PDA

View Full Version : What aircraft would YOU have if you had the $$$$???



Paul Leeks
2008-Jul-08, 10:47 PM
hi!!

I would love to have my own B-1 bomber or Backfire bomber!....awesome!

Paul

Moose
2008-Jul-08, 10:54 PM
A Lancaster, I think.

cjl
2008-Jul-08, 11:00 PM
Hard to say, but probably an SR-71. I love everything about that aircraft.

Extravoice
2008-Jul-08, 11:04 PM
No question about it...

X-15. :)

RalofTyr
2008-Jul-09, 12:50 AM
A Luftwaffa Stuka or a Soviet MiG 15/17 or 21.

Donnie B.
2008-Jul-09, 01:12 AM
A few that would be sweet: an XB70 Valkyrie, a P51 Mustang, or a Corsair.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-09, 01:14 AM
Dang! I guess I'm a little more practical. I'd like a T-38, just like Micheal Dorn (Worf) had/has!

danscope
2008-Jul-09, 01:53 AM
Hi, Nice provisio....'if I had the money' . I should like a converted
Dehaviland Beaver with a garrett gas turbo-prop .....on floats.
A brand new genuine PBY Catalina flying boat would be a lot of fun.
A Lear Jet or a Beech Starship would be quite nice.
And who could resist having a spiffy , newly rebuilt North American P-51 D ?
My cousin owned a Rockwell Aero Commander which I would be happy with.
And I should be very happy to own a brand new V-35 Bonanza...thankyou!:)

Best regards, Dan

Romanus
2008-Jul-09, 02:03 AM
A Focke-Wulf 190, with a Zero a close second (IIRC, there's only one flying model left, and that's a crying shame).

cjl
2008-Jul-09, 04:25 AM
No question about it...

X-15. :)
That's a good one too.

You need a B-52 to go with it though...

Peace Makes Plenty
2008-Jul-09, 04:37 AM
Does the Space Shuttle count?

Paul Leeks
2008-Jul-09, 04:43 AM
yes you could have a space shuttle did ya see the movie Moonraker(JamesBond)??

I suppose it could be considered an aircraft....in some ways(?)

Paul...

danscope
2008-Jul-09, 04:44 AM
Yes.....but you would need to be Bill Gates to fill 'er up ! :)

Paul Leeks
2008-Jul-09, 04:55 AM
Hey danscope

imagine how much it would cost per litre..!!! and yes you would have to be Bill Gates to afford it!

Torsten
2008-Jul-09, 05:04 AM
I'd probably go for another Cessna 185 on floats, but maybe amphibious this time. Or a De Haviland Beaver, on floats.

This has to do with where I live and what I like to do. I've already had the privilege of owning what I thought was the ultimate plane for me, and the specs haven't really changed.

If I wanted a plane to fly pavement-to-pavement, I think one of the new Mooneys would be nice.

If I wanted to go in a jet, I'd rent it.

Peace Makes Plenty
2008-Jul-09, 05:24 AM
I'll have a Shuttle, but only for weekends (gotta go easy on the gas).
For my everyday runabout an EA-6B Prowler, so i can take my friends up for a jaunt.

Peace Makes Plenty
2008-Jul-09, 05:25 AM
.

Nicolas
2008-Jul-09, 10:17 AM
Something that's easy to fly, requires short runways, can fly smooth and silent, or stunt vigorously if wanted. If money was no problem, I shouldn't care about flight costs. Maybe something with the possibility to land on the water too.

Hm, what I want doesn't exist. You'd need a working sea dagger with an extra silent engine and good flight characteristics, land landing possibilities and better forward view.

Maybe a Gripen? Flies well, can use roads as runway, excellent view...but no "slow smooth silent flight" mode, no water capabilities...

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-09, 10:30 AM
A float plane would be nice. I like the Cessna Caravan. Just something so... Alaska... about it. I would sell everything I own ow will own including my organs for an XB-70. Not the one that is left (Ship 1) but to rebuild Ship 2 (the one with the dihedral). I also would like a self-designed ultralight. hmmmm.

He Paul would you like to merge this thread with my "favorite plane" thread? i think they are basically the same thing.

Doodler
2008-Jul-09, 11:21 AM
One of the concepts I saw for an anti-missile defense system was a Boeing 747 modified to carry a 7 megawatt chemical laser.

I see potential here... :cool:

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-09, 11:22 AM
I see a house brimming with popcorn. Val Kilmer will be there too.

Extravoice
2008-Jul-09, 11:56 AM
That's a good one too.

You need a B-52 to go with it though...

:doh:

mfumbesi
2008-Jul-09, 11:59 AM
For me it would have to be the SU-30 (Sukhoi).
Here is a wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30
I like the thrust vectoring and the aerodynamics package.

KLIK
2008-Jul-09, 12:57 PM
Harrier jump jet; something about landing in the works carpark on the bosses' car....

Or BAC English Electric Lightning.

You could get a F104 Starfighter by buying a bit of land in Germany (Captain Beefheart).

The other day I misremembered F4 Wild weasel; I thought it was wicked Weasel and got a site a lot more risque than I was expecting.

I also like the FW TA152 Longnose, and you could sort of buy one for yourself; (or a Zero) http://warbuddies.homestead.com/ (32kb)

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-09, 01:32 PM
A Focke-Wulf 190, with a Zero a close second (IIRC, there's only one flying model left, and that's a crying shame).

Actually, I've read that another Zero (http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/a6m3/3318.html) is under restoration in Colorado. I'v heard it's just about finished. There's also a Zero that was fitted with a Pratt & Whitney radial engine (http://www.air-and-space.com/20070106%20Chino.htm) (easier access to parts).

As for me, if money were no object, there isn't one plane that would meet all of my desires. For going fast and looking cool, I'd want a Viper Jet (http://www.viper-aircraft.com/) (I'd wait until the new FanJet model comes out next year). The Viper has been flying for several years now with a turbojet engine. The new FanJet model will have much longer range.

For sheer flying joy, I'd want a good self-launching sailplane along the lines of the Windex (http://www.windex.se/Main.htm) or the aliSport Silent 2 Targa (http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/alianti_scelta_silent2targa.htm).

Since there are currently no airworthy Mosquitos flying (but I've heard of at least one "new" one being built), I'd want a P-38 Lightning, a P-51 Mustang (preferably the ultra rare H model), and/or perhaps one of those replica Me-262s (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html). An F-86 (possibly the Canadian model) would also be nice. Throw in a Mig-15 or -17 (both can be purchased for quite reasonable prices) for some dogfighting fun.

For traveling in style, perhaps a Cessna Citation SP upgraded with Williams turbofans and a glass cockpit or something along those lines.

Casus_belli
2008-Jul-09, 01:42 PM
Spitfire Mk IX. One of the most beautiful aircraft ever.

Nicolas
2008-Jul-09, 02:13 PM
The other day I misremembered F4 Wild weasel; I thought it was wicked Weasel and got a site a lot more risque than I was expecting.


Nice. Now try experiment 2: in a discussion on aircraft, you open Google Images to show your girlfriend a picture of the B-58 Hustler by typing in just its callname. It gave the discussion a mild twist from the size of delta wings to the size of, well, :whistle::shifty:

Argos
2008-Jul-09, 02:14 PM
An A-380 would be fine for me...

Gemini
2008-Jul-09, 02:43 PM
No question about it...

X-15. :)

You might need a BUFF to go with that.


F-35 Lightning II
Just park it on the front lawn, no need for a runway.

Donnie B.
2008-Jul-09, 03:03 PM
If we're including fictional craft, then there would be but one choice: a Firefly. An aught-three, with the extenders.

Kelfazin
2008-Jul-09, 06:20 PM
One of the concepts I saw for an anti-missile defense system was a Boeing 747 modified to carry a 7 megawatt chemical laser.

I see potential here... :cool:

It exists, meet the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser)


As for the plane(s) I would buy if I had the money, I would have to go with the SR-71 for my fast-mover. For my classic airplane choice I would go with a Granville Brothers Gee Bee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gee_Bee_R-1), and for my performance plane, the Extra 300.

danscope
2008-Jul-09, 09:30 PM
Hi, Here's an interesting addition to the original question.....

"If you had the money, what vintage aircraft from the 1905...1919 period would you like to own for the fun of it?
I would like an SE-5a with perhaps a Ranger engine instead of the Hispano-swuisa,
or perhaps a brand new Fokker D-7 ( nice little Mercedes 160HP with height-compensating carburetors ) . Perhaps a modern fuel injection on each of them
would be nice...and modern tires. Rotary engines are fun untill you have to sit behind one! :)
Nothing like flying by the seat of your pants.
Sabatino Ludivichi

Best regards, Dan

Doodler
2008-Jul-09, 09:36 PM
It exists, meet the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_laser)

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I don't complain about paying taxes. :cool:

Paul Leeks
2008-Jul-09, 10:25 PM
Lotus Excelle

yeah! merge this thread with your thread if ya want!

Paul

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-09, 10:29 PM
I want one!
http://hondajet.honda.com/default.aspx?bhcp=1

Romanus
2008-Jul-09, 11:09 PM
Re LJ:
An F-86 would be great.

"If you had the money, what vintage aircraft from the 1905...1919 period would you like to own for the fun of it?"

An easy choice for me: a JN-4 "Jenny".

Paul Leeks
2008-Jul-10, 12:03 AM
my vintage aircraft from that time period would be..a sopwith camel!..if I had the money...

Paul

danscope
2008-Jul-10, 12:43 AM
Hi, Now that''s some REAL flying!!! Wind in your face, torque like you wouldn't even believe, a little castor oil congealing on everything,,, and...
a little respect !!!! Living history and a genuine rotary engine.
Yes, folks, THE ENTIRE ENGINE revolves around a crank pin which is bolted to the fuselage. The prop, which is almost 10 feet in diameter, is bolted to the engine case which all spins at about 1100 RPM. You get a joystick button on top of your joystick and that engine comes to life muy pronto!!!!!
By goodness, that's flying!!! :)
Best regards, Dan

PS: Bring your scarf and goggles.

danscope
2008-Jul-10, 12:46 AM
By the way: I'm off for old Quebec City for a week, so I'll have to return
messages next week. Bienvenue Mon amis !

Dan Bessette

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-10, 09:40 AM
It's been "two years from production" for over a decade and the only test flights have been on a tether, but it would be sweet to have one just for the "Wow factor"!
http://www.moller.com/m400.htm

KLIK
2008-Jul-10, 12:30 PM
Pre 1919 would have to be a Sopwith or Fokker Triplane as I like the look of them.

Kaptain K's Moller looks pretty good as well.

Whirlpool
2008-Jul-10, 12:34 PM
I don't know what kind of model but , I would love to have an aircraft that can take me around the world in minutes. That fast.

<dreamyface>

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-10, 12:39 PM
Many WWI era planes including the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker Dr1 (triplane) had rotary engines. Those engines featured crankshafts bolted to the firewall while the cylinders spun with the propellor. While that was good for cooling, it was lousy for most other things. In addition to being failure prone, those engines basically had two operating states - full throttle or off. There were also some serious gyroscopic precession effects that made airplane handling characteristics "interesting". For example, if you turned in one direction, the nose would drop while a turn to the opposite direction caused the nose to rise. If you weren't prepared for it, you would crash. As if that wasn't enough, they used castor oil as a lubricant. After missions, the pilots came up with some wierd home remedies to counteract the effects of the castor oil. The Sopwith Camel was very maneuverable and in the hands of a really good pilot, it was a good fighter. However, it killed a lot of inexperienced pilots. I suspect the same is true for most other rotary powered planes of the era.

Personally, if I were going after a WWI fighter, it'd be something along the lines of a Spad, an SE5 an Albatross, or the last Fokker design produced (I think it was the D7 but I'm not sure). Those were good planes that featured more conventional engines.

DyerWolf
2008-Jul-10, 01:01 PM
The USMC F4U Corsair. (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/corsairturning.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/vought_f4u_corsair.html&h=358&w=550&sz=40&tbnid=SBn3uMSL3dkJ::&tbnh=87&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Df4u&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1) This is my all-time favorite aircraft - since I was seven years old and watched the Black Sheep Squadron (aka Baa Baa Black Sheep) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQCYG0C89uk).

Flight Demo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3_9UfE8OMw&feature=related)





(Yah, I know its no surprise the resident Marine loves the Corsair!)

Kelfazin
2008-Jul-10, 03:06 PM
I don't know what kind of model but , I would love to have an aircraft that can take me around the world in minutes. That fast.

<dreamyface>


I think you'll need an orbiter for that :) Around the world in 90 minutes!

stutefish
2008-Jul-10, 11:12 PM
An RQ-4 Global Hawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk). Efficient, long-range, cleared by the FAA to file its own flight plans, and packed with all kinds of nifty sensors.

Gemini
2008-Jul-11, 01:10 PM
An RQ-4 Global Hawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk). Efficient, long-range, cleared by the FAA to file its own flight plans, and packed with all kinds of nifty sensors.

Perfect for snooping on the neighbors. :P

Also, the YAL made it's maiden fly on my twelfth Birthday exactly!

mugaliens
2008-Jul-12, 12:13 AM
Probably a Gulfstream 200 or 350.

danscope
2008-Jul-17, 03:04 AM
Many WWI era planes including the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker Dr1 (triplane) had rotary engines. Those engines featured crankshafts bolted to the firewall while the cylinders spun with the propellor. While that was good for cooling, it was lousy for most other things. In addition to being failure prone, those engines basically had two operating states - full throttle or off. There were also some serious gyroscopic precession effects that made airplane handling characteristics "interesting". For example, if you turned in one direction, the nose would drop while a turn to the opposite direction caused the nose to rise. If you weren't prepared for it, you would crash. As if that wasn't enough, they used castor oil as a lubricant. After missions, the pilots came up with some wierd home remedies to counteract the effects of the castor oil. The Sopwith Camel was very maneuverable and in the hands of a really good pilot, it was a good fighter. However, it killed a lot of inexperienced pilots. I suspect the same is true for most other rotary powered planes of the era.

Personally, if I were going after a WWI fighter, it'd be something along the lines of a Spad, an SE5 an Albatross, or the last Fokker design produced (I think it was the D7 but I'm not sure). Those were good planes that featured more conventional engines.

Hi Larry, It was the D-V111 (D-8) or "Flying Razor " . Saw one fly at
'Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome' in New York. Quite the place to visit, really.
I think this one has a 160 HP Oberusel Rotary engine in it.
One day, he was on final , just a few feet off the ground, and his thumb slipped off the joystick ( which shorts out the ignition system....the only way to control engine power...wide open or nothing..) . Well, the engine came to life instantly , and he darn near 're-kitted' the aircraft . The wing tip nearly touched the ground. The young flyer caught it just in time and saved his life and the aircraft . I respect these guys who fly these types of aircraft.
It still takes that much courage to fly Rotaries.
What a plane, though. Too late to do much good at the end.



Fokker D-VIII

The Fokker D-VIII was a parasol winged fighter which was introduced to the front line late in World War 1, too late to make much impact. It also suffered from engine problems. A number of replicas have been built.

Fokker D-V111 N7557U

N7557U c/n 545/18 Germany

Single seat fighter first flown in 1918

Engine: 145hp(108kW) Oberursel Ur.111 Length: 195"(5.92m) Height: 86"(2.43m)Wingspan: 274"(8.33m) No.built: 289 Range: 185miles(297km) Cruising speed: 80mph(128kmh) Empty weight: 847lb(384kg) Maximum take-off weight: 1265lb(574kg)

They must be a handfull to fly.

Best regards, Dan

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-17, 05:20 AM
BD-10. Of course, I'd also need to pay somebody to build it!

mugaliens
2008-Jul-17, 06:09 PM
It's been "two years from production" for over a decade and the only test flights have been on a tether, but it would be sweet to have one just for the "Wow factor"!
http://www.moller.com/m400.htm

His various designs have been years from production for several decades. That's how he makes his living. He doesn't produce. He simply designs and sells dreams.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-17, 06:14 PM
my vintage aircraft from that time period would be..a sopwith camel!..if I had the money...

Paul

You could probably build it yourself for less than $7,000 if you were willing to scrounge for spruce, assemble the ribs and stringers, dope the wings, and slap a converter kit on a used Honda engine.

The license and skill to fly it would cost you extra.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-17, 06:17 PM
With enough power even a brick can fly. That being said I would very much like to launch some of the vehicles i work on into orbit and/or directly into the sun.

Chip
2008-Jul-17, 06:43 PM
A classic: Piper J-3 Cub (or a Fieseler Storch would also be fun to fly.)

Spad XIII or a Fokker Triplane (Though both were unforgiving aircraft.)

Lockheed T-33 (I rode in one. Also had a surplus cockpit simulator as a kid which we donated to the Champlin Fighter Museum at Falcon Field in Arizona.)

Dewoitine D 520 or a PZL P11

Glom
2008-Jul-17, 07:43 PM
Are we talking about an aircraft as a trinket or an aircraft as a practical mode of transportation?

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-17, 08:46 PM
Hi Larry, It was the D-V111 (D-8) or "Flying Razor "

I was talking about the Fokker D-VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VII) that I was thinking about. It might not have been the last one produced, but it was so good that it was specifically mentioned in the Armistice agreement. It was quite possibly the best fighter of WWI.

WazzuNYC
2008-Jul-17, 09:08 PM
1)Definitely a Zero.
2)The VTOL of the Harrier would be a convenient feature to have, so I'll take one of those too.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-17, 09:44 PM
The VTOL of the Harrier would be a convenient feature to have, so I'll take one of those too.

I've read that the easiest way to get a Harrier is to buy 10 acres outside of a Marine aviation base (such as Cherry Point) and wait for one to crash on your land. They're good airplanes with a bad accident rate.

geonuc
2008-Jul-17, 09:56 PM
One of the 747's currently serving as Air Force One would do nicely. Bit of a gas hog, I suppose.

I'd like to take a ride in a Tomcat, carrier launch, but it certainly couldn't be an everyday driver.

danscope
2008-Jul-18, 03:16 AM
Hi Larry, It was the D-V111 (D-8) or "Flying Razor "

I was talking about the Fokker D-VII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VII) that I was thinking about. It might not have been the last one produced, but it was so good that it was specifically mentioned in the Armistice agreement. It was quite possibly the best fighter of WWI.

Hi, Yes, that is an exceptional aircraft; no bad habits, reliable, good speed
and lift , without the castor oil problems . 160 HP Mercedes liquid cooled
engine with height compensating carburetors ( quite the design for 1917 ).
You can see one at Old Rhinebeck . Rare as hen's teeth .
Wish I had one myself!

Best regards, Dan

ravens_cry
2008-Jul-18, 03:21 AM
Either an A-10 Warthog or a Messerschmitt Me 262. Or an Avro Arrow. . .
Dang I can`t decide!

Jay200MPH
2008-Jul-18, 08:19 AM
I would probably maim myself with it in short order but dang, I want a Gyrocopter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro). Sometimes you just have to take a few unnecessary risks...

- J

Ilya
2008-Jul-18, 01:32 PM
If I had $$$$ to buy an aircraft... I'd buy THIS (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-07/hyper-sub) instead!

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-18, 01:59 PM
It looks cool but those window frames don't appear to be substancial enough to withstand the water pressure at 1200 feet. It may just be a prototype but I wouldn't want to the the first person to attempt a deep dive in the thing. IMO, the dive isn't successful if it's only in one direction.

Ilya
2008-Jul-18, 02:22 PM
Oh, I agree. I would not take it to 1200' either... at least not until someone else tried it first!

NEOWatcher
2008-Jul-18, 03:28 PM
...It may just be a prototype but I wouldn't want to the the first person to attempt a deep dive in the thing.
Yes... a prototype; Here's the site (http://hyper-sub.com/prototype.statistics.php)
They have depth specs for thier proposed models, but don't have them for the prototype. 3 models seem to suggest 3 depths 250,600,1200 foot.


...IMO, the dive isn't successful if it's only in one direction.
Interesting popsci is using the word "sink" instead of dive or submerge. maybe they know something. :think:

ravens_cry
2008-Jul-18, 04:55 PM
If I had $$$$ to buy an aircraft... I'd buy THIS (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-07/hyper-sub) instead!
Hehe,
Thunderbirds are GO!
Seriously, she reminds me of Thunderbird 4
Lets just hope they don't have to call International Rescue on this one.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-18, 05:06 PM
If I had $$$$ to buy an aircraft... I'd buy THIS (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-07/hyper-sub) instead!

Now THAT is cool. I could have some serious fun playing around with this thing.

I do hope they configure it to constantly broadcast it's position, on surface of submerged, as that's a drugrunner's dream...

Ilya
2008-Jul-18, 05:30 PM
Now THAT is cool. I could have some serious fun playing around with this thing.

I do hope they configure it to constantly broadcast it's position, on surface of submerged, as that's a drugrunner's dream...

I am sure any drugrunner worth his powder will find a way to disable the broadcast.

danscope
2008-Jul-19, 03:42 AM
Hi, Here's an interesting, if rare aircraft that I'd love to own. It is the prototype that John Northrop built for the flying wing project.
It was called the N9M Flying Wing. Powered by two 180HP Franklin engines concealed within the wings, it flew beautifully and must have been a marvel to see in the desert sky. The photo serves as my computer wallpaper.
Dan

novaderrik
2008-Jul-19, 03:44 AM
my first instinct is to say that i'd like an F14 Tomcat with an aux jack so i could plug in an mp3 player and loop "Danger Zone" over and over into my headset, but i think i'd have more fun with an A10 Warthog.

Donnie B.
2008-Jul-19, 10:41 AM
my first instinct is to say that i'd like an F14 Tomcat with an aux jack so i could plug in an mp3 player and loop "Danger Zone" over and over into my headset, but i think i'd have more fun with an A10 Warthog.
Just don't fire the cannon for too long!

marsbug
2008-Jul-19, 11:26 AM
For practical transport in comfort for me and susan; a pimped 747 (bedroom cooker living room, in fact i might just buy john travoltas). For a cool gimmick.. I don't know. something fast, light weight but relatively simple. Something I could stand some chance of fixing with a tool box and some ingenuity if it broke. And its got to be in black with silver flames on the wings. And definately nothing computer controlled. You can't trust computers:evil:

Chip
2008-Jul-19, 04:20 PM
Hi, Here's an interesting, if rare aircraft that I'd love to own. It is the prototype that John Northrop built for the flying wing project.
It was called the N9M Flying Wing. Powered by two 180HP Franklin engines concealed within the wings, it flew beautifully and must have been a marvel to see in the desert sky. The photo serves as my computer wallpaper.
Dan

You can see that marvel again. Here's a video of a restored N9M in flight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60CgYmNb2a8

danscope
2008-Jul-19, 04:32 PM
Hi, WOW! Thanks for the tip,Sir. Does my heart good.
I had heard that they would restore the N9M to flying condition. I had never seen it or known of any video. Sure ws fun to see it lift off and clean up.
Looked like a mighty fine aircraft worthy of the restoration.
Thank you again for that video.
Best regards, Dan

danscope
2008-Jul-19, 05:58 PM
Hi, Apparently, the N9M Wing took a little more power . Those were 400HP
Franklin engines...two of them.
this site....
Muche's Warbirds: N9MB Restoration

Has a fine story about the plane and the restoration. Check it out.

Best regards, Dan

tbm
2008-Jul-21, 03:50 AM
I'd want a P-47M and the stones to fly it.

Anyone want an ME262? There are some new ones being made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYXd60D_kgQ

tbm

danscope
2008-Jul-22, 04:58 AM
Hi, If I really had "That much money" , and that's a lot.....
I should own my own fleet of Martin "Mars" amphibious aircraft to drop
water in fire ravaged places that need it. Would that we could take a bunch of surplus C-130 Hercules and fit them out as amphibs to do the job.
Good ol Herc ! What can't it do? It would be nice to save Muir Woods,
I should think. If it's good enough for Vancouver, it's good enough for US.

Dan

mugaliens
2008-Jul-22, 05:48 PM
What can't it do?

Well, for one, it can't be retrofitted as an amphib without overgrossing the aircraft...

I'm surprised that no one has invented a drag scoop/pump. It would be a heavy metal affair at the end of a fill hose. The bottom portion, once it touched the water, would plunge beneath, and the top portion is like a little boat that keeps the bottom portion from sinking more than a couple feet beneath the surface.

The ram pressure of the water at 150 mph (130 kts) feeds the water bladder on board the herc, flying 30 to 50 ft above the surface.

Once the bladder is full, the loadmaster would close a valve and the overpressure would trip a preset mechanical switch in the drag pump that would change the angle of it's underwater flying wing such that it would pop up for the loadmaster to reel it in.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-22, 08:24 PM
I'm surprised that no one has invented a drag scoop/pump. It would be a heavy metal affair at the end of a fill hose. The bottom portion, once it touched the water, would plunge beneath, and the top portion is like a little boat that keeps the bottom portion from sinking more than a couple feet beneath the surface.

The ram pressure of the water at 150 mph (130 kts) feeds the water bladder on board the herc, flying 30 to 50 ft above the surface.

Once the bladder is full, the loadmaster would close a valve and the overpressure would trip a preset mechanical switch in the drag pump that would change the angle of it's underwater flying wing such that it would pop up for the loadmaster to reel it in.

Let's see, flying low and slow, pulling a high drag device through the water while increasing your weight by 10,000 to 20,000 pounds in a matter of seconds.

You first.

Abbadon_2008
2008-Jul-22, 10:52 PM
There are several on my wishlist.

1) Grumman F7F Tigercat - Twin-engined ridiculously fast and powerful fighter plane of post WWII era.


http://img207.imagevenue.com/loc463/th_66814_2912L_123_463lo.jpg (http://img207.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66814_2912L_123_463lo.jpg)http://img243.imagevenue.com/loc123/th_66815_Asher-Summer_123_123lo.jpg (http://img243.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66815_Asher-Summer_123_123lo.jpg)


2) Grumman Goose seaplane - Not the fastest or most glamorous ride, but sweet.


http://img128.imagevenue.com/loc769/th_66655_15-725791_123_769lo.jpg (http://img128.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66655_15-725791_123_769lo.jpg)http://img125.imagevenue.com/loc958/th_66658_Catalina-Grumman-Goose_123_958lo.jpg (http://img125.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66658_Catalina-Grumman-Goose_123_958lo.jpg)http://img195.imagevenue.com/loc143/th_66667_Goose1a_123_143lo.jpg (http://img195.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66667_Goose1a_123_143lo.jpg)





Looks like something Indiana Jones would ride.

3) AH-64 Apache helicopter - What headbanger wouldn't want one?

http://img21.imagevenue.com/loc1016/th_66984_AH-64_Apache_123_1016lo.jpg (http://img21.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66984_AH-64_Apache_123_1016lo.jpg)

4) Adams Aircraft A-500 - Wicked commercial plane, seen in the 'Miami Vice' film a while back.



http://img229.imagevenue.com/loc398/th_66371_200609adam-aircraft-A500_123_398lo.jpg (http://img229.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=66371_200609adam-aircraft-A500_123_398lo.jpg)

HenrikOlsen
2008-Jul-23, 01:08 AM
I'm surprised that no one has invented a drag scoop/pump. It would be a heavy metal affair at the end of a fill hose. The bottom portion, once it touched the water, would plunge beneath, and the top portion is like a little boat that keeps the bottom portion from sinking more than a couple feet beneath the surface.

The ram pressure of the water at 150 mph (130 kts) feeds the water bladder on board the herc, flying 30 to 50 ft above the surface.

Once the bladder is full, the loadmaster would close a valve and the overpressure would trip a preset mechanical switch in the drag pump that would change the angle of it's underwater flying wing such that it would pop up for the loadmaster to reel it in.

Let's see, flying low and slow, pulling a high drag device through the water while increasing your weight by 10,000 to 20,000 pounds in a matter of seconds.

You first.
Basically, if you're low enough to drop a scoop, you might as well go all the way down like the Canadair CL 215 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyYO1Z_uNAY) does.

San Pedro
2008-Jul-23, 07:13 AM
These Two

http://sq144.cawg.cap.gov/uploaded_images/F-22-Raptor-&-P-51-Mustang-750170.JPG
F-22

and

P-51

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-23, 12:53 PM
The CL 215 was designed to do it and does a great job. It's rugged, powerful, and reliable. By all accounts that I've read, it's an excellent airplane for the intended mission and a solid design.

LotusExcelle
2008-Jul-23, 02:08 PM
From what I understand when the 215 drops its payload of water it "jumps" up in the air like mad. Scares the crap out of people unfamiliar with it.

danscope
2008-Jul-23, 04:29 PM
Hi, Yes, I expect that when you drop several tons of water quickly,
your vertical acceleration is dramatic, and instantaneous!

Dan

mugaliens
2008-Jul-23, 07:18 PM
Let's see, flying low and slow, pulling a high drag device through the water while increasing your weight by 10,000 to 20,000 pounds in a matter of seconds.

You first.

Sorry, but hundreds, if not thousands, of water-scooping flights involving other aircraft have beat me to it and proven the concept.

<sigh>

Furthermore, the difference between 138,000 GW and 108,000 GW on a C-130 is but a couple degrees of pitch and some power trim.

Oh...

And the difference between 108,000 GW and 138,000 GW on a C-130 is but a couple degrees of pitch and some power trim.

Larry - do you have any fact-based reason as to why you believe this is impossible? If so, please bring it on.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-23, 07:25 PM
Basically, if you're low enough to drop a scoop, you might as well go all the way down like the Canadair CL 215 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyYO1Z_uNAY) does.

Can't. Not without modifying vast amounts of airframe structure, imparting incredibly weight-intensive components to allow for a water landing...

Is anyone here aware of the fact that seaplanes are around 30% less efficient than their land-based bretheren due to the additional structural requirements involved in water-based landings and takeoffs?

If this weren't true, you'd find that every airport sported a water runway instead of the many millions of dollars more expensive concrete runways that currently grace airports around the world.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-23, 07:55 PM
Larry - do you have any fact-based reason as to why you believe this is impossible? If so, please bring it on.

Impossible, no. Stupid, yes.

The CL-215 is an amphibian that can land on both water and land. The C-130 has no such capability. It was designed for the water scoop operation. The C-130 wasn't.

Flying at 130 knots over the water isn't that big an issue for a lightly loaded C-130. With partial flaps, you're well above the stall speed. That scoop would significantly add to the drag of the plane at the same time you're adding thousands of pounds of weight. Increasing power can compensate for the drag so long as the drag isn't too high (power changes are quick but far from instant on a turboprop engine). As the weight increases, so does the stall speed. To compensate for the added weight, you have to increase lift (which also increases drag). That's a good formula to have the plane settle into the water.

If your watch this video of a CL-215 taking on water (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyYO1Z_uNAY), you should notice a few things:

1. The plane doesn't try to scoop the water while in flight. It actually lands on the water and continues on step while scooping in the water. This means the fuselage step is actually contributing a lot of the necessary lift during this impressive operation.

2. It appears the plane slows considerably while taking on the water (as would be expected). Being an amphibian, it can afford to do this and then accelerate to take off speed once the scooping is finished. A C-130 flying over the surface can't afford to lose speed at the same time it's taking on weight. That's a great way to plant the plane in the water - something the C-130 wasn't designed to do more than once.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-23, 08:32 PM
Larry - do you have any fact-based reason as to why you believe this is impossible? If so, please bring it on.

Impossible, no. Stupid, yes.

Stupid? Only your flipping the issue. Knock it off, Larry (and if you're prior service, you know what I mean by that).

If you don't, I'll task your butt to there and back, beginning with:

"The CL-215 is an amphibian that can land on both water and land. The C-130 has no such capability. It was designed for the water scoop operation. The C-130 wasn't."

No s... kidding. I made that glaringly apparent. I'm sorry you didn't catch on...


Flying at 130 knots over the water isn't that big an issue for a lightly loaded C-130. With partial flaps, you're well above the stall speed. That scoop would significantly add to the drag of the plane at the same time you're adding thousands of pounds of weight.

How in the world would you know that, Larry? Perhaps the design was a very aero/hydrodynamic design which could be dragged through the water without factoring in the pumping action at a mere 160 lbs drag. Is that "significant" to you? Flying a Herk?

Perhaps adding up to the 42,000 lbs the C-130 was designed to deliver over the same few seconds is no more a matter of pushing up the throttles than delivering the load involves retarding the throttles...


Increasing power can compensate for the drag so long as the drag isn't too high (power changes are quick but far from instant on a turboprop engine).

No.

The C-130 uses constant-speed (variable pitch) props. The engines are always on speed. Going from full aerobraking to full acceleration is a matter of less than 2 seconds. It's got one of the fastest "instant-on turboprop" acceleration curves in the business.


As the weight increases, so does the stall speed. To compensate for the added weight, you have to increase lift (which also increases drag). That's a good formula to have the plane settle into the water.

No, no, and no.

Actually, yes, yes, and yes. However, your using these arguments is ridiculous given the operational capabilities of the C-130 over the last 40 years, as your arguements are grossly misapplied and totally irrespective of the Herk's capabilities in general.

1. It routinely drops an average of 20,000 lbs of troops or cargo at 130 KIAS (knots indicated airspeed).

2. It can drop more than 23,000 lbs of troops or cargo at 140 KIAS, up to and including 42,000 lbs.

3. It has LAPESed upwards of 38,000 lbs of cargo while the aircraft was just 10 ft above the ground at 140 kts.

So, Larry, NO, the airplane wouldn't "settle into the water" any more than it would fly into the ground while approaching a drop zone laden with the same mass of cargo.

Just your saying that tells me you know very little of airlift operations in general, and quite a lot less of C-130-specific ops in particular.

"Nuff said" on my part.

Furthermore and finally, I am not defending the Herk. I am defending aeronautical concepts, particularly those involved in fighting fires, and the use of any aircraft to be used in fighting those fires (same principles could be applied to a Cessna Caravan).

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-23, 09:02 PM
How in the world would you know that, Larry? Perhaps the design was a very aero/hydrodynamic design which could be dragged through the water without factoring in the pumping action at a mere 160 lbs drag. Is that "significant" to you? Flying a Herk?

I base my opinion from your original post on the subject:

I'm surprised that no one has invented a drag scoop/pump. It would be a heavy metal affair at the end of a fill hose.

Given that you'll want to load thousands of pounds of water in a matter of seconds, how much drag would such a device produce as it scooped out that water with sufficient force to push the water up to the plane? The plane would need to fly some distance above the water, say 10-20 feet. If you want to add 10,000 pounds of water to the plane in a single pass, you'll not want to prolong the operation because that will mean you need a much longer body of water. That larger body of water reduces the number of places where you can operate. At 130 knots, you're traveling 220 feet per second in calm air. If you hope to limit the operation to 10 seconds, you'll need to scoop up 1,000 pounds of water per second. How much energy is required to lift 1,000 pounds of water per second and lift it 10-20 feet into the air? That energy is captured from the kinetic energy of the plane and the engine thrust. As the weight increases, lift has to increase or the plane will descend (simple aerodynamics).

So, Larry, NO, the airplane wouldn't "settle into the water" any more than it would fly into the ground while approaching a drop zone laden with the same mass of cargo.

Are you serious? Do you not see the difference between a LAPES run where the mass is released during the operation and adding thousands of pounds of water while flying low and slow over the water? LAPES runs - which have caused at least 3 C-130 crashes like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5o0ePx0y1M) - drop the load. That's hardly the same problem as adding the load.

Just your saying that tells me you know very little of airlift operations in general, and quite a lot less of C-130-specific ops in particular.

"Nuff said" on my part.

My experience with C-130 operations involved being the cargo dropped in flight. My experience as a pilot says that your idea is foolhardy if not outright foolish. Planes like the CL-215 were designed with that operation in mind and do it very well. Attempting the same maneuver in a C-130 would almost certainly result in a submerged airframe.

mugaliens
2008-Jul-23, 09:26 PM
How in the world would you know that, Larry? Perhaps the design was a very aero/hydrodynamic design which could be dragged through the water without factoring in the pumping action at a mere 160 lbs drag. Is that "significant" to you? Flying a Herk?

I base my opinion from your original post on the subject:

I'm surprised that no one has invented a drag scoop/pump. It would be a heavy metal affair at the end of a fill hose.

Given that you'll want to load thousands of pounds of water in a matter of seconds, how much drag would such a device produce as it scooped out that water with sufficient force to push the water up to the plane? The plane would need to fly some distance above the water, say 10-20 feet.

30-50 ft


If you want to add 10,000 pounds of water to the plane in a single pass, you'll not want to prolong the operation because that will mean you need a much longer body of water. That larger body of water reduces the number of places where you can operate. At 130 knots, you're traveling 220 feet per second in calm air. If you hope to limit the operation to 10 seconds, you'll need to scoop up 1,000 pounds of water per second. How much energy is required to lift 1,000 pounds of water per second and lift it 10-20 feet into the air? That energy is captured from the kinetic energy of the plane and the engine thrust. As the weight increases, lift has to increase or the plane will descend (simple aerodynamics).

blah-buh-blah-buh-blah-buh-blah-buh-blah.

Larry, you miss the point ENTIRELY.

The C-130 transitions from 140,000 lbs to 102,000 lbs in the space of approximately 3 seconds at an altitude of approximately 8 to 20 feet, and throughout a range of less than 5 kts/hr.

That's LAPES.

The reverse that I was proposing calls for a significantly (300%) greater altitude, and involving the same changes in gross weights.

SO, Larry... Are you saying that the Herk can offload, but can't onload given the same considerations???

So, Larry, NO, the airplane wouldn't "settle into the water" any more than it would fly into the ground while approaching a drop zone laden with the same mass of cargo.

Are you serious? Do you not see the difference between a LAPES run where the mass is released during the operation and adding thousands of pounds of water while flying low and slow over the water? LAPES runs - which have caused at least 3 C-130 crashes like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5o0ePx0y1M) - drop the load. That's hardly the same problem as adding the load.

Just your saying that tells me you know very little of airlift operations in general, and quite a lot less of C-130-specific ops in particular.

Dropping 30,000 lbs and adding 30,000 lbs while operating at the same gross aircraft weight (less cargo load) involves about 1-3/4 throttle's width.

"Nuff said" on my part.


My experience with C-130 operations involved being the cargo dropped in flight. My experience as a pilot says that your idea is foolhardy if not outright foolish. Planes like the CL-215 were designed with that operation in mind and do it very well. Attempting the same maneuver in a C-130 would almost certainly result in a submerged airframe.

My experience in the Herk says your "foolhardy/foolish" declaration is singlehandedly said, and based on your own preferences, not factual data (because we've done far worse that you can imagine...).

Bottom line, LJ, it's a "been there, done that" deal. And no, I'm not sorry I don't support your "can't be done"-isms. Too many "done-isms" under my belt to believe your take on the world.

Have a nice day.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-23, 10:28 PM
:naughty: Kts = Nautical miles/hour, so kts/hr is a redundancy! :mad:

Torsten
2008-Jul-23, 11:41 PM
kts/hr would be a measure of acceleration, no? :)

All I can add is that water is not very forgiving at those speeds. The attitude of the aircraft is very important in such an operation, and I suspect the presence of the hull in the water adds a safety factor in the form of reducing the length of the lever arm that acts to rotate the nose into the water when contact is made. I landed a little bit ahead of the step a couple of times when I had my floatplane, and it scared the socks off me. The plane wants to go on its back, and nothing wakes you up faster than the sensation of pitching over like that. I've seen a few wrecks pulled from the water where the pilot didn't haul back on the yoke fast enough.

I've also hit debris during landing and it makes a lot of noise. My machine sustained only slight damage to a rudder, but an old pilot had warned me to never step taxi in the harbour just because of this possibility. I'd hate to see what would happen if a long scoop arm snagged on something.

Just my $0.02.

ETA: Okay, on re-reading mugs' idea, it doesn't seem to be a rigid arm - different problem than I thought. Nevermind. . .

Noclevername
2008-Jul-24, 12:10 AM
If we're throwing in fictional craft, Millenium Falcon.

Kaptain K
2008-Jul-24, 12:17 AM
OK, this is twelve years old, but it's already been thought about (twice)!
http://www.janes.com/extract/idr96/idr00214.html
IIRC, the 1968 version had a retractable central ski and was shot down because the loading ramp was unusable on water. The later version died because it would've eaten into the budget of the V-22 Osprey.

So a C130 is doable.

Larry Jacks
2008-Jul-24, 12:58 PM
SO, Larry... Are you saying that the Herk can offload, but can't onload given the same considerations???

Yeah, I'm saying that. There have been at least 3 C-130 crashes while doing LAPES operations. Two of those crashes occurred when the gear being offloaded jammed in the cargo bay. The drag from the parachutes was too great and the planes slammed into the ground.

That's what would happen with your absurd idea. That hose and scoop you're talking about is effectively the same as a parachute, only it's being lowered into water. One of the properties of water is that it's approximately 900 times as dense as air at sea level. That means a small water scoop would have the same drag as a large parachute. The LAPES accidents show what happens when the C-130 tries to drag a parachute.

Try actually running some numbers on the size of scoop you'd need to gather water at a sufficient rate with sufficient force to lift the water to a plane flying 30-50 feet off the water. The drag from that scoop would be many thousands of pounds while you're flying low and slow. At any given airspeed, there is a minimum amount of power required to keep the plane in the air. At the same time, there is a maximum amount of power that the engines are able to provide. Greatly increasing drag while increasing weight means you need substancially more power to keep the plane in level flight. There will quickly come the time when the power required exceeds the power available. At that point, the plane will lose speed and/or descend. When you're already low and slow, you're going to quickly run out of airspeed and altitude which is always a bad thing.

blah-buh-blah-buh-blah-buh-blah-buh-blah.

That's the sound someone makes when they don't know what they're talking about and they're unable to address the points being raised. You may have more experience with the C-130 than I do, but go discuss your harebrainded idea with some actual C-130 pilots and see what they think of it. Odds are, they'll tell you you're nuts (prehaps phrased more politely).

mugaliens
2008-Jul-24, 08:20 PM
Yeah, I'm saying that. There have been at least 3 C-130 crashes while doing LAPES operations. Two of those crashes occurred when the gear being offloaded jammed in the cargo bay. The drag from the parachutes was too great and the planes slammed into the ground.

Wrong.

The accident with the Sheridan at the dog and pony show occured for two reasons. First, the pilot was a hot-dogger and was approaching at a ridiculously steep angle (that's NOT how one does LAPES). Second, all of his practices at that ridiculously steep angle were with an aircraft that was 40,000 pounds lighter than the one he crashed. As such, he pulled out at the same AGL as during practice, but with 40,000 more lbs on board he wound up slamming it into the ground.

One Canadian LAPES crash occured because the angle was once again too steep, causing the load to move forward (despite the pull from it's extraction chute). This moved the CG too far forward, causing the aircraft to impact the ground.

The other Canadian LAPES crash occured when the aircraft impacted a berm (it had nothing to do with the load or any LAPES equipment).


That's what would happen with your absurd idea.

You can kill the name-calling, Larry.


That hose and scoop you're talking about is effectively the same as a parachute, only it's being lowered into water. One of the properties of water is that it's approximately 900 times as dense as air at sea level.

What? You were thinking we'd put a 28' diameter scoop out there...?


That means a small water scoop would have the same drag as a large parachute.

So?


The LAPES accidents show what happens when the C-130 tries to drag a parachute.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, Larry.

Here's how LAPES works (pay attention - you may learn something):

1. The navigator directs the aircraft to the IP (initial point) where the aircraft assumes a straight-in course to the LAPES area.

2. Approximately 6 nm out, the aircraft performs a slowdown, dropping from 210 KIAS to 130 KIAS. During the slowdown, the AC (aircraft commander) configures for the slower airspeed, including setting the flaps to a pre-determine angle (based on gross weight).

3. Once establish at 130 KIAS, the AC continues inbound, lowers the gear, then intercepts the glideslope, usually determined either visually by the pilots, or by means of an ARA (airborne radar approach) entered into the SCNS (self-contained navigation system) by the navigator. The Nav can use either radar offsets or GPS position to ensure the accuracy of the approach. The loadmaster checks the tension setting of the right-hand rail locks and removes the left-hand rail locks (the rail locks are what keeps the 463-L pallet from sliding forward or aft).

4. As the aircraft approaches the LAPES area (at a very leisurely 2.83 deg glideslope, not the hiyaka maneuver that resulted in the Sheridan accident), it descends until it's approximately 5 to 10 feet above the ground. The chute extraction chute is deployed. This chute trails behind the aircraft and is attached to the cargo chutes.

5. As the aircraft passes the LAPES marker panels, the navigator calls "green light" at which point the CP flips a switch which cuts the restraint between the chute extraction chute and the cargo chutes. This causes the chute extraction chute to remove the cargo chutes which inflate. The chute extraction chute does not have enough pull to overcome the tension in the right hand rail locks. Thus, while it's deployed, the load remains in place. The cargo chutes, however, do have enough pull. They overcome the lock tension, and literally rip the load out of the back of the aircraft, where it falls the 5 to 10 feet to the surface and begins a parachute-retarded slide.

Point: No LAPES accident has ever been caused by the chute extraction chute (also referred to as the pilot chute). That chute is deployed a considerable distance from the LAPES markers, exerts a pull of several thousand pounds, and is easily dragged by the C-130 with only minimal adjustments in the throttles. Furthermore, no LAPES accident has been caused by the extraction (cargo) chutes, as they easily overcome the tension of the right-hand rail locks.

Here is a picture of the three cargo/extraction chutes. (http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/hercules/c130/bin/c130039.jpg)The pilot chute is not visible from this angle.

You may be thinking of a non-LAPES, airdrop accident involving three 28' extraction chutes and a heavy load. In that accident, there was an airdrop malfunction in which the load failed to extract while the aircraft was at drop altitude, about 800 ft AGL. When that happens, the only response is to apply full power and lower the gear, which the pilot did. If one of the loadmasters can get around the cargo and cut the line to the extraction chutes, terrific - the crew will be buying him beers for a lifetime. It's risky, though, as if the cargo extracted while he was in the way, he's toast.

In that non-LAPES accident, one crewmember was killed, a second was maimed, and the others survived with minor injuries.

If that had happened during a LAPES mission, you can see from this picture (http://www.theaviationzone.com/images/hercules/c130/bin/c130039.jpg)what would have happened - the airplane would simply have landed on the LAPSE course, which, during practice, is almost always an unimproved dirt strip used during short-field, max-effort landings and takeoffs, anyway.

By the way, I'm pretty certain those are also 28' extraction chutes.


Try actually running some numbers on the size of scoop you'd need to gather water at a sufficient rate with sufficient force to lift the water to a plane flying 30-50 feet off the water.

Sure.


The drag from that scoop would be many thousands of pounds while you're flying low and slow.

Again, "So?"


At any given airspeed, there is a minimum amount of power required to keep the plane in the air. At the same time, there is a maximum amount of power that the engines are able to provide.

At "low and slow" speeds, the amount of power available is greater than the amount of power being used to maintain 130 or 140 kts.


Greatly increasing drag while increasing weight means you need substancially more power to keep the plane in level flight.

See previous comment.


There will quickly come the time when the power required exceeds the power available.

Wrong.


At that point, the plane will lose speed and/or descend.

Since "that point" wouldn't be reached in a properly-designed system, the imagined effects of that point will not be observed, either.

Here's some numbers for you, Larry.

The Herk can carry fuel bladders in it's cargo compartment. When it does, it's typically a 3,000 gallon bladder. K&F was awarded the contract for a 3,600 gallon system.

So, typically, the Herk handles roughly 22,000 lbs of fuel. If a similar system were installed, it, too would hold roughly 22,000 lbs.

Keep in mind that the Herk's cargo capacity is more than 42,000 lbs, and that it can both airdrop and LAPES 38,000 pounds, which involves a change in aircraft weight of 38,000 lbs over around one second.

So, we're talking just over half that weight...

The aerial refueling rate is 300 gpm, but at that rate, it would take more than 10 minutes of scoop time to fill the tanks, which translates into 22 nm. Great if you're fighting fires around Lake Tahoe, but not very useful elsewhere.

Let's back the distance down to 1/2 mile, with three passes for a full load. That means we need a scoop rate of 4,400 gpm, 73 gal/sec, or nearly 30,000 lbs/min. That's 491 lbs/sec.

Let's call it 500 lbs/sec of water onload. Given that ram-fed nozzle efficiencies are roughly 80%, and that you've got to overcome a 30' to 50' head (distance to the aircraft) and a line loss of perhaps 30%, we'd need enough pressure to cram (without the inefficiencies) close to 740 lbs/sec, while the aircraft is flying (for safety sake, let's say 150 kts) 253.17... Ok, 250 feet per second.

That's our drag. If you recall your fluid dynamics 101, thats 740 lbs/sec over 250 feet/sec, so that 740 lbs in 250 feet, or 2.96 (ok, 3) lbs per each foot travelled.

Which means nothing (just seeing if you're paying attention, Larry).

What does mean something is that 740 lbs of H2O is accelerated from 0 to 250 ft/s in one second. So, F=m*a. And a=...

Are you still paying attention?

Since you know so much, why don't you solve the problem and figure out just how much drag is imparted to the aircraft in accelerating 740 lbs from 0 to 250 ft/s each second.

Fine. I'll do it myself. The acceleration is simple: 250 ft/s/s (250 ft/s2). The mass is also simple - 740 lbs. So, the force required is 740 lb * 250 ft/s, which comes to 185,000 ft-lbs/s.

No problem.

Woah! Yeah! Big problem!!!

Actually, no problem, as we simply lower the flow rate to what the C-130 can handle.

The Herk's (E model) T56-A-15 turboprops crank about 4300 hp per, or 17.2k total. Since 1 hp = 746 W, we're talking 12,831,200 W, or 12.8 MW.

Sump'n, ain't it? That's 2.8 MW more than the Toshiba nuclear reactor slated for Galena, AK (which currently runs off diesel generators at $0.40/kW-hr)...

Well, all things considered, about 40% of that is available as extra thrust at 150 KIAS at flaps 30 (30 deg flaps). That's about 4 MW, or 2.95 million foot pound-force/second, which, when divided by 185,000 ft-lbs/s, translates to a factor of 15.9.

Thus, in order to fill 3,600 gallons, it'll require not 1.5 miles, but 24 miles.

Doable?

Well, yes, around Lake Tahoe...

blah-buh-blah-buh-blah-buh-blah-buh-blah.


That's the sound someone makes when they don't know what they're talking about...

I think my detailed description of LAPES procedures has laid to rest any doubt others may have had that I might not know what I'm talking about.


...and they're unable to address the points being raised.

Points addressed. See above.


You may have more experience with the C-130 than I do...

Yep.


...but go discuss your harebrainded idea with some actual C-130 pilots and see what they think of it. Odds are, they'll tell you you're nuts (prehaps phrased more politely).

Actually, I did just that, today (I work with several). They said a few interesting things about you, which I can't repeat here (politely).

Have a nice day, Larry! Hope you learned something. I did, namely, that it takes a lot longer distance and time to fill 3,600 using a drag/ram feed that I'd originally imagined. However, it can be done, but except in a few choice locations, it's probably not very feasible. Besides, the risk of debris damaging the feed nozzle is high, particularly over 24 miles per re-fill.

It'd make more sense to land at the nearest airport and have a fire truck cram H2O from a fire hydrant to the bladder with engines running than it would to try scooping from a lake (or much worse, a river, which are usually full of debris).

So, were you right?

Yes and no.

Yes, it's not very feasible.

No, against your claims otherwise, it is doable.

Given the constraints, however, it's more feasible to land and rehydrate via ground supply.

In closing, Larry, I'll say this - I'm an honest broker. If you tell me "it can't be done," I won't mince words. I'll investigate can/can't, and report the results. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. But I am teachable, I enjoy crunching numbers, and each time I go through one of these exercises, I do learn something.

No hard feelings, ok? Let's let the water wash the egos under the bridge, ok?

See you around the board....

danscope
2008-Jul-24, 09:07 PM
Hi Guys,
I thought the numbers were interesting. The idea of simply filling the bladder on the ground probably makes good sense for the herc. And..I expect that there are enough of them around. It probably boils down to who pays for the fuel,
and who is good enough to fly the beast into smoke on a good GPS and get the job done. I should think enough of these marvelous aircrfat could do the job.
It takes a lifetime,.....maybe 5 lifetimes to grown a real tree.
And like I said,....if I had enough money, I'd do it.

Best regards everyone,
Dan

mugaliens
2008-Jul-25, 09:16 PM
I'm thinking about changing my mind...

AOPA just did an article on the Eclipse 500 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_500), and while it's not quite there, yet, it's about 85% there. Above 150 have been delivered, with orders booked solid for the next two years. Their avionics suite is mainly where they're lagging behind, but they will upgrade current owners to the final design for "free." I put that in quotes as the current price is $2.1 million, about 50% more in constant dollars than originally planned.

Meanwhile, the Cessna Citation Mustang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_Mustang)borrowed heavily on it's much-vaunted Citation series and both did it right and did it first, being first to win the VLT certifications and the first to market.

So, as neat as it is to see new entries like the Eclipse, I'd prefer to go with something a little more refined.

However, it's a bit pricier, at $3 million.

But, with unlimited $$$$$...

I'd go with the Mustang.

San Pedro
2008-Jul-25, 11:28 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7525258.stm

carry in you mob!

mugaliens
2008-Jul-26, 12:27 PM
Update on Toshiba's nuclear reactor for Galena:

It's not a hoax.

Toshiba/Westinghouse's 4S (Super-Safe, Small, and Simple) 10 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor is designed for completely passive operation for 30 years.

They're working with Criepi and Argonne National Laboratories to obtain NRC approval (licensing). That process involves a number of technical reports scheduled throughout this year (2008) and next (2009).

The principle design criteria (PDC) and regulatory guides have already been approved. The applicable codes and standards have been applied for, but approval is pending the outcome of the technical reports. All required tests have been done and have exceeded design specs.

danscope
2008-Jul-27, 04:33 PM
Hi, Sir: How does that relate to aircraft of any desired type?
Just curious.
Dan