West Texas Spanloader

a reply to: aholic

Lockheed is the lead. Boeing had a say in the design but Lockheed is the lead in the program.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Really?

I thought the exact opposite, with Boeing as the prime contractor and LM for the systems.
My bad then, i got it wrong.

I read somewhere in the last week that the design is Lockheed with Boeing doing the manufacturing because of how much space the f35 is taking up during manufacturing

a reply to: boomer135

I had heard the same thing. LM design with Boeing input, Boeing doing the building of it. I can see this thing being built over at the C17's old digs.

^ Don't think you lot are going to impress us now with your insider industry talk about which project team leads who etc etc...!

Armchair fans have a new favorite aviation forum member in the form of salacious speculative renderer CiTrus90 (please make the next one an F19 shooting down a TR3B- and make them both HAZ LAZERS!!!!!)

a reply to: Jukiodone

Oh, you're making me blush...

This is all for you Jukiodone!!


And now i better stop before Zaphod delivers the ban hammer on my smart a**.

On a more serious note, i was thinking: if the Wichita bird and the Amarillo one are not both meant for the LRS-B competition, does it mean one of them could be an airlifter/tanker?

a reply to: CiTrus90

Hey wanna attempt to do a rendering of a triangle sketch a certain member here made that looks like a 5 year old drew holding a pencil in an ice pick grip?

Zaph was nice enough to not ban the dumbass who hijacked the AESA thread boomer made.. I'm sure he'll forgive you this one time.

Regarding above question you posted. No.

CiTrus90

Hmm I thought one of them was. The second on on the other hand interests me....

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: CiTrus90

Hey wanna attempt to do a rendering of a triangle sketch a certain member here made that looks like a 5 year old drew holding a pencil in an ice pick grip?

Zaph was nice enough to not ban the dumbass who hijacked the AESA thread boomer made.. I'm sure he'll forgive you this one time.

Regarding above question you posted. No.

Yeah but that was funny as hell. Lol

a reply to: aholic

neither are as far as I can figure.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Lol. Hey I haven't even done that one yet. It can't be that bad......

a reply to: Sammamishman

One yes, the other no.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

My guesses for that Wichita "unlikely to ever be declassified" bird are either:

A: An ELINT/target acquisition/ designation platform descended from the A-12 and those Boeing studies. Think "subsonic stealthy EF-111/EA-6".

B: A larger spanloader carrying some serious electronics so that it can serve as an undetectable E-3/J-STARS/Rivet Joint. Think "Stealthy 367-80".

a reply to: CiTrus90

you are my new favorite. wow.

originally posted by: CiTrus90
a reply to: Jukiodone


On a more serious note, i was thinking: if the Wichita bird and the Amarillo one are not both meant for the LRS-B competition, does it mean one of them could be an airlifter/tanker?

If i had to guess, id say that big bastard in the back is a tanker/transport/blended wing/stealthier aircraft...

a reply to: boomer135

Between that T-tail and those engines, I'm not sure if I'd call that thing "stealthy", but I'm also very cynical anytime I see someone tease the blended wing-body concept.

My hunch is that all of the big aircraft manufacturers are chasing the BWB concept because they're all hoping that they'll be the first one to make a commercially-viable BWB airliner, show double-digit fuel economy % numbers and suddenly force the airlines to completely replace their fleets lest they find themselves completely uncompetitive fare-wise against airlines that DO fly BWB's. In this economic climate, it'd be even more disruptive than the 707 was.

Too bad the BWB is the tokamak fusion/electric car/wearable computers of the aerospace world; a great idea on paper with serious, serious real-world flaws. It'll never work until A: someone figures out how to make one fit into existing airports and B: someone figures out a way to make passengers want to travel in a plane without windows.

a reply to: Barnalby

Interesting ideas. What do you suppose their official designations would be? (i.e. RQ-170 or MQ-9)

a reply to: boomer135

Which looks an awful lot like this, less the propfan engines.



@BASSPLYR
If you feel comfortable with it, yep. Send a message whenever you want, i can give it a try.

@TAGBOARD
My guess would be AMC-"X", where X is replaced by a number.

@Barnalby
I fear there will never be such a thing as a commercially-viable BWB airliner. Imagine sitting as a passenger in a seat that's really far away from the axis around which the aircraft is rolling. Unless you're a roller coaster or a swing lover, you're not going to like that feeling.

a reply to: CiTrus90

That's what I was getting at, everyone pushes the BWB and it's never going to work for too many reasons to count.

a reply to: Barnalby


check this pic out.

i.dailymail.co.uk...


super cool no window cabin