to my contact was a seat aboard each time a test-aircraft went up. I may be insecure in most things, but when I have confidence it is absolute...

 

[dhermann1]

B-52 would be better suited than the B-1?

 

[Diamondback]

I had several reasons, sir.

1. BUFF's more durable--overengineered, as compared to B-1's "good-enough" penny-pinched design. A B-1 is designed to "drop the nuke and run like heck", while the BUFF is built to "ride it out"--and thus can take more punishment.

2. Plenty of -G models around the Boneyard. I'm thinking if we can get them reclassified as "non-bombers", they shouldn't count for the START/SALT BS... (you KNOW Comrade Putin's not in compliance anyway... )

3. Bait. Can't whack air-defenses if they don't "come out and play", or at least light up their radars, and they won't do that without a nearby target.

4. Lifting tonnage. The old "Big Belly" D-models could outlift a B-1; there's a ridiculous amount of wasted space inside the -H's weapons bay that could be better employed with higher-density weapons racks.

5. Available engine options. The only way a B-1 can "grow" in engines is to possibly mount F135/F136 fighter engines which, while bringing the Bone needed maneuverability by thrust vectoring, only bring it to a max installed power of 160K lbs. static thrust. Nowhere near a 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio.

6. Room for new gear. Peel off a B-1's skin, and you'll find almost solid gear, weapons bay and fuel tanks. Do the same with a BUFF, and you've still got plenty of room to add new stuff. (And even more, when some of the old "space-eater" equipment is replaced with modern, more compact systems...)

7. As alluded to by Twitch earlier, the BUFF has one thing no pointy-nose or overgrown-bat ever will: a badass reputation money can't buy.