Aerei Flop

[cabronte]

Fantastico L-P, L' YS-11 proprio non lo conoscevo!

[povvo]

Fantastico L-P, L' YS-11 proprio non lo conoscevo!

veramente carino come aereo!!!

[cabronte]

Fantastico L-P, L' YS-11 proprio non lo conoscevo!

veramente carino come aereo!!!

Condivido!

[87Nemesis87]

Ma quale dogfight.
Non sapevo nulla del DP-2 long range heavy interceptor, ma il massimo che potesse fare penso fosse agire da piattaforma volante per un potente radar ed il lancio di qualche grosso missile aria-aria a lunghissimo raggio e anche così sa comunque di cosa improponibile. Una specie di kamikaze supersonico. Più una cosa è grossa e più automaticamente diventa un bersaglio. Se poi ha la manovrabilità del Tu-144, allora è anche un bersaglio facile, infatti non me pare abbia avuto molto seguito.
Un aereo che anche lui sparì nel nulla, battuto dal rivale, è l' YF-23 Black Widow-2. Secondo me ra pure più bello dell'F-22, ma perse comunque la gara.

Sai mica che problemi ha avuto?

quoto...vorrei sapere di più sull'F-23...da chi era stato prodotto?...(la parte sopra tral'altro somiglia molto al su27, ha una specie di gobba anche lui...

[cabronte]

Dalla Northrop/McDonnel Douglas!

[sidew]

Sai mica che problemi ha avuto?

Ufficialmente, hanno preferito un aereo piu manovrabile e dalla "affidabilita" della lockheed di ripsetare i costi previsti
Per me invece ha vinto per le pressioni di lobby da parte della Lockheed...

quoto...vorrei sapere di più sull'F-23...da chi era stato prodotto?

Era proposto dalla Northrop ed era il favorito, visto che eccelleva in tutto (tranne nella manovrabilita)...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/f-23.htm

[sidew]

uno dei pochi video sull' YF-23

[cabronte]

Sai mica che problemi ha avuto?

Ufficialmente, hanno preferito un aereo piu manovrabile e dalla "affidabilita" della lockheed di ripsetare i costi previsti
Per me invece ha vinto per le pressioni di lobby da parte della Lockheed...

quoto...vorrei sapere di più sull'F-23...da chi era stato prodotto?

Era proposto dalla Northrop ed era il favorito, visto che eccelleva in tutto (tranne nella manovrabilita)...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/f-23.htm

Grazie per le info!

[richelieu]

Almost Blue ha scritto:
..... l' YF-23 Black Widow-2. Secondo me era pure più bello dell'F-22 .....

Concordo in pieno ..... almeno per quanto concerne il lato estetico, superava di gran lunga il Raptor .....
Si disse anche che ne sarebbe stato derivato un "aereo nero" (che forse ebbe un incidente, o quanto meno un'avaria, in Inghilterra), forse con ala a delta, ma non se ne è mai saputo alcunchè di preciso .....

In proposito, leggete questa storia, tratta dal numero di Marzo 1997 del mensile britannico "Air Forces Monthly" .....
..... è molto lunga ..... ma ne vale la pena .....

Source: AirForces Monthly
Date: March 1997

The Truth is Out

What is the truth behind the mystery crash two and a half years ago
at Boscombe Down, the Ministry of Defence's top secret flight test
centre? Ren Hoek and Marco P Van der Valk can now reveal the facts.

The Ministry of Defence would have you believe that nothing untoward
occurred at Boscombe Down, Wiltshire on the night of September 26,
1994. But something sinister did happen at the airfield that night.
The fact that the incident involved the USA's most highly-classified
black project aircraft helps to explain the scale (and to some
extent the subtlety) of the disinformation campaign which ensured.

The story had begun to unfold on that windswept night as the
aircraft began its take-off run along Runway 23. Whatever happened in
the few seconds following application of take-off power was
sufficiently catastrophic for the two American crew members to abort
departure immediately.

Military controllers at the London Air Traffic Control Centre
(LATCC) were alerted either directly or indirectly to the fact that a
serious incident had occurred, and that the runway was blocked. Later
that night, the stranded aircraft was seen by at least one witness
near the eastern end of Boscombe Down's Runway 23. A
tarpaulin-covered frame had already been erected above the aircraft's
forward section, around which were number of emergency vehicles. The
rear section appeared unnaturally elevated by virtue of an apparent
nose wheel collapse, the only clearly definable characteristic being
inward canting twin fins.

Early the next day, an Army Air Corps Agusta A109 transited to
Boscombe Down from Bournemouth-Hurn. All four of these helicopters
are exclusively operated by the SAS (Special Air Service), which has
a base at Poole, near Hurn. Is it possible that a covert sealing-off
operation was set in motion? It has also been suggested that at
least one RAF Chinook was scrambled from Odiham to Boscombe Down late
that night for just that purpose.

The aftermath

On September 28, the DRA retired one of its remaining Buccaneers,
XV344, ironically nicknamed Nightbird. Though unremarkable in
itself, this occasion afforded an unexpected opportunity... As the
Buccaneer was towed out of the DRA/DTEO hangar on Boscombe Down's
north side, and before the hangar doors were hastily shut, the
incident aircraft was seen in the forward left hand corner of the
hangar, which is not visable from the normal viewing area a short
distance beyond the threshold of Runway 23. The entire centre section
was covered by tarpaulin, but both the front and rear of the aircraft
were visible. The most prominent features were the inward canting
twin fins and chines extending rearwards from the nose. The canopy
was open and particularly noticeable because it was hinged at the
front and not the rear. The aircraft was large fighter size and was
painted charcoal grey.

The sighting was followed that same evening by a separate sighting
of a grey USAF C-5 Galaxy on the ground at Boscombe Down. The
aircraft had been monitored on airband radio as it cancelled its
flight plan to the USAF European HQ at Ramstein in Germany, and
requested a diversion to Boscombe Down. On arrival, the C-5 parked on
the ramp outside DRA/DTEO hangar.

It is likely that the incident aircraft was normally housed in one
of Boscombe's hardened air shelters (HAS). However, in the aftermath
of the incident the first priority would have been to move the
aircraft under cover to a place where the C-5 could undertake a
loading or unloading procedure with minimum risk. With the taxiways
leading to the shelters unable to accommodate an aircraft as large as
the C-5, the most logical option would indeed have been to move the
aircraft to the DRA/DTEO hangar. Despite these precautions, an
unidentifiable tarpaulin-covered object was seen to be loaded into
the C-5.

The visit by the C-5 represents a crucial link in the chain of
events. Its arrival was unexpected by virtue of the inbound flight
plan to Ramstein, indicating that maximum effort was made to disguise
Boscombe Down as the intended destination. Once on the ground,
however, the outbound flight plan was filed using Boscombe Down as
the point of departure. This flight plan (evidence of which has since
disappeared) used a nonstandard callsign of Lanc 18, but more
noteworthy was its destination which was listed as 'KPMD'. This is
the ICAO airfield designator for Palmdale, California, better known
as Air Force Plant 42 and home to the assembly lines of both the
Lockheed and Northrop Advanced Development Companies. Palmdale also
happens to be the operating base for the two specially modified C-5Cs
(serials 68-0213 and 68-0216) officially used for carriage of
satellite equipment and other outsize loads in support of the Space
Shuttle Programme. The mystery is - why were these aircraft not
modified for this purpose until at least the early 1990's to support
a programme which had already been existing for over 10 years, unless
they are infact used for anothr purpose entirely.

The eye witness who observed the C-5 also saw the departure of a
USAF Beech C-12 shortly after the C-5 on the night of the 28th - a
visit which has not been documented before - while an apparently
unmarked Boeing 707 was also visible at Boscombe Down,

It is believed that a similarly-unmarked Boeing 737/T-43 was present
that night. This was undoubtedly one of the aircraft operated by
EG&G Special Projects based at Las Vegas and used exclusively as
crew/technician support for black projects operating from the Groom
Lake and Papoose Lake bases northwest of Las Vegas.

On the morning of September 29th, an unknown aircraft using the
callsign N1178X was monitored on the London Military Southwest
frequency (133.3) as it climbed on a north-westerly heading towards
the Exmor reporting point before requesting an upper airways routing
northbound on the Upper Alpha 25 airway. Although N1178X is actually
allocated to a US-based Piper Cherokee light aircraft, the altitude
and airways request prove that the aircraft monitored was definitely
a jet.

It becomes all the more interesting to note that the airways join
was followed by a request for a routing "direct to Machrihanish", a
VOR in western Scotland better known as the airfield which has been
linked, somewhat fancifully it had seemed until now, to operations by
the mysterious Aurora project!

So why was a bogus callsign used? N1178X could have been an EG&G
737, on a tasking sufficiently secret to justify the use of such a
callsign. Interestingly, three of EG&G's six 737s are officially
registered N5175U, N5176Y and N5177C. Note that the middle three
characters are '175','176' and '177' respectively. Is it therefore
more than a coincidence that the same three characters of the bogus
callsign read '178'?

If, however, there is any significance in the 'X' suffix to the
callsign, it may be worth noting that when CIA-operated U-2s were
ferried back to the USA from forward operating locations abroad for
rework or maintenance, they too carried and used fictitious
callsigns with an 'X' suffix.

A mystery Gulfstream blows in

The possibility of a CIA connection is bolstered by evidence
surrounding a Gulfstream IV registered N604M which visited Boscombe
Down in the immediate aftermath. This passed through on the morning
of Sunday October 9, although the DTEO at Boscombe claimed it was
collecting a VIP who had played golf at a nearby club!

Documented movements of N604M through the UK in the weeks following
the incident have raised a number of questions regarding its exact
role. Prior to its visit to Boscombe Down, the aircraft had made a
one-hour stop at Heathrow on the evening of October 5 and by October
7 had appeared at Southampton. One night before the incident
(possibly September 22) both the University of Southampton and RAF
Lyneham had reportedly tracked an unknown aircraft in Boscombe Down's
vicinity. Perhaps significantly, the University of Southampton has a
world renowned Institute of Sound and Vibration Research (ISVR) which
has specialist equipment for research in this field.

The same night witnesses had heard a jet aircraft making an unusual
noise described as a "loud rumbling like a freight train". This was
reported on local TV news.

The whereabouts of N604M on October 6 and 8 are unclear, but by the
9th it had arrived at Boscombe Down, from where it departed to
Luton. It was seen at Luton surrounded by very tight security, and
remained there for approximately one hour before departing to
Farmingdale, New York. This is a routinely-used corporate airfield,
but is also adjacent to the plant used by the Northrop Grumman
Electronic Systems and Integration Division, the significance of
which will become clear shortly.

Meanwhile, on November 12, 1995 - well over a year after the events
at Boscombe Down - N604M had positioned in to Heathrow from Exeter,
Devon, again under extreme security. It left for Geneva two days
later and flew back to the USA via Shannon on the 15th. Exeter had
also played host to a visit by USAF EC-137D (serial 67-19417) on
October 31, 1994 (little more than a month after the incident).

This EC-137D is the only one of the USAF-operated C-135/C-137
derivatives to use its construction number as its military serial.
This justifies the belief that although 'officially' operated by the
USAF from Robins AFB, Georgia, it is in fact used by a range of
Government agencies, quite probably including the CIA. As such the
fact that both it and the Gulfstream visited Exeter may be worthy
note.

Of more direct relevance is the fact that this aircraft is almost
totally devoid of markings except for the very small serial painted
on the rear fuselage, a serial which would only be discernible in
daylight. Could 19417 therefore have been the mystery 707 seen at
Boscombe Down on the night of September 28, 1994?

Other known visits of the Gulfstream to the UK (in January 1995 when
it departed to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and in January 1996) have used
Luton. It is noteworthy that the aircraft has paid several visits to
both Luton and Heathrow, because American business jets tend to
favour one London airport over another due to handling arrangements.
This suggests the Luton visits may be directed towards a specific
purpose.

Luton, like Farmingdale, can all to easily be dismissed as a
routinely-used corporate facility, but it is also the nearest
Gulfstream IV usable airfield to the British Military Intelligence
(MI6) base at RAF Chicksands, Bedfordshire. MI6 has always had a
particularly close working relationship with the CIA.

Since the closure of Alconbury and Bedford/Thurleigh, Luton is also
one of the closest usable airfields to the facility at Molesworth in
Cambridgeshire now used as a Joint Analysis Centre for live video
and other intelligence collected by US reconnaissance aircraft and
downlinked via the Intelsat 602 satellite.

Speculation regarding the significance of N604M's movements is
tempting, but one thing is clear - despite the DTEO's claims to be
encouraging increased corporate usage of Boscombe Down, it is highly
unusual for an aircraft such as the Gulfstream to have visited this
airfield, unless of course its passenger had good reason to be
there...

Per ardua ad ASTRA

The Boscombe Down incident aircraft is designated ASTRA, was
referred to as AV-6 (Air Vehicle Six, its construction number), and
was allocated USAF serial 90-2414. It routinely used frequencies in
the 500 to 510mhz range (highly unusual and beyond the tuning range
of standard UHF scanner radios) and was operating with the callsign
Blackbuck 11. It had been operating in tandem with at least one
other aircraft.

ASTRA is an acronym standing for Advanced Stealth Technology
Reconnaissance Aircraft. The prime contractor is Northrop, with
McDonnell Douglas (MDC) involvement, and the aircraft is directly
related to the YF-23 (unsuccessful ATF contender).

No doubt most controversial of all, the ASTRA is believed to be the
Mach 5+ hypersonic SR-71 replacement most commonly referred to until
now as Aurora. This, along with its YF-23 lineage, will be a major
surprise to those who either denied the existence of a manned
hypersonic project, or assumed it to be a product of Lockheed's
'Skunk Works'.

Lockheed has consistently denied involvement in a hypersonic project
but in June 1991, Northrop had quietly set up its own version of the
'Skunk Works', called the Advanced Technology and Design Center, to
pursue what it acknowledged to be both manned and unmanned 'black'
project developments.

There has been no clue since then as to what projects have been
developed, but it now seems clear that the Center's establishment
could have coincided with the start of ASTRA's production. It is
also notable that Northrop always refers to its prototypes as
Prototype Air Vehicle (PAVs), thus lending weight to the theory that
the reference to 90-2414 merely as Air Vehicle (AV) suggests it to be
a production aircraft and in operational service.

The reference by Air Vehicle number is reminiscent of a system the
CIA used to employ when flying U-2s. They identified these aircraft
by the Lockheed construction number, known as the 'Article' number,
rather than the allocated USAF serials, in order to minimise
exposure. In fact these Article numbers were the only visual form of
identification worn by the U-2s when flying CIA missions.

Why F-23? - the unanswered questions

The applicability of the YF-23 to the ATF role may well have been
undermined by development of the ASTRA. Unlike Lockheed with its
YF-22, Northrop did not attempt to demonstrate the missile launch
capability of the YF-23, nor did it explore high-alpha (other than
in the wind-tunnel), nor did it incorporate the vectored thrust
option patently favoured by the USAF. Interestingly, an early 1995
report which claimed Aurora had been cancelled, suggested that its
powerplant had incorporated an advanced form of vectored thrust! It
was claimed that the powerplant was indeed a pulse detonation wave
engine (PDWE) as had always been assumed, though a rocket-based
combined cycle (RBCC) engine has also been put forward as a likely
option.

Meanwhile, it was also notable that Northrop/MDC flew considerably
fewer hours and sorties with the YF-23s (65 hours in 50 sorties,
compared to 92 hours in 74 sorties for the YF-22s), and used some
parts on the YF-23s from existing MDC types such as the F-15E
(cockpit software) and F/A-18 (undercarriage).

Despite the combination of cost-cutting measures adopted by
Northrop/MDC, their overall expenditure was no less than Lockheeds.

The Lockheed PW F119-powered YF-22 was selected for the ATF role in
April 1991, leaving Northrop/MDC's YF-23 as the unsuccessful
aircraft, and GE's revolutionary variable cycle F120 as the
unsuccessful engine.

Why is it, then, that the maximum supersonic cruise speed without
afterburner ('supercruise') attained by the F120-powered YF-23 has
to this day remained classified?

Speed, however, was not the YF-23's only asset. Paul Metz,
Northrop's chief test pilot on the programme, highlighted its
excellent roll and pitch performance, superb aerial refuelling
characteristics (the SR-71) was infamously demanding in this respect
and impressive supersonic turn capability. This is certainly a sound
basis on which to develop an SR-71 replacement.

There may be a remote possibility that the YF-23 prototypes, which
somewhat unusually were rolled out of Edwards AFB and not Palmdale,
were not flown merely as ATF contenders. It was said that the
aircraft were moved into secure storage at Edwards in January 1991
immediately the ATF test flying ceased, yet they did not become
visible there until early 1994.

Could the YF-23 have been a failed attempt to mould a pre-existing
airframe optimised for stealth and speed cruise to a totally
different role or was it even a ploy to divert a certain amount of
funding to the ongoing development of the ASTRA, in which it may have
played a crucial role?

Northrop/MDC's approach to the ATF competition was inflexible - the
finished YF-23 was, unlike the YF-22, almost identical to the
original 1985 proposal - but were the team inflexible for a reason?
Was the YF-23 a means to an end rather than a realistic attempt to
secure the ATF contract?

Northrop/MDC SR-71 replacement

Lockheed's recent expertise in stealth technology was built around
the faceting technique developed for the F-117. Northrop, however,
approached stealth differently and incorporated these ideas into
both the YF-23 and B-2. It appears that the Northrop approach was
considered more suitable in overcoming the major problems in
developing a stealthy hypersonic successor to the SR-71. MDC,
meanwhile, have made in-depth studies of hypersonic strike aircraft
as well as RBCC engines.

With stealth having been a prime concern in the development of the
ASTRA, it should be noted that as far back as 1968 Northrop was
evaluating electrical forces to condition the air flowing around an
aircraft at supersonic speeds in an attempt to reduce radar cross
section. As recently as January 1996, Pentagon officials admitted
that there are at least two 'black' projects flying from the secret
base at Groom Lake, Nevada testing this technology, which involves
activation of an electrical charge to attenuate radar reflections.
Previously employed disinformation tactics suggest that this
'information' leak may actually indicate at least one such project to
be operational already.

The same Pentagon officials alluded to associated research which has
already shown that aerodynamic drag (including airframe heating) can
be reduced, and shock wave build-up delayed, by applying such an
electrical charge. These benefits would be crucial to the
effectiveness of an inherently stealthy design that cruise
hypersonically, and of course could represent the 'Advanced Stealth'
technology embodied in the ASTRA.

It is beleived that Northrop's own B-2 was the first type to employ
such field generation devices, on the wing leading edge. The
evidence suggests that Northrop uses a similar system on the ASTRA to
solve the problem of heat-induced radar cross section, thus combining
hypersonic capability with stealth.

Further evidence supporting the technical advances made by Northrop
emerged in February 1996, when a Northrop subcontractor
inadvertently released information which indicates that the company
has also been testing a distributed-exhaust/pressurised wing concept.
The technology was said to be related to "at least one US Department
of Defence 'black' aircraft project". It may be that the ASTRA is
actually the project involved (rather than a special forces transport
type as suggested), given that the concept involves using bleed air
from the engines and pumping it through the wing's upper surface, and
given that the YF-23 had bleed air doors in the wing upper surface
near the leading edge wing root, the purpose of which was claimed to
be suction removal of the boundary layer from the underwing air
intake.

Development time frame

In late April 1996, the USAF released first details of Northrop's
Tacit Blue stealth technology demonstrator. The existence of this
project had hitherto been entirely secret. It was announced that the
aircraft was flown for 250 hours between February 1982 and February
1985 to test technology eventually used in the B-2 'and other
stealthy aircraft programmes'. Details on the rear fuselage, and more
significantly, the wing leading edges have not been fully divulged.
The aircraft's general planform equates much more to the YF-23 than
it does to the B-2, given that it has stub wings and twin fins. An
interesting feature is the single upper fuselage air intake, despite
the fact the aircraft had twin engines.

It seems quite likely that Tacit Blue was actually the stealth
technology demonstrator for the ASTRA in the same way that Have Blue
was for the F-117, the time frame certainly fits.

The first evidence of flights by hypersonic vehicles emerged in
1989, with eye witness reports of the characteristic 'doughnuts on a
rope' contrails produced by the pulsing motion of a PDWE, which
detonated the fuel in the jet pipe and expels some of the gases
created through inlets at the forward end of the pipe.

At this early stage in flight testing there were probably no more
than two prototypes in the programme, with 1987 fiscal serials
corresponding to the original project go-ahead. In February 1985
(just after Tacit Blue was grounded), there was an 'inadvertent' leak
in the US federal budget regarding Aurora funding, which showed 80
million dollars being requested for FY1986, rising to a massive 2.2
billion dollars in 1987, the same year in which the YF-23 prototypes
were funded. If the ASTRA was nested in Aurora, or indeed came to be
the new name used when Aurora's cover had been blown, then the
funding request is consistent with the funding of one or two
prototypes in 1987, which would not have been completed and flown
until 1989. As a direct comparison, the A-12/SR-71 project was given
the final go-ahead in January 1960 with an order from the CIA and the
aircraft were thus allocated 1960 fiscal serials, despite the first
flight not taking place until two years later in April 1962.

The greater proportion of hypersonic aircraft activity took place
after February 1992 with night sightings of unusual activity at
Beale AFB, and loud anomalous noises described as similar to
sustained artillery firing, likely to have been caused by ground
running of the PDWE.

The aircraft were only present at Beale for a matter of months,
probably for pre-operational familiarisation. In addition, it is
known that a security policeman at Beale reporting seeing a
'YF-23-like' aircraft hangared there (in one of the SR-71 sheds) in
early 1992. There was apparently little attempt to disguise the
aircraft's presence, because it was surrounded by personnel wearing
blue MDC overalls. The YF-23 prototypes themselves had of cause
ceased flying in late December 1990, pending the ATF contract award
in April 1991.

In April 1992, radio transmissions between Edwards AFB and a
high-flying aircraft using only the callsign Gaspipe were monitored.
Operations from Edwards indicate that Gaspipe, whatever it was, was
still undergoing trials at that time. On this occasion, it was heard
passing through 67,000ft (20,420m) in the descent, and being given
distance/height vectors similar to those provided to space shuttles.
The only known aircraft capable of reaching 65,000ft (19,812m) and
above are U-2s and SR-71s and perhaps, surprisingly, defence
officials denied that any such aircraft were in the air at the time
and it is equally unlikely that either of these types would have been
using such a strange callsign. However, given the descriptions of the
PDWE and the sound it makes, the callsign would be plausible for a
PDWE-powered vehicle. The first production ASTRAs appear to have been
funded either in 1989 or 1990, given that 90-2414 is the number 6
aircraft. The fact that Northrop's B-2 first flew in 1988 and was not
delivered to its operational unit until 1993 suggests that it was
probably around five years before the equally revolutionary ASTRA
reached operational status, namely 1994.

Why hypersonic?

The YF-23's supersonic performance was phenomenal. At 41,000ft
(12,497m) (over 30% below its 65,000ft maximum ceiling) the GE
F120-powered version is believed to have achieved at least Mach 1.8
and possibly Mach 2+ in supercruise (i.e. without afterburner),
despite an unfavourable underwing fixed inlet configuration.

When it was suggested that Lockheed's YF-22 was more manoeuvrable
but less stealthy and noticeable slower than the YF-23, USAF Tactical
Air Command commander General Mike Loh would only say:

"It is not true that one is noticeably more manoeuvrable and not
true that one is noticeably stealthier."

The implication is that the YF-23 was indeed noticeably faster, and
that the true measure of its speed was classified to avoid any risk
of compromising the ASTRA.

The fact that the ASTRA is derived from (or inspired) the YF-23
clearly suggests therefore that it would be more than capable of
matching the Mach 3.5+ supersonic performance of the SR-71. Mach 5+
speeds are surely attainable given the numerous advances in American
military technology in the years since the SR-71 was designed, not
least those attained by Northrop.


UK operations?

Despite some evidence to the contrary it seems clear that
Machrihanish in Scotland has been used as at least a stop-off point
on various occasions. The track of the aircraft which made a sonic
boom over Holland in August 1992 suggested that it had definitely
departed from the UK, and the fact that it is known to have crossed
Holland on a southeasterly heading points to Machrihanish as the
likely origin for this particular flight. In addition, we know of
what can be described as a highly-qualified eye witness, who was in
his aircraft on the main ramp at Machrihenish, and saw an
unidentifiable jet type land with no lights and disappear at the far
end of the airfield, having approached in very tight formation with
what he could see to be an F-111. The F-111 was using standard
lighting and overshot as the other aircraft landed, suggesting that
its role was to provide a 'shadow' for the landing aircraft. Of
course, the pure delta shaped Aurora has commonly been quoted as
flying in formation with F-111s. While it appears that the delta
shape is a disinformation ploy, the involvement of F-111s may in fact
be true.

This indicates that a hypersonic aircraft has been operating from
the UK, and that the ASTRA is that aircraft, but why was it sent to
Boscombe Down?

The most obvious choice of base for the ASTRA, given that it is
operational, would of course have been either Fairford (former home
to the 9th RW U-29 detachment) or Mildenhall but both have noise
curfews and are closely monitored by the enthusiast fraternity, such
that the movements of an exotic new aircraft would be difficult to
hide. Indeed, the presence of the first CIA operated U-2s had been
detected by enthusiasts during their first overseas deployment to RAF
Lakenheath, and was publicised by aviation magazines, prompting a
hurried cover story to the effect that the aircraft were engaged in
weather reconnaissance.

It may well be that this memory was still fresh when a choice of UK
base for the ASTRA was made. Boscombe Down offered the promise of
impressive security, along with excellent facilities, and being home
to the DTEO, DRA, ETPS, SAOEU and AWC made it a viable base for
secret operations. The fact that the presence of the aircraft had not
been detected before the incident is testament to the logic in not
choosing one of the more obvious locations to be UK operating base.

If operations were restricted to night, the choice would be limited
to a base that routinely maintains night operations. Night flights at
Boscombe Down are sufficiently commonplace that the associated noise
of what may only be one or two weekly missions would not attract
undue attention.

It is likely that the UK is benefiting from information concerning
the hypersonic and intelligence gathering spheres of the aircraft's
operations as a by-product of the 'extraordinary relationship'. The
mere fact of a UK presence, as well as various attempts at
disinformation by the MoD on behalf of the Americans suggest that
the decision to risk an early operational UK deployment was taken on
a basis of mutual benefit, as in the early career of the U-2.

Blackbird is dead - long live the blackbird?

What of the September 1994 decision to return three of the
mothballed SR-71s to service after the entire fleet was retired in
1989? The ASTRA's role and the fact that it now represents the
cutting edge of technology, suggests the reactivation decision was
part of a cover story developed to draw attention away from the
ASTRA. The SR-71 represented the obvious 'white-world' method of
displaying a renewed commitment to high-speed manned reconnaissance,
though this commitment has not been welcomed by the US Air Force
itself.

Retired USAF Lieutenant General Buster Glasson, who masterminded the
Gulf War air campaign, summed up these feelings:

"The SR-71 was a fantastic leading-edge technology at one point in
time, but we shouldn't keep trying to bring it back from the grave."

Yet it was also Lt Gen Glasson who acknowledged the 'debacle' as
regards intelligence capability and gathering during the Gulf War.
While in favour of UAVs (which are well suited to the loitering
role), he has also said that there must not be a reliance on one
piece of equipment:

"It must be a seamless intelligence system."

This would suggest that he acknowledges the continuing requirement
for a high-speed reconnaissance platform. Meanwhile Major General
Kenneth Israel, chief of the Defence Airborne Reconnaissance Office,
has said:

"By bringing back the SR-71, we're in a position of really
compromising a lot of other capability because it's expensive. We
ought to take a very serious look at quickly putting that airplane
down."

It is strange that the Defence Department's new Technology
Development Approach includes a composite of the SR-71, merely Mach
3 capable, aimed at 2000 time frame, as well as hypersonic vehicles,
one of which is a 2005 concept for a Mach 8 hydrocarbon-burning
aircraft.

There is without doubt a concerted effort to disguise the fact that
the ASTRA as a hypersonic capable SR-71 replacement is, in fact,
already operational.

Critically Important Asset?

The CIA procured the SR-71's predecessor, the A-12. They operated
the A-12s between February 1964 and June 1968 from both the USA and
forward operating locations abroad. It is therefore quite plausible
that the ASTRA, as an SR-71 replacement, has also been procured by,
and is operated for, the CIA.

Any CIA connection presupposes the likelihood of a concerted
disinformation campaign, which is certainly borne out by the
circumstances surrounding the Boscombe incident.

Disinformation, as a security tool, was the key to protecting the
identity of such projects as the F-117. Prior to the eventual
unveiling of the F-117, disinformation began to emerge on the
so-called 'F-19', with a basic configuration which even spawned
plastic model kits and served very successfully to mask the real
configuration and appearance of the F-117.

The basic configuration of the 'F-19' actually approximated to the
even blacker project (in the form of the ASTRA) which was then under
development and which, more importantly, had not even been rumoured
at that time. Dissemination of the 'F-19' configuration served to
perpetuate the air of secrecy surrounding Lockheed's aircraft, but
its usefulness as a disinformation tool was dependent on it being
discarded when the F-117 was actually made public.

In late 1988 the F-117 was unveiled, and in 1989 the ASTRA took to
the air for the first time. The 'F-19', having being exposed as
entirely spurious, had been conveniently forgotten by the masses.
However, it had a YF-23-like forward fuselage, inward canting twin
fins, and short cropped wings, alleged to be foldable to enable
carriage in C-5s - and uncanny similarity to the ASTRA. This
configuration is of course dissimilar to any of those originally
suggested for Aurora, which have ranged from a 90-100ft (27-30m) pure
delta, to a 200ft (60m) long cross between the SR-71 and the XB-70
Valkyrie!

The NASP connection

In December 1960, NASA began a series of studies on a project then
known as the Aero Space Plane, or ASP. This was a hydrogen powered,
air-breathing vehicle, intended to operate hypersonically. On
January 30, 1961, US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara told the
House Armed Services Committee that the USAF was developing "an
advanced hypersonic manned vehicle".

Meanwhile, the A-12/SR-71 project (supersonic rather than
hypersonic) was given the go-ahead in January 1960 and remained a
black project until 1964. Could it be that development of an ASP was
a convenient cover for development of the A-12/SR-71, given that ASP
development was halted in 1965? Douglas, General Dynamics and North
American had been contracted to put forward design proposals for the
ASP, rather than Lockheed, whose experience with the A-12/SR-71 would
surely have been invaluable, had they been able to demonstrate it. Of
course, their involvement in such a project would have threatened to
compromise the secrecy surrounding the A-12, and thus it may well
have been the case that they were not contracted because the ASP
programme was principally devised as the cover for the Lockheed
project.

History repeats itself?

Over 20 years later, between 1982 and 1985, teams from the Defence
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA resurrected the
concept of the hypersonic Aero-Space Plane/Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle
(TAV). Under the code name Copper Canyon, DARPA began a series of
studies based upon a specific set of both Air Force and Navy
requirements, directed towards developments of an SR-71 replacement.

Copper Canyon spawned a range of Trans-Atmospheric Vehicles using
exotic propulsion systems which almost certainly included the PDWE
and/or RBCC. One of the more easily adaptable concepts to emerge was
the National Aero Space Plane, most often referred to as the NASP or
X-30. The brainchild of DARPA's Robert Williams, it was the NASP
which was announced by President Reagan early in 1986 amid a blaze of
publicity. Meanwhile, Aurora received its first funding. A National
Program Office was set up in Palmdale, California (home also, of
course, to the Northrop Skunk Works assembly line) and on April 7,
1986, 7 million dollar contracts to study NASP airframe technologies
were awarded to Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell
Douglas and Rockwell. In October 1987 development contracts were
awarded to General Dynamics, McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell, and in
April 1988 the project was moved out of DARPA and into the Air Force.
It was also around this time that US DoD officials were quoted in the
New York Times as having revealed development plans for an SR-71
replacement.

Northrop was the only major US military aircraft manufacturer not
awarded a NASP airframe study contract. This is particularly strange
given that the NASP manufacturing plan included an investigation
into superplastic forming, reminiscent of the type of challenge
facing materials planners on the B-2. Could it be that the principal
explanation for Northrop's lack of involvement was their development
of the ASTRA for which NASP, just like its predecessor 30 years
earlier, was providing cover? NASP was a radically different beast
to what we believe the ASTRA to be, but this is explained by the
fact that it was intended to operate in orbit up to Mach 25, whereas
the ASTRA has only ever been intended to operate at a maximum of
between Mach 5 and Mach 8, and within the earth's atmosphere. This
would mean that the airframe of the latter is likely to be radically
different - much smaller than NASP, requiring much less internal fuel
to power what would be a much smaller and simpler powerplant. The
ASTRA's YF-23-like dimensions are borne out by the eye witness
reports.

Back in 1990, NASP deputy director Bob McGuffee had tried to explain
why the USA was so anxious to go it alone with NASP, rather than
co-operating with the Europeans and Japan. He pointed out that "some
parts of the programme are classified - partly because of possible
military scenarios in the future." Mr McGuffee's words were a little
misleading, because the future had, in fact, already arrived - by
1990 the ASTRA was already test flying. By the time NASP was
abandoned in May 1993, it had already consumed approximately 1,400
million dollars. It is very difficult to accept that this level of
investment produced no tangible results (NASP remained a 'paper'
aeroplane), and much easier to believe that significant portions of it
were in fact used to help fund development of the ASTRA. With this
developmental work essentially complete in 1993, and operational
status beckoning, NASP had now outlived its usefulness, but had
certainly served its purpose.

Conclusion

Having previously been Northrop's best kept secret, we now know the
ASTRA's basic shape and capabilities. It appears to be operational
from both the USA and non-US locations, but its existence will
remain classified for the foreseeable futur. We shall have to hope
that one day, just like the SR-71, the ASTRA will be allowed to enjoy
the limelight.

Peccato manchino le foto ed i disegni che illustrano l'articolo originale .....

[i-daxi]

Ciao

Devo dissentire un poco sul Namc YS-11 che venne costruito al fine di soddisfare delle esigenze specifiche quali un robusto e capiente aereo biturboelica in grado di operare su piste abbastanza corte e su terreni diversi, venne usato anche da diverse compagnie non giapponesi.

Ebbe putroppo diversi incidenti ma fù sicuramente un'aereo innovativo e dalla linea elegante, ebbe però diversi concorrenti, come già nominato l'F27 (parlo di biturboelica) il Viscount era già qualcosa di più, classe DC-4 o DC-6.

I concorrenti furono anche l'F227 versione allungata dell'F27, ma anche i Convair, il 440 Metropolitan in primis, ma anche i BAE-748.

Due rare immagini di questo aereo in livrea Olympic.

[povvo]

Ciao

Devo dissentire un poco sul Namc YS-11 che venne costruito al fine di soddisfare delle esigenze specifiche quali un robusto e capiente aereo biturboelica in grado di operare su piste abbastanza corte e su terreni diversi, venne usato anche da diverse compagnie non giapponesi.

Ebbe putroppo diversi incidenti ma fù sicuramente un'aereo innovativo e dalla linea elegante, ebbe però diversi concorrenti, come già nominato l'F27 (parlo di biturboelica) il Viscount era già qualcosa di più, classe DC-4 o DC-6.

I concorrenti furono anche l'F227 versione allungata dell'F27, ma anche i Convair, il 440 Metropolitan in primis, ma anche i BAE-748.

Due rare immagini di questo aereo in livrea Olympic.

grazie mille comunque molto bello anche nei colori olympic

[i-daxi]

Ciao

Devo dissentire un poco sul Namc YS-11 che venne costruito al fine di soddisfare delle esigenze specifiche quali un robusto e capiente aereo biturboelica in grado di operare su piste abbastanza corte e su terreni diversi, venne usato anche da diverse compagnie non giapponesi.

Ebbe putroppo diversi incidenti ma fù sicuramente un'aereo innovativo e dalla linea elegante, ebbe però diversi concorrenti, come già nominato l'F27 (parlo di biturboelica) il Viscount era già qualcosa di più, classe DC-4 o DC-6.

I concorrenti furono anche l'F227 versione allungata dell'F27, ma anche i Convair, il 440 Metropolitan in primis, ma anche i BAE-748.

Due rare immagini di questo aereo in livrea Olympic.

grazie mille comunque molto bello anche nei colori olympic

Aggiungo anche che la marina militare giapponese lo utilizzò come aero-pattugliatore.

[Luke3]

Torniano un attimo nel mondo dell'aviazione generale

Cessna 177 "Cardinal"

Seppur non proprio un flop dal punto di vista economico, il Cessna 177 Cardinal sicuramente non ebbe il successo che il produttore di Wichita avrebbe sperato. Il concetto iniziale era interessante: una versione "futuristica" del 172 con ala a flusso laminare e ali spostate dietro la visuale del pilota senza strut supportante in modo da migliorare la visibilità di chi è ai comandi, specialmente durante le virate a destra (e chi porta gli ala alta lo sa bene), dove l'ala abbassta copre praticamente tutta la visuale laterale di destra
Il problema fu che questa decisione portò il centro di gravità troppo in avanti, risultando nella decisione di installare il Lycoming O-230 a 4 cilindri da 150 cavalli invece del più pesante Continental O-300 a 6 cilindri normalmente montato sul 172. Nonostante ciò il CG era comunque troppo avanzato, e si decise quindi di montare uno stabilatore invece del classico stabilizzatore orizzontale, contrappesato solo al 75% per ridurre il peso. Il risultato fu un aeroplano sottopotenziato, sensibilissimo ai problemi di Pilot Induced Oscillation e che necessitava di una velocità di salita piuttosto alta a causa del profilo alare a bassa resistenza scelto.
Nonostante la Cessna abbia con il tempo provato a risolvere questi problemi, montando la versione dell'O-230 da 180 cavalli, modificando il profilo alare e contrappesando completamente lo stabilatore, nei suoi 10 anni di produzione dal 1968 al 1978 fu costantemente battuto nel numero di vendite dal C172, aereo che doveva inizialmente rimpiazzare. Una piccola nota aggiuntiva, ho sentito voci che la versione a carrello retrattile, C177RG, è ancora oggi l'aereo di aviazione generale con il maggior numero di bloccaggi del carrello!

Nonostante tutto è nella lista degli aeroplani che vorrei provare almeno una volta, perchè in fondo i vantaggi, specialmente nella versione "corretta" 177B, sembrano abbastanza interessanti. E poi ha delle linee dal punto di vista estetico molto belle!




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_177

[87Nemesis87]

si decise quindi di montare uno stabilatore invece del classico stabilizzatore orizzontale,

che cos'è uno stabilatore?

[Dysko]

che cos'è uno stabilatore?

È una superficie di comando che riunisce lo stabilizzatore (la parte fissa del piano orizzontale di coda) e l'equilibratore (la parte mobile, il timone di profondità vero e proprio).
In pratica, è una superficie orizzontale completamente mobile, come se ci fosse solo l'equilibratore grande come tutto il piano di coda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator

[cabronte]

Airspeed A.S.57 Ambassador

Questo aereo fu progettato da una specifica del Comitato Brabazon, per un aereo di linea a media autonomia.
Il prototipo dell' Airspeed A.S.57 Ambassador volò per la prima volta nel Luglio del 1947.
La BEA ordinò 20 esemplari dell' Ambassador a 47 posti, equipaggiati con motori a 18 cilindri a doppia stella.
Questi erano i Bristol Centaurus 661 da 2625cv.
Questo aereo, presso la BEA, era noto come "Elizabethan", e iniziò ad operare sulla rotta Londra-Parigi nel Marzo del 1952.
Altri 3 Ambassador furono costruiti per la Butler Air Transport, compagnia australiana.
L' ultimo volo della BEA con questo aereo ebbe luogo il 30 Luglio 1958.
Alcuni aerei furono venduti alla BKS e Dan-Air compagnie charter, mentre altri furono utilizzati come trasporti executive per il Re Hussein di Giordania, la Decca Navigator Company e la Shell Aviation.
Furono prodotti solo 23 esemplari e non è rimasto nessun Ambassador in condizioni di volare.
Dati tecnici
Lunghezza:25 m
Apertura alare:35,05 m
Altezza:5,74 m
Capacità passeggeri:47/55
Autonomia:1930 Km

[Almost Blue]

Questo aereo fu progettato da una specifica del Comitato Brabazon, per un aereo di linea a media autonomia.
Il prototipo dell' Airspeed A.S.57 Ambassador volò per la prima volta nel Luglio del 1947.
La BEA ordinò 20 esemplari dell' Ambassador a 47 posti, equipaggiati con motori a 18 cilindri a doppia stella.
Questi erano i Bristol Centaurus 661 da 2625cv.
Questo aereo, presso la BEA, era noto come "Elizabethan", e iniziò ad operare sulla rotta Londra-Parigi nel Marzo del 1952

Versione semplificata, con motori inglesi, del Lockheed Constellation?
A proposito di flop e di Brabazon Committee: il Bristol Brabazon-I. Gigante da otto motori Centaurus e otto eliche disposte in coppie controrotanti. Volò il 4 settembre 1949, ma non ebbe alcun seguito: stava entrando sulla scena il Comet a reazione. L'esperienza del Brabazon fu usata per il Bristol Britannia, primo aereo a turbina in grado di effettuare collegamenti senza scalo sulle rotte nordatlantiche.
E comunque, nonostante l'eccezionalità della macchina in sè, tra i "flop commerciali" io ci metterei anche lo stesso Concorde e non solo il cugino povero Tu-144.

[87Nemesis87]

Versione semplificata, con motori inglesi, del Lockheed Constellation?
A proposito di flop e di Brabazon Committee: il Bristol Brabazon-I. Gigante da otto motori Centaurus e otto eliche disposte in coppie controrotanti. Volò il 4 settembre 1949, ma non ebbe alcun seguito: stava entrando sulla scena il Comet a reazione. L'esperienza del Brabazon fu usata per il Bristol Britannia, primo aereo a turbina in grado di effettuare collegamenti senza scalo sulle rotte nordatlantiche.
E comunque, nonostante l'eccezionalità della macchina in sè, tra i "flop commerciali" io ci metterei anche lo stesso Concorde e non solo il cugino povero Tu-144.

...ma era enorme!

[87Nemesis87]

che cos'è uno stabilatore?

È una superficie di comando che riunisce lo stabilizzatore (la parte fissa del piano orizzontale di coda) e l'equilibratore (la parte mobile, il timone di profondità vero e proprio).
In pratica, è una superficie orizzontale completamente mobile, come se ci fosse solo l'equilibratore grande come tutto il piano di coda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilator

grazie mille dysko!! ^___^

[richelieu]

Questo, come dimensioni, dava dei punti al pur grande "Brabazon" .....



Un progenitore "anni '50" dello A-380 ?





..... si tratta dell'unico esemplare di XC-99 ..... derivato dal bombardiere strategico B-36 .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XC-99

[cabronte]

Questo, come dimensioni, dava dei punti al pur grande "Brabazon" .....







..... si tratta dell'unico esemplare di XC-99 ..... derivato dal bombardiere strategico B-36 .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XC-99

Fa paura!

[richelieu]

E ..... tanto per rimanere in ambito "Aerei Flop" ..... e sempre in casa Convair .....









..... ecco a Voi lo YB-60 .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_YB-60
..... anch'esso derivato dal B-36 e sconfitto nella competizione che vide vincitore ..... indovinate chi?

..... ma è ovvio ..... il grande, inarrivabile, insossidabile, intramontabile ..... Boeing B-52 Stratofortress" .....















.....

[richelieu]

Anche questo può forse essere considerato un "flop" ..... ma non certo sul piano tecnico .....



.....

[AirGek]

Chissà che vita avrebbe avuto se lo spot non fosse finito in tragedia...

[DragonFly]

Mi sembra che questo non sia ancora stato citato: l' X-29
Se non sbaglio i primi studi ali a freccia negativa, aveva una manovrabilità eccezionale

[Almost Blue]

Il B-70 un flop??
L' XB-60 (versione a getto riprogettata del B-36) era pure più veloce del B-52, ma contro un rivale del genere... E poi il B-52 era nuovo di zecca.
L' XC-99 (un B-36 da trasporto) rimase effettivamente in servizio fino al 1957.
Un flop vero invece si rivelò l' Avro Manchester, soprattutto perchè chiaramente sottopotenziato e tra l'altro dotato di due Rolls-Royce Vulture, che erano non del tutto affidabili. Nessun problema: per la potenza gli aggiungiamo altri due motori, gli allunghiamo l'ala e lo dotiamo di quattro Merlin e.... ecco il Lancaster.

[richelieu]

Almost Blue (mamma mia che nuovo avatar !!!) ha scritto:
..... Il B-70 un flop?? .....

No di certo!
Se lo è stato ..... lo è stato sotto il profilo, diciamo, politico ..... ed è stato anche vittima dell'infatuazione missilistica che a quei tempi aveva permeato certi ambienti politico-militari USA ..... nonchè del timore che i Sovietici avessero sviluppato, o stessero per farlo, qualche sistema antiaereo in grado di abbatterlo .....
Si guardi, non a caso, alla storia del B-1, prima cancellato dall'amministrazione Carter, poi resuscitato, però in forma sub-sonica, da quella successiva di Reagan .....

DragonFly ha scritto:
..... Mi sembra che questo non sia ancora stato citato: l' X-29
Se non sbaglio i primi studi ali a freccia negativa, aveva una manovrabilità eccezionale .....

Che c'entra lo X-29 con questo thread?
Si trattava di un aereo "X" che ha svolto egregiamente il compito affidatogli e non mi risulta sia stato un "flop" .....
.....

[neutrinomu]

Ci stiamo dimenticando di questo?

Hughes H-4 Hercules

Lo Hughes H-4 Hercules (matricola di registrazione NX37602) era un idrovolante da trasporto progettato e costruito dall'azienda statunitense Hughes Aircraft Company negli anni quaranta.

Caratterizzato da una serie di eventi che ne condizionarono l'idea iniziale avuta dall'eccentrico industriale Howard Hughes detiene il primato di essere il velivolo di maggiori dimensioni mai costruito. Venne portato in volo per la sua prima ed unica volta il 2 novembre 1947.

Costruito quasi interamente in legno laminato con il processo Duramold, a causa delle restrizioni sull'uso dell'alluminio in periodo di guerra, fu soprannominato "Spruce Goose" (qualcosa come 'Ferro da stiro di legno') dai suoi critici, alcuni dei quali accusavano Howard Hughes di sperperare i fondi del governo per costruire l'apparecchio. L'Hercules è l'aeroplano con la più grande apertura alare ed altezza dal suolo (a terra) mai costruito. È conservato in buone condizioni al Evergreen Aviation Museum.

Nel 1942, a causa dell'entrata in guerra degli Stati Uniti d'America, l'U.S. Department of War dovette affrontare la necessità di trasportare materiale bellico e personale oltre oceano con destinazione Regno Unito per rifornire gli alleati. Le spedizioni via mare subirono pesanti perdite a causa degli attacchi subiti dagli U-Boot della tedesca Kriegsmarine per cui venne emessa una specifica per la fornitura di un velivolo da trasporto in grado di attraversare l'Atlantico dotato di una grande capacità di carico. L'unica limitazione era dettata dalla necessità, a causa della necessità di impiegare materiale strategico per la produzione bellica, di impiegare solamente legno per la sua realizzazione.

L'idea iniziale non fu come comunemente si crede di Hughes, ma di Henry J. Kaiser, l'ideatore delle navi liberty,[1] la cui intenzione era di costruire una specie di nave volante atta a rifornire in modo veloce e sicuro le forze alleate in Europa e nel sud Pacifico. Questo progetto, del 1942, lasciò alquanto perplesse le autorità militari statunitensi ma non Hughes, che, dopo aver modificato il progetto da catamarano ad un mono carena, si mise in società con Kaiser fondando per l'appunto la Kaiser-Hughes.

Venne quindi costruito un modello in scala che il 16 novembre 1942 fu approvato, si ritiene anche grazie ad azioni di corruzione, dal War Production Board che ne richiese tre prototipi, ridotti poi a uno nel 1944.

Il progetto siglato HK-1 incontrò subito grosse difficoltà di ogni tipo, compreso un ritardo e le diverse esigenze belliche che maturarono nel 1944, tanto che Kaiser si ritirò dalla società. Tutto ciò non demoralizzò Hughes, che, nonostante il finanziamento di soli 18 milioni di dollari, del tutto insufficienti, continuò l'impresa da solo.

Con la fine della guerra il governo degli Stati Uniti perse totalmente interesse nel progetto, ma, nonostante questo, Hughes riuscì ad ottenere ulteriori due milioni di dollari a cui ne aggiunse sette di tasca propria.

Dopo un assemblaggio parziale a Culver City, nel 1946 l'aereo fu trasportato a Terminal Island, vicino a Long Beach. Tale tragitto lungo solo 45 km richiese l'impiego di 2000 persone la rimozione di fili, pali, alberi ed infinite altri ostacoli, per una spesa di 50000 dollari dell'epoca.

Dopo il montaggio finale, il 2 novembre 1947, alle ore 13:20, davanti ad operatori e un pubblico di circa 50000 persone, l'aereo pilotato personalmente da Hughes e Dave Grant decollò e percorse circa due chilometri a 25 metri di quota, con una velocità di circa 150 km/h. Fu il primo ed unico volo del colossale aereo.

Negli anni a venire fu riposto in un gigantesco hangar appositamente costruito, dove sorvegliato da guardie armate fu sottoposto a regolare manutenzione fino alla morte di Hughes il 6 aprile 1976. In seguito l'aereo fu donato al Aero Club of Souther California che lo collocò sotto una cupola di vetro e alluminio vicino alla nave Queen Mary nella zona porto di Long Beach, dove è rimasto fino al 1992, quando è stato trasferito a McMinnville nell'Oregon, nel nuovo museo di storia dell'aeronautica.

Costruito in materiali diversi tra cui legni di abete rosso, acero, pioppo, mogano e ciliegio sottoposti ad un procedimento di laminatura chiamato Duramold, la sua realizzazione vide il ricorso ad una nuova tecnologia basata su impialliciature unite da un collante termoindurente a base di formaldeide, pressato a caldo in un'autoclave; le parti esterne erano composte da una parte in legno, una mano di collante, carta velina, due mani di vernice impermeabile ed una di vernice alluminizzata, il tutto per limitare il peso il più possibile. Allo stesso modo, ad esclusione dei motori Pratt & Whitney R-4360 «Wasp Major» da 28 cilindri con potenza di 3000 hp, la strumentazione, le cerniere dei piani di comando e le controventature tubolari all'interno del bordo d'entrata dell'ala, erano tutte in legno. A questo si univa un sistema di congiunzioni in cui i chiodi erano tolti dopo che il collante aveva fatto presa.

Definire lo Hughes H-4 non è facile, si tratta certamente di una realizzazione grandiosa legata alla volontà di un uomo particolare. È indubbio che senza la sua costanza ed un impiego finanziario oneroso, fuori da ogni logica imprenditoriale, la sua realizzazione non sarebbe mai avvenuta, in particolare con la tecnologia del tempo.

Colpisce anche la volontà di conservazione del mezzo che Hughes ebbe per tutti gli anni della sua vita, arrivando a pagare un affitto sempre più alto per il terreno dove sorgeva la rimessa e a sostenere la continua spesa per la manutenzione e la messa a punto dei motori, e tutto per un aeroplano che non volò mai più.

[Almost Blue]

Bella foto e bell'aereo. Credo che se la guerra non fosse finita e se gli U-boot non fossero stati sconfitti, la US-Navy un pensierino ce lo faceva eccome.
Un altro flop suo malgrado? L' F-20 Tigershark, battuto da nientepopodimenochè l'F-16-A, ma solo perchè quest'ultimo era una generazione avanti. L' F-20 infatti era sovrapponibile a un F-16 nel duello manovrato.

[richelieu]

Lo F-20 tramontò per motivi, anche in questo caso, politici .....
L'amministrazione Carter, non volendo vendere a certi paesi lo F-16, si inventò il cervellotico F-16/79, dotato appunto del "vecchio" e meno performante J-79, che si trovò come concorrente appunto lo F-20, che , per inciso, ho sempre considerato, in un certo qual modo, il progenitore concettuale dell'attuale "Gripen" svedese.
La successiva amministrazione Reagan rovesciò la decisione e diede luce verde all'esportazione senza eccessive limitazioni dello F-16 ..... a quel punto lo F-20 non ebbe più motivo di esistere .....
..... stessa fine fece lo F-16/79 .....

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article12.html



.....

[IVWP]

Torniano un attimo nel mondo dell'aviazione generale

Cessna 177 "Cardinal"

questo Cesnino mi piace

[Peretola]

North American XB-70 "Valkyrie"

North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie.jpg

Questo mezzo fu sviluppato pensando di abbinare l'autonomia del bombardiere B-52 con la velocità del Convair B-58 "hustler". Le richieste dello Strategic Air Command dell'USAF erano di un bombardiere supersonico a propulsione chimica con portata intercontinentale (10.180 km di autonomia richiesta senza rifornimento in volo) capace di fare un "balzo supersonico" di 1600 km sul bersaglio. La North American rispose iniziando una ricerca sul propellente al boro e sul fenomeno (portanza di compressione) che avrebbe permesso al Valkyrie di cavalcare la propria onda d'urto riducendo il consumo di carburante: la portanza di compressione avrebbe permesso al velivolo di compiere la missione alla spaventosa velocità di Mach 3.
Due fattori contribuirono al sostanziale fallimento dell'aereo: i missili antiaerei terra-aria erano ormai in grado di distruggere anche velivoli con le caratteristiche del Valkyrie; lo sviluppo dei missili intercontinentali rendeva sempre più inutile lo sviluppo di bombardieri a lungo raggio. Uno dei critici principali di questo progetto fu il ministro della difesa USA Robert McNamara. Sotto il suo impulso l'USAF modificò la richiesta alla North American facendo convertire il Valkyrie in ricognitore d'attacco. Le possibilità dell'XB-70 tramontarono definitivamente quando il presidente Johnson avallò la scelta come ricognitore del Lockheed SR-71A.
Il velivolo della North American rullò per la prima volta il 21 settembre 1964; durante il suo 17° volo raggiunse la velocità di Mach 3.
Il progetto Valkyrie fu continuato a sviluppare in vista di un possibile trasporto civile supersonico USA (che poi non si realizzò). L'8 giugno 1966 il secondo prototipo dell'XB-70 si scontrò contro un Lockheed F-104 durante una ripresa fotografica aria-aria: il pilota riuscì ad eiettarsi, ma il copilota morì nell'incidente.
Il prototipo rimasto fu utilizzato dalla NASA per dei programmi sperimentali e, nel 1969, fu consegnato al museo della base USAF di Wright-Patterson in Ohio.

[IVWP]

ma se incominciamo a ripeterci…

[Peretola]

ma se incominciamo a ripeterci…

Vabbè, il cardinale aveva pubblicato solo una foto...ho preferito approfondire la storia del Valkyrie!

[Almost Blue]

Comunque è giusto dire che il B-70 non ha avuto seguito non perchè fosse un brocco, ma perchè era venuta meno la missione per cui era stato pensato. In parte il progetto andò avanti anche come aereo da ricerca sul volo ampiamente supersonico degli aerei di grandi dimensioni.
Un altro aereo flop, che contribuì al fallimento della sua ditta, fu l'Handley-Page Herald, nato come quadrimotore medio a pistoni, rimotorizzato come biturbina Dart Herald, venne infine battutto alla grande dall' HS-748 e soprattutto dal Fokker F-27.