Deltafan said:The first Mirage IV...
Not the future nuclear bomber, but the "looks like Mirage III" fighter project of the 50's...
Archibald said:what do you mean ? the twin-engine heavy fighter variant (Mirage IV C ?)
Even with the Atar 9K50, it would have had less power than a Phantom (7200 *2 Vs 2* 8000kgp + ).
But its aerodynamic would have been much better, and its weight lower... with two or four R-530 under the belly and two drop tanks, what a fighter we missed... :'(
(...)
elmayerle said:Hmm, going over the suggestions, I'd like to add cancelling further development of the DC-X concept beyond the basic proof of concept vehicle flown. Definitely a NIH attitude on NASA's part, that.
sferrin said:elmayerle said:Hmm, going over the suggestions, I'd like to add cancelling further development of the DC-X concept beyond the basic proof of concept vehicle flown. Definitely a NIH attitude on NASA's part, that.
Agree totally there. I'd add cancellation of nuclear propulsion too (Nerva, Kiwi, Pluto etc.)
Archibald said:KGLKLGJGHFJDYRYRHDFSDJUFHSDJKJKLBJLBBJL ?????!!!!! ???
SO THERE WAS A MIRAGE VI ???
So, dear deltafan, were did the serie ended ? was there a Mirage VII and a Mirage VIII ? ;D
Lots of fun... when I build the Mega Mirage (you know, the kind of delta MiG-25 of 1969) I decided to name it Mirage VI (I just inverted the "I" and "V" on some Mirage IV decals : )
Sundog said:The funny thing about alot of these choices is the military used alot of planes for missions that we don't think of that the USAF really wanted them to fulfill. For instance, the USAF chose the F-105 over the F-107 when the F-107 would have made an awesome fighter IMHO. The main reason they went with the F-105 was that at the time the USAF basically wanted every airplane to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon and as a low level strike aircraft, the F-105 was better than the F-107.
The F-16XL also should have been put into production as a replacement for the standard F-16 because
a) The standard F-16 is usually used as a bomb truck anyway, so the lower sustained turnrate and the higher instantaneous turn rate of the XL wouldn't have made much of a difference. It also had a much better payload/range capacity.
b) F-16's are used for Air Defense and the XL's greater internal fuel capacity and ability to supercruise would have made it an ideal F-106 replacement.
c) The XL just looks so much better than most planes out there. ;D
The YF-23. It was faster than the YF-22, stealthier than the YF-22 and only slightly less maneuverable in certain parts of the flight enevelope (It did meet the maneuvering specs in the contract). Not to mention, it looked so wicked it would have scared the enemy out of the sky. Instead, the Air Force went with the boring, and in the case of the YF-22, butt-ugly choice. Fortunately the F-22 looks better than the YF-22. I'm not saying the F-22 is a bad airplane by any measure. It just would have been nice to have the wicked-cool design as the frontline fighter as opposed to the really boring ugly one.
Also the
CF-105, TSR.2 and P.1121.
Sundog said:The funny thing about alot of these choices is the military used alot of planes for missions that we don't think of that the USAF really wanted them to fulfill. For instance, the USAF chose the F-105 over the F-107 when the F-107 would have made an awesome fighter IMHO. The main reason they went with the F-105 was that at the time the USAF basically wanted every airplane to be capable of delivering a nuclear weapon and as a low level strike aircraft, the F-105 was better than the F-107.
Madoc said:SD,
As to the F-22 vs. F-23, I think there was also concern over Northrop's ability to manage the production. The Air Force had been dealing with Northrop on the B-2 program and that apparently left a very sour taste in its mouth.
Sundog said:Wasn't the fourth F-20 being built with the larger wing when the program was cancelled? BTW, have you ever seen drawings of the F-20 with the bigger wing?
One of my friends at NAVAIR worked on the NATF and one of the reasons the Navy didn't like Northrop was their arrogance, because they knew they had the hot design. At least that's what my friend said, but I never expected there would be an NATF and of course, there wasn't.
Oh, and I completely agree about the DCX. I thought it was brilliant and should have continued. I mean, it seems to me that unlike the Lockheed design, it seemed to be the most robust design and it proved it could work. I don't think it was supposed to have composite tanks like the Lockheed design, but don't quote me on that. At least if IIRC it was the composite tanks that were the problem with the X-33.
elmayerle said:I'm going to say that one major mistake on Northrop's part was not putting a bigger wing on the F-20 from the get-go. While the existing wing has the advantage of being very similar to that of the F-5E/F, it also makes for a very high wing loading which requires a fair rate of speed in turns; leading to the G-LOC problems that lost 3 F-20s and probably doomed the program.
Sundog said:Wasn't the fourth F-20 being built with the larger wing when the program was cancelled? BTW, have you ever seen drawings of the F-20 with the bigger wing?
Tam said:I don't know about the wing loading and I doubt that it was high on the F-20. The thing weighs just over 5,000kg, quite lighter than a J-7E at 5,300kg.
Pioneer said:elmayerle said:I'm going to say that one major mistake on Northrop's part was not putting a bigger wing on the F-20 from the get-go. While the existing wing has the advantage of being very similar to that of the F-5E/F, it also makes for a very high wing loading which requires a fair rate of speed in turns; leading to the G-LOC problems that lost 3 F-20s and probably doomed the program.
I have to agree with you.
I think the F-20 was a lost opportunity. And yes it should have had a larger wing area, but I guess Northrop just went that little too far in its attempt to save costs.
It is ironic that today, the idea of a lightweight multi-role fighter is back in vogue – The Gripen, the Indian Indigenes Fighter program and the Joint Chinese/Pakistani program
I know that there was talk regarding a larger-wing F-20 Tigershark, but I was not aware that Northrop was building one!
Bring back the 'F-20 Tigershark 2000' I say!
Archibald said:what about the Navaho and Burya ? interesting concept of supersonic cruise missiles... they were pushed aside by the ICBM, that's sure. But we all know that the cruise missile had its revenge in the 70's in the form of the tomahawk. See what I mean ?
A mach 3.5 Navaho would have much more punch than a subsonic Tomahawk to destroy buried bunkers...
Today a missile like that might make some sense and the multitude of hypersonic projects in the US is testimony to that.
The Navaho upper-stage itself could have been change into a high-speed, unmanned recon vehicle (no need for the A-12 recon aircraft).
elmayerle said:The Navaho upper-stage itself could have been change into a high-speed, unmanned recon vehicle (no need for the A-12 recon aircraft).
Pioneer said:elmayerle said:I'm going to say that one major mistake on Northrop's part was not putting a bigger wing on the F-20 from the get-go. While the existing wing has the advantage of being very similar to that of the F-5E/F, it also makes for a very high wing loading which requires a fair rate of speed in turns; leading to the G-LOC problems that lost 3 F-20s and probably doomed the program.
I have to agree with you.
I think the F-20 was a lost opportunity. And yes it should have had a larger wing area, but I guess Northrop just went that little too far in its attempt to save costs.
It is ironic that today, the idea of a lightweight multi-role fighter is back in vogue – The Gripen, the Indian Indigenes Fighter program and the Joint Chinese/Pakistani program
I know that there was talk regarding a larger-wing F-20 Tigershark, but I was not aware that Northrop was building one!
Bring back the 'F-20 Tigershark 2000' I say!