Damn Kobi...



With 8 Pratt & Whitney F-100 Turbofan, afterburning engines, and in-flight refueling, that plane could go from NYC to LA in about 1 hour minutes.

I'd like a big picture of that, for my wall paper...

I probably wouldn't be averse to flying, if I coudl get there in 1/3rd the time...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

(inappropriate image removed)

 

That's the long ago cancelled Boeing 2707 (the SST)

Would have carried about 300 passengers and travelled at Mach 2.7

Unfortunately due to environmental scares (and no one wanting sonic booms hitting them repeatedly each day) the senate (led by William Proxmeyer) voted to cancel it.

It would have carried 3'x as many people as the Concorde at almost 1.5 times the speed.

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/sst.php

The original version that won the design competition had sweep wings (like the F-14) that extended out for subsonic flight and swept back into a delta wing configuration for supersonic flight. Later design dropped this design feature because it weighed too much and was unnecessarily complicated . . . which was too bad because weight and maintenance issues be damned . . . it just looked so cool!!!!

Alas, back in 1971 when it was cancelled, I was one bummed out kid.

 

Here's a model showing both supersonic and subsonic wing configurations

 

Oh, OK- yeah, I knew about this plane, and had seen some sketches, but had never seen it from the angle you've shown, which clearly displays what seems liek 8 engines... The Concorde only had 4 engines, and could cruise at Mach 2.2 (as fast as an F-16 in full-boogie).

Too bad--- What killed the Concorde (From a sales perspective) were the people who buy cheap land near the airport, bitching about the noise. A few candy-asses whining about the sonic booms, and the fact that it only held 105 people. That's how the 1/3rd as fast, 747 kicked it's but, and no one outside British Airways & Air France ordered any of them.

But, you know- if we built the B-1, we could have had a Mach 2+ capable passenger plane. The original variant (B-1A, could fly at Mach 2+, the B-1B, is supposedly limited to just over Mach 1.5... But, it's the fastest low flying aircraft in the world, capable of 930 MPH at tree-top level... Too fast for ground fire to hit it (or even know it's coming until it passes over), and no other plane get get low enough, and fast enough to catch it.

Now, if they have missiles with look-down, shoot down capability.... (Boom)

Easier said than done though...

Ironically, the B-70 Valkyre was as fast as the SR-71 Blackbird; but shelved after a crash during a test flight, and after they realized the Soviets coudl shoot it down, regardless of how high or how fast it could fly, so our strategy changed from high (easily seen) and fast, to low and fast.

**No secrets divuldged here, this is all knowledge one can gain from watching the military channel...

B-1B:


B-70:


Concorde:


Beoing's SST:

 

Cool videos of breaking the sound barrier......

F14, unapproved, Air carrier flyby @ mach 1

F18 flyby

 

Here's an F14 flyby just like that only with disastrous results . . .

http://movies.flabber.nl/straaljagerpech/

 

speechless.....

 

wow!

 

Nice plane. Kinda reminds me of the Avro Arrow, EH?
Damn Diefenbaker to hell. He destroyed our aviation/space program before it even had a chance. So guess where everyone went? Good ol' US of A.
So, all you Americans, don't say we never did anything for you.


http://www.viatrack.ca/Misc/The_Avro_Arrow.jpg

 

I think that would have made the news...

USS John Paul Jones?

At first, I thought that was a Soviet Mig-23 because I only saw swing wings and only one veritcal Stabilizer, but, after replaying and pausing it a few more times, I could see the second vertical stabilizer...

Variable-geometry wings, dual vertical stabilizer = Grumman F-14 Tomcat.



I wonder what caused it to just explode? Perhaps this was a remote control drone?

Sadly, the F-14 was retired from service about two weeks ago. It was on the news as they gave it it's "final flight". I find it hard to believe every carrier has decommissioned the Tom Cat. I had no idea they were that far along in replacing the F-14 with the F-18 E & F Super hornets. Ironically, in he next 3-4 years, the Hornets will be replaced by the F-35C. (I don't know if that includes the SuperHornets, or just the F/A-18A - D models.



Well, when the F-22 replaces the F-15, and when the F-35 replaces the AV-8B, F/A-18, and the F-16; the Fighter Weapons Schools will inherit some damn-good "adversary" aircraft (F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18's) to teach the new pilots how to remain the best.

I watched a special on the Military Channel where in Germany, our F-18 pilots have been doing head-to-head dogfights (training) against the former East German MiG-28's and 29's. Very evenly matched...

PS: The NAvy was supposed to modify the F-14 for a role similiar to that of the F-15E Strike Eagle, for deep interdiction bombing and attack missions. The new designation was supposed to be: F-14 Bombcat.

I guess that idea got scrapped.

I'll never understand the logic in replacing the F-14 with a slower, less capable aircraft, that can't carry the Phoenix Missle. The F-14 can engage and shoot down 6 planes at one time, through judicious use of the AIM-54. The Hornets can't... Makes you wonder what the ____ people are thinking about, sometimes...

 

was this the plane that they used for FireFox starring Clint Eastwood??

 

Similiar design, but the Firefox was a fighter aircraft, this was a bomber...
Firefox was also twin engined, whereas the B-70 had at least 4 engines (and what seemed like 8 exhaust ports) Haven't seen a picture of it from the rear in a while.

 

XB-70A Valkyrie

You'll need Quick Time to view the vids.