FastCargo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,528
- Reaction score
- 6
B-17. The B-24 was a better performer (speed, range, payload), but had tricker flying characteristics, as well as being more vulnerable to damage.
FC
Convair B-58 Hustler
- Thread starter Winston
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
B-17. The B-24 was a better performer (speed, range, payload), but had tricker flying characteristics, as well as being more vulnerable to damage.
FC
I watched that movie today also. I like how the US president (Henry Fonda) gave up New York for Moscow.
Not to offend anyone, but anyone that has been to New York City knows it's the worst darn place in the nation. I wish it would fall into the ocean.
Viperfixr
Born Again Rocketeer
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 73
This really speaks to the 'cost curve' of developing flying weapons platforms over time. Over time, we've bought fractions of the numbers that were bought in decades part while spending great multiples more in cost. At some point (soon), future platforms will cost so much that we just simply will not be able to afford them...at all. When you consider that we *never* want to put Americans into combat with anything less than every advantage we can give them, it makes for a difficult challenge that we have not really solved.
The problem is like going to GM and asking for a revolutionary car that will be based on technology not yet developed with the expectation to buy 1000+ cars. But, as this project hits ground truth, the price for development and production is so high that you only end up getting 200 cars. That means all those years of R&D and production are spread over 1/5th the products--cost per product goes WAY up. While the cost of the first few jets was high, as expected, the last (188th) Raptor off the assembly line was $94M...and if we'd bough 700+ as needed, the cost would have come down into the F-15 price territory with a capability jump that cannot even be described if you don't know the biz.
In the Raptor's case, while the cost is great, so is the result in terms of capability. Adversaries will chase the F-22s capabilities for decades to come (and fall short...took the EU 30+ years to equal/exceed the F-16 with the Typhoon, and at far greater cost). Fact is: the Raptor is a revolutionary fighter with a dominance value of the likes never seen before. Other than the advent of the jet fighter, no greater a jump has been seen when going from one generation platform to the next, such as the F-4 to the F-15. As someone who 'works' within the F-22A program, the greatest tragedy is that we did not buy enough of them.
[YOUTUBE]_hvtfTqVk3k[/YOUTUBE]
Paying attention to this video will just scratches the surface of what the F-22 can do (focus in at the 3:25 point). OBTW, the Nellis jet in this video was one of the oldest F-22s still flying...the 10th pre-production Raptor--and she struts her stuff quite well, if I may say so.
The comparison to automobiles is a good one. Airframe manufacturers are fully capable of designing and building aircraft with "off the shelf" technology and build them mass production cheap. But (for many good reasons) that isn't what the Pentagon is ordering. While the price of a plane with tech that hasn't even been invented yet, built into a Ferrari is rapidly exceeding our ability to buy them, and while we certainly don't want a fleet of Chevy Cavaliers, there should be a sweet spot where we can get very, very, good stuff for a price we can more reasonably afford. Designing for next-year's technology is not always a wise move because that target keeps moving. Instead, design things that can be upgraded. Certainly, many of the flight systems in the F-14's and B-52's are not the same as when they were built decades ago. The C-130's have been massively upgraded something like five times. What needs to happen is for the brass in the Pentagon to realize that there is a spot where "good enough" is okay. Buy a great airplane, buy lots of them, and then make it better when the price of the technology become slightly more affordable.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,404
- Reaction score
- 394
AMT came out with a polystyrene foam B-58 glider around 1976. These lacked pods and had a blunt, plastic-covered nose. Only assembly was to insert the vertical stabilizer and apply decals. Molded in silver-grey color.
I had two. One was given a silver aluminum skin--gutter repair tape. Tricycle landing gear was added, and a motor mount salvaged from a Centuri X-24 Bug was glued underneath but at a slight angle from the centerline to avoid scorching. On a C6-0, the model would roll forward and ROG. Then settle back down for a three-point-landing.
I had two. One was given a silver aluminum skin--gutter repair tape. Tricycle landing gear was added, and a motor mount salvaged from a Centuri X-24 Bug was glued underneath but at a slight angle from the centerline to avoid scorching. On a C6-0, the model would roll forward and ROG. Then settle back down for a three-point-landing.
Last edited:
Just a reminder from earlier in the thread- George Bailey, err Jimmy Stewart flew one of these bad boys! (it's Christmas time!)
Jimmy Stewart joins Mach 2 Club.
Jimmy Stewart joins Mach 2 Club.
