Thread Tools
Dec 12, 2009, 01:09 AM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar
Clearing old entries:

#9102 Fokker-Republic D-24 Alliance:



The D-24 Alliance was a 1965 proposal for a NATO VTOL fighter that Fokker intended to develop with Republic.

There is a model of the aircraft in the Netherlands Air Museum in Lelystad.

The D-24 would have been somewhat akin to the Republic XF-103, though slower. It would have had a range of 3,000 miles at Mach 1.5, and an internal weapons carriage of multiple long-range air-to-air missiles. It was intended to defeat the atmospheric threat — high performance, cruise-missile launching bombers. It would feature autonomous sensing, so there would have been no dependence on AWACS, nor on aerial refuelling

It was proposed that the vectored-thrust Bristol Siddeley BS.100/3 with a thrust potential of 17500kg be used by the Alliance, with plenum chamber burning in the two forward swiveling nozzles, and it was calculated that VTO weight with 2270kg useful military load would be of the order 15,875kg while STO weight would rise to 20,400kg or more.

Anticipated performance included M=1.25 capability at 150m rising to M=2.4 at altitude, with service ceiling topping 21,335m.

The joint Fokker-Republic Project Division at Schipol was headed by Alexander Wadkowsky of Republic Aviation, but the NBMR-3 requirement proved contentious from the outset, inspiring much antagonism, both nationalistic and between competing companies, with the result that this highly ambitious and perhaps too far-sighted program drifted to its demise.

Republic Aviation submitted a broadly similar project to that of the Alliance in the USN's VAX attack aircraft contest, but failed to find favor.

#9103 Saab A.36 nuclear bomber project:



Sweden's nuclear bomber (that never was) or A 36, the 'missing' aircraft between 35 and 37.

In issue 4/1991 of the magazine Flygrevyn there is an article the Saab project 1300, which later were given the Air Force designation A 36, although it was never built.
In the late 1940's work was started on getting Sweden nuclear weapons, which studies showed would be technically and economically feasible. In 1952 Saab started designing an aircraft with long range, large weapon load and high speed as 'Project 1300'.

It was equipped with a single seat, straight delta wing with 62 degrees sweepback, chin intake and internal weapon bay. (The latter _only_ because of concerns about accidental detonation due to the high temperatures air friction would cause.) Primary weapon would be a 600-800 kg free fall nuclear weapon*.


Length: 17 m
Span: 9,6 m
Wing area: 54 square meters
Empty weight: 9000 kg
Max load: 1500 kg
Fuel: 4000 kg
Max take off weight: 15000 kg
Engine: Bristol Olympus
Thrust/weight ratio (take off): 0,73
Max speed: Mach 2,14 above 11 km; mach 1,2 at low altitude
Radius of action: 410 km
Ceiling: 18 km
Take off run: 490 m

The project was cancelled in 1957 and all resources concentrated on Viggen. However, it wasn't until 1966 parliament finally decided Sweden wasn't going to get nuclear weapons.

* Bofors Sauron
Last edited by BlondeValkyrie; Dec 12, 2009 at 01:23 AM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 12, 2009, 04:56 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by challenger_i
I believe they are P-400's, at Henderson Field, Guadalcanal...
Hi Challenger
I think you're right about the location of the airfield (Guadalcanal). Somebody hinted that to me the other day
Cheers
philovance
Dec 12, 2009, 07:20 AM
Registered User
perttime's Avatar
A submarine maybe?
Dec 12, 2009, 07:34 AM
Registered User
MSMRCK's Avatar

Piaggio Pegna PC7


Quote:
Originally Posted by perttime
A submarine maybe?
No submarine at all, but Piaggio Pegna PC7



Massimo
Dec 12, 2009, 08:06 AM
Registered User
OK, here we go again..........

Oops, better get rid if the Reg!, back soon!

Sorry about that............

Last edited by ImpartialObs; Dec 12, 2009 at 08:15 AM.
Dec 12, 2009, 08:12 AM
Zzzt! Buzz! Click!
squidbait's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpartialObs
OK, here we go again..........

Oops, better get rid if the Reg!, back soon!
Monsted-Vincent Starflight. Apparently most of the major bits are still intact at the Weddell-Williams museum.
Dec 12, 2009, 08:18 AM
Registered User
perttime's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSMRCK
No submarine at all, but Piaggio Pegna PC7

Massimo
Yes,
Hey, you have some good pics of it. Mine came from
http://xplanes.tumblr.com/post/12060...929-the-oddest
and
http://speedbirds.blogspot.com/2008/04/piaggio-pc7.html

"The plan was for the aircraft to first operate using the water-screw and a lower rudder - like a boat. As it gained speed, the hydrofoils would generate lift and raise the aircraft, clearing the main engine/propeller above the water. The pilot would then switch to conventional controls, and the main engine clutch would be engagedů

The PC.7 never flew. Although theoretically possible, the control/clutch configuration would have required a pilot with more than two arms."
Dec 12, 2009, 08:21 AM
Registered User
squidbait,

Correct on #9185 - Monsted-Vincent MV-1 Starflight
Dec 12, 2009, 08:28 AM
Registered User
Obviously I'm going for aircraft that are too easy.....

Dec 12, 2009, 08:49 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpartialObs
Obviously I'm going for aircraft that are too easy.....

Is this by any chance an Alaparma AP75 Baldo?
philovance
Dec 12, 2009, 08:55 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by perttime
A submarine maybe?
Yes it is indeed the Piaggio Pegna PC7 as MSMRCK rightly surmised however I read that it never took off from the water inasmuch as the delicate momentum of the aircraft leaving the water and getting airborne required a number of manoeuvres that one pilot all alone couldn't possibly perform.
philovance
Dec 12, 2009, 09:02 AM
Registered User
philovance,

Not quite on #9189, but close enough. It is the earlier version, Alaparma AP.65 Baldo, the silhouette I have of the AP.75 shows the booms as if they had been bent upwards at the rear somewhat, but there seems to be very little difference. I've not actually seen a photo of the AP.75 however.

Alaparma AP.75 Baldo
Last edited by ImpartialObs; Dec 12, 2009 at 09:08 AM.
Dec 12, 2009, 09:03 AM
Registered User
Since everybody is now going ahead with offers may I also ask to identify this motor-glider?
philovance
Dec 12, 2009, 09:14 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpartialObs
philovance,

Not quite on #9189, but close enough. It is the earlier version, Alaparma AP.65 Baldo, the silhouette I have of the AP.75 shows the booms as if they had been bent upwards at the rear somewhat, but there seems to be very little difference. I've not actually seen a photo of the AP.75 however.

Alaparma AP.75 Baldo
I don't know who is right and who is wrong as you are far more experienced than me however this is the pic of Alaparma AP75 as available on Aviastar which is in my opinion an exact likeness of your image
philovance
Dec 12, 2009, 10:28 AM
Suspended Account
BlondeValkyrie's Avatar


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools