Bgray said:Was there ever any real design work on these things other than mockups and concept art? I mean, these were 1980s/1990s projects promising performance that we can't get even today for a fraction of the cost.
hesham said:Phalanx MP-36 was a real assault transport aircraft Project,and could accommodated 36 to 40
troops,maybe it was Patriot ?.
Motocar said:Its fake or real project...? Please more information
Thanks for your comment and the data provided, Motocarjstar said:This can still be seen at the Russell Military Museum in Russell, Illinois, on the Wisconsin/Illinois border.quote]Motocar said:Its fake or real project...? Please more information
Oh wow, straight out of the mouth of cat babes...It was a real fake project.
Found some more information from the same CCH SEC Docket. Volume 63 Issue 8. December 19, 1996. Pages: 898-899/1348. According to the testimony of the CEO/President the Dragon was "apparently" almost complete, except for engines when the project was suspended. There is mention of the other Phalanx/AAC projects, how far they actually went and some of the reasons why they were put on ice or canned. When this report was written the insolvent AAC company had already filed for bankruptcy.
Triton, look at some posts earlier, and you will find photos of the model maker claiming it to be the MP-14, not 18.Three-view drawing of Phalanx MP-18 Dragon found on eBay.
URL:
I absolutely agree, although reported claims by the company of investigating supersonic versions of the Dragon family does not imply that the MP-18 was supersonic. The "apparent" difficulty in getting TFE731 biz-jet engines for the definitely subsonic prototype Dragon MP-18 would indicate a lack of money. However I "THINK" the over-enthusiastic press was thrown a "supersonic" bone by the company, and they ran for it. In the end (and either way) it was publicity exposure for the company that was hard pressed selling anything.In other words, while this may be cruel, the cynical individual would consider that they had a shiny exterior frame which was probably fibreglass, and the part that would have required something beyond even 2020 SOTA--and something that just about anyone would have realized was essentially impossible, especially when you bring up "Mach 2.5" was conveniently missing and unable to obtain.
It was NOT a swindler.The Phalanx Dragon may have been the biggest swindle this side of the Dupont DP-2... but the company sure knew how to catch the aeronautical media's attention!
Here is an article from Flight International, 19 June 1986, a much better scan than the ones provided on their site.
Not. I worked for this company from 84 through 87 and it was anything but "fictional"Hi everyone, new here and thought I could contribute a little to this thread. The above A/C is fictional, it was a fixed wing "tilt rotor" project for a movie here in LA. I'll try and get the details.
The image attaced surfaced in an auction on ebay about a year ago. The auction was for the Hind.
Indeed. The question that has been on everyone's minds for thirty-plus years: how the hell was this thing supposed to generate vertical thrust?@Stirling, @Aircraft technology lover - welcome to our band of aviation aficionados. I for one would certainly like to hear from you some of the inside story on this program.
The thing that always bothered me as a kid, looking at the 20-year-old volume of Janes Combat Aircraft in my high school library, wasn't so much how it generated vertical thrust - as a teenage aviation enthusiast, I figured some louvres or something - as where you're supposed to hang the weapons on the MP-18.The question that has been on everyone's minds for thirty-plus years: how the hell was this thing supposed to generate vertical thrust?
I worked on the prototype model in 1986. The rc model did work using the Augmented Nozzles in vtol. No foreward transition was attempted.??? I'm not sure if this one uses a similar concept to the Phalanx Corporation Dragon ... ???
Source as a "cut & paste" from two pages: AIR International Aug. 1988 p. 103 +104
Essentially Yes..mostly limited to a few glossy photos of fibreglass mockups. However it was a boon period for private enterprise and small "innovative" start-up companies that had potentially found the answers to a lot of things that the established aerospace companies had seemingly overlooked. Optimism at it's finestIn other words, while this may be cruel, the cynical individual would consider that they had a shiny exterior frame which was probably fibreglass, and the part that would have required something beyond even 2020 SOTA--and something that just about anyone would have realized was essentially impossible, especially when you bring up "Mach 2.5" was conveniently missing and unable to obtain.