It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AC-17 ???

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Imagine raining death upon your enemies from the belly of that BWB. Ouch indeed. Isn't the BWB the basis for bomber and airliner concepts as well? That would be interesting to go back to the old idea of using one design for military and civilian use.




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   


this type of aircraft looks promising.

www.popularmechanics.com...


GBA GYROLIFTER
"More than 40 years ago Fairey Aviation Co., a British aircraft manufacturer, developed a revolutionary new type of aircraft called the Rotodyne," says company founder David Groen. "It used rotorblade tip-jets to power its rotor for vertical takeoff and landing." The jets were shut down in flight, and conventionally mounted propeller engines carried the 44-passenger aircraft at 200 mph.

Although technically successful, the Rotodyne never fired the imagination of airline executives and the plane was abandoned. "If the Fairey Rotodyne existed today, even without modern improvements, it would still be the fastest, safest method of travel," says Groen. "GBA has developed a plan that can rapidly bring the Rotodyne into the modern age."

Groen's idea is to create "runway independent aircraft" by incorporating rotor components into existing production airplanes. He has identified about a half-dozen existing commercial aircraft suitable for conversion. "It would be relatively easy and inexpensive
to transform the Lockheed Martin C-130 cargo transport into a heavy-lift GyroLifter by equipping it with a GBA-designed rotor system incorporating rotor-mounted tip-jets," says Groen. "The technology is simple and the engineering risks are low."

GBA has successfully tested the concept using a modified Cessna Sky-master, a 6-place aircraft with an unusual fore-and-aft engine configuration. The Cessna's forward engine was replaced with a Rolls-Royce gas turbine. Its rear engine was replaced with a large cargo door. Existing wings were shortened, and the twin-boom tail was inverted to create rotor clearance. A rotor assembly from an existing GBA Hawk 4 Gyroplane was connected to the wing attach points already carrying the fuselage. The ungainly aircraft took to the air like a duck to water. "It demonstrated the characteristics of a well-designed gyroplane," Groen says.

In addition to operating in remote locations, the GyroLifter, Groen believes, could help the United States deal with runway overcrowding by turning almost any patch of ground into a commercial airport.


i know it aint stealthy and may not meet the needs of the Air Force who sees the future where stealth is important in future warfare. still i think they could somehow make the this aircraft hard to detect with new technology and methods though on to the airframe.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 08:03 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Debaser
Waste of an air frame the cost and lifting capabilty of the C17 far outways its use as gun ship.

Cheers

Debaser


I agree with Debaser completely. Plus, the AC-130 works just fine and can operate out of an unimproved dirt strip.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I think the v-44 concept is pretty cool. With the problems the V-22 has had I don't know if it has any hope of being considered unless the operational V-22's have no significant issues. On the bright side, it looks like the Osprey is going to get a thumbs up for production.

How about the AC-A380? LOL

[edit on 6-8-2005 by CaptAvatar]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptAvatar

Originally posted by Debaser
Waste of an air frame the cost and lifting capabilty of the C17 far outways its use as gun ship.

Cheers

Debaser


I agree with Debaser completely. Plus, the AC-130 works just fine and can operate out of an unimproved dirt strip.


As I stated prevoiusly they would be using high-time air frames that would no longer be rated for full cargo capability. Yes the AC-130 works very well, but it has a few drawbacks. Its self-protection systems are almost non-existant, while the C-17 has internal jammers and infra-red flare systems. Another thing is the speed and range of the C-130 compaired to the C-17. The C-17's speed is around 500mph compaired to the 300 for the AC-130. Both aircraft are capable of in flight refueling but the slower speed of the AC-130 makes it dangerous in bad weather because of the slower speed that the tanker aircraft has to use.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join