avatar_Thorvic

Rehashing old concepts with new technology

Started by Thorvic, August 28, 2008, 04:47:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thorvic

Ok we have seen TV going back to some of its classics and reinventing for the current generation - Dr Who, BSG etc

So howabout from a Whif Modelling point of view we apply the same principla to aircraft concepts.
In the 50's & 60's there were alot of ideas that were tried and not taken up mainly due to the manoevers being impossible to all but the bravest and skilled test pilots, with modern composite materials, powerful engines and computer managed flight controls.

So how about some of the vertical take off concepts in the tail sitter class revamped, new VTOL airlifters, rotodynes, tilt engines etc ?

Geoff
Project Cancelled SIG Secretary, specialising in post war British RN warships, RN and RAF aircraft projects. Also USN and Russian warships

Hobbes

The VTOL version of the F-135 engine delivers up to 18 metric tons of vertical thrust. With four of those, you could build quite a VTOL airliner...

Chap

A more modern version of the Focke-Wulf Triebflugel, maybe U.S. Army circa 1970's?


~Steve

Mossie

Like the idea of parasite fighters Duncan, maybe UAVs & a mothership?

Hypersonic spaceplanes, able to traverse the globe in a matter of hours.  Started with the Sanger Silbervogel in the thirties & people in the fifties & sixties expected they would be travelling on one by the seventies.  The technology is probably doable, but it'd take a hell of lot of capital & great political will.  Lapcat is a possibility:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html

I won't go into it too much as I've mentioned it several times, but Groen Brothers are trying to ressurect the Rotodyne concept.
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,12061.0/highlight,rotodyne.htmlhttp://www.groenbros.com/gyrodyne_tech.php

And where's my flying car???  Okay, I know you wouldn't want many of the idiots that are on the roads in the air, but I still want one!  Don't worry, I won't mention Moller.... ooops!
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

Weaver

Regarding parasite fighters, it's always struck me that one way of recovering them might be to trail a cable with a drogue on the end behind the carrier aircraft (like air-refuelling on steroids), let the fighter connect, and then reel it in. We know from IFR that fighters can make this kind of rendezvous relatively painlessly: the only problem would be turbulence when the fighter was nearly reeled in (close to the carrier but not captured yet), and I suspect the solution to that would lie with the design of the carrier aircraft.
"Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
 - Morpheus in Sandman: A Midsummer Night's Dream, by Neil Gaiman

"I dunno, I'm making this up as I go."
 - Indiana Jones '

Madoc

Folks,

Aside from payload and range issues, the thing which really killed the tail-sitter concepts in the 50's was the difficulty entailed in getting the things back on the ground - or deck, as the case may be.

With today's radar technology combined with the highly advanced autopilot / computerized flight controls, landing such beasts could be a piece-o-cake. 

The pilot would just select his intended landing spot and essentially tell the computer to "make it so."

And as to parasite fighters, we've long since developed highly functional ways of launching and recovering aircraft in mid-air.  The <A HREF="http://www.air-and-space.com/ficon.htm" TARGET="_blank">FICON</A> system was operated quite successfully - and that was back in the 1950's!  With modern tech and such, the whole system could be even more better!

Hell, there's talk now about re-arming aircraft in mid-flight!

Madoc
Wherever you go, there you are!

jcf

Simple three-letter answer to the tail sitter and parasite problems:





UAV





;D :wacko: ;D :wacko: ;D :wacko: ;D

The Rat

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles
Youtube: https://tinyurl.com/46dpfdpr

r16

if the forum had any Polish members , we would have seen the agricultural jet they did for the Russians by now ...

and ı like it too

www.aviastar.org/air/poland/pzl_belphegor.php



[attachment deleted by admin]

Lawman

If you really want re-vamped UAVs, take a look at the various Firebee drones/UAVs! They served excellently in Vietnam, and could easily have become a major force in air-power had they not been the neglected cousin of the manned types. The BGM-34, for instance, carried Mavericks and bombs, so could potentially have been used as 'extra pylons', carrying missiles and bombs for manned types - A-10s could have carried designator pods, and had the Firebees fly low approaches, to hit tanks. Similarly, they could have carried cluster munitions, and flown the highly dangerous anti-runway missions, like the Tornado did in GW1 with JP233. The RAF, for instance, could use Firebees to carry a mini JP-233 pod, and anti-armour bomblets. Fast-forwarding, they could easily carry Hellfires, cluster weapons, and a variety of other types, and in particular, they could carry recon pods (with live data uplinks).

Firebees would be an excellent force multiplier, being relatively affordable, and yet pretty capable. Supersonic and stealthy versions wouldn't be too difficult - there were supersonic versions for target purposes anyway, and even a long-winged version, which could have been a good high altitude recon UAV. The USAF, US Navy, US Marines, RAF etc... should all be able to buy them in the hundreds, allowing them to completely overwhelm enemy defences - especially useful for SEAD missions, allowing you to send a dozen UAVs against each SAM site, with some carrying jammers, some carrying AGM-88 HARMs, and some carrying cluster weapons.

Equally, the Gyrodyne QH-50 DASH anti-sub helo would be a viable option with some technological improvements. It would be small enough to be carried in decent numbers on later helo-capable ships, and could carry out a lot of missions, including SAR/CSAR, and more advanced anti-sub work, such as putting in sonobouy fields. Later versions could even be given dipping sonars - think about a frigate being able to carry four or five of these, plus a manned helo, and being able to cover a massive area. The helos were armed for use in Vietnam, even carrying miniguns, bombs, and other weapons; hence they could be used for putting in minefields, or even carrying air-surveillance radars. For the Falklands, the UK might have been able to use them as air-borne SAM systems, mounting a pair of AIM-9s on them, plus a small radar. They would be more capable of stopping incoming low-flying strike aircraft, since they have better line of sight (hence can spot an A-4 coming in from much further away, and get ready to fire). They could even be rigged as airborne artillery, carrying large rocket pods (weight-wise, they should be able to carry at least 2x 19-round pods). A borrowed RoRo ship should be able to pack dozens of QH-50s, which would be good, both for a Falklands style air-support option, but also for North Atlantic ASW - think about the potential to have dozens of extra ASW assets made available, and just put onboard all kinds of shipping.

Archibald

Quote from: Thorvic on August 28, 2008, 04:47:08 AM
Ok we have seen TV going back to some of its classics and reinventing for the current generation - Dr Who, BSG etc

So howabout from a Whif Modelling point of view we apply the same principla to aircraft concepts.
In the 50's & 60's there were alot of ideas that were tried and not taken up mainly due to the manoevers being impossible to all but the bravest and skilled test pilots, with modern composite materials, powerful engines and computer managed flight controls.

So how about some of the vertical take off concepts in the tail sitter class revamped, new VTOL airlifters, rotodynes, tilt engines etc ?

Geoff

Lift jets maybe ? Bring back the Mirage IIIV to life with four RB-189, a M-53PX, and FBW.

Transcontinental single-stage rockets with 200 passengers, as imagined by Philip Bono in the 60's (Hyperion, Rombus, and so on)

Mach 4 / 5 manned recon aircrafts (SR-71 follow-on, Myasichtev M-58)

The ultimate  VTOL airliner 
= a kind of ATR-42 (the classical commuter) with a rotor folding on top of the passenger cabin above 450 kph.

Take-off like an helicopter using the NOTAR (no tail rotor) then transition (still like a chopper) to horizontal flight.
When you reach 250 kph and your wings start working, fold the rotor, and accelerate to 700 kph.
Reverse the sequence for landing : slow down below 300 kph, unfold the rotor, and land like an helicopter.
Lockheed tested the idea in wind-tunnel around 1969, at the time they studied civilian AH-56 derivatives.




King Arthur: Can we come up and have a look?
French Soldier: Of course not. You're English types.
King Arthur: What are you then?
French Soldier: I'm French. Why do you think I have this outrageous accent, you silly king?

Well regardless I would rather take my chance out there on the ocean, that to stay here and die on this poo-hole island spending the rest of my life talking to a gosh darn VOLLEYBALL.

red arrow jag

... Bring back the TSR2...I'll get my coat!
Oh and while we are at it, scrap the Lightning II and bring back the Harrier...
:cheers:

Spey_Phantom

im revanmping an old concept as we speak.
im bringing the beloved spitfire into 21st century service  :mellow:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,21389.0.html
on the bench:

-all kinds of things.

pyro-manic

Hawker P.1216 - we don't need no stinkin' F-35! Ooooh, and HOTOL.  :wub:
Some of my models can be found on my Flickr album >>>HERE<<<

Mossie

Oh yeah!   Hotol, & Skylon too.  A spacecraft that looks like an Avro 730 can't be bad!  I've already mentioned it's sister Lapcat.
I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.