It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XPhiles
So this was in January 2005 ..
Is that the current picture ..... looks very amateurish. Maybe the concept is not but that picture is lol..... Looks like we have kids working in the big league
Originally posted by cyberdude78
Well I hope they go with this instead of that Airbus concept. Airbuses are a massive pain in the rear to do maintenence operations on, not a good thing when you're messing with precision inflight equipment.
Anyhow this Lockheed desing looks pretty good, it's all just a matter of fuel capacity and range for the most part.
Originally posted by FredT
Actually the The YC14 was the loser to YF-15 which led way to the development of the C-17. It used a concept known as upper surface blowing or something like that for STOL. The flaps were made of Titanium to deal with the heat. The prototype rests at the Pima Air Museum (I will try to dig up a picture from my trip 2 years ago)
[edit on 5/27/05 by FredT]
Originally posted by gooseuk
I apologise but where did you hear this nonsense? Airbus in most cases could be EASIER to repair due to its use of fly by wire control systems, advanced flight computer control systems and composites, how can you say that an Airbus is more maintenence needie than say an 747 or 767 when with the newer models there are virtually no difference in the systems they employ, or how they employ them. If you can post some links to prove that the airbus aircraft would require more maintance, I for one would love to see it.