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.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Lockheed Box wing design is nice it allows for the tanker to carry more fuel and have better lift. But the Lockheed plane wont have a prototype till a couple of years, and it will be even longer before it can enter service so we need something temporary right now.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Why would you refuel it you could land it then send up another one instead of making the airplane run for 3 or more days without stop.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Can The Predator even fly stable at those low speeds? If so how slow?
Originally posted by Murcielago
Thats a wierd idea.
An airship loaded with fuel could probably only get up to 60mph.
Can The Predator even fly stable at those low speeds? If so how slow?
Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
I havent read that much about aerial refuelers and stuff like that, but is there a need for bigger refuelers than the current KC-135's? or just newer planes?
Seems a it useless to me to stuff a 747 full with fuel. Wouldn't is be better to buy several smaller refuelers (like the C-130J) instead of one 747 (or 7E7 for that matter)?
Originally posted by Murcielago
LONGBOW - true true, you have alot of good points.
But you would need alot of turbine engines to get to 90mph.
and your idea sounds like it should be a Unmanned Airship Tanker. Because pilots would pretty much have to live in there, it just sounds more economical to take them out.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
How come the MD11 is not top of the list?
Big, relatively modern, modern engines and with a family commonality to the KC10....surely this makes most sense as spares, maintenance etc are considered?
Originally posted by Murcielago
Although I think the Airship Tanker idea is interesting I would still pick the Lockheed Box-wing design.