Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: ysi_maniac on October 10, 2013, 01:24:42 PM
-
Some ideas about T tail Boeing 707. I know I should use 727 tail, but Tupolev t-tails are so baroque!
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing707-Ttail.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing707-Ttail.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing707-6engin.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing707-6engin.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing707-long-6engin.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing707-long-6engin.jpg.html)
-
As a kid in the 70's, I'd read that the Soviets accused the US of having our airliners developed as bombers. At the time, I thought it would be very cool to have a 707, 727, and 737 as some kind of missile carrier. :)
-
If it aint baroque, don't fix it!
-
As a kid in the 70's, I'd read that the Soviets accused the US of having our airliners developed as bombers. At the time, I thought it would be very cool to have a 707, 727, and 737 as some kind of missile carrier. :)
That's kinda hilarious considering the relationship between the Tu-16 and Tu-104, or Tu-95 and Tu-114...
-
That's kinda hilarious considering the relationship between the Tu-16 and Tu-104, or Tu-95 and Tu-114...
Projecting much on Ivan's part? Just 'cause Nazi bastards and Commie bastards alike did it... and yes, a large portion of the Boeing propliners leveraged bomber engineering, like the 200/221 Monomail v. B-9 Death Angel, XB-15 v. 314 Clipper, B-17 v. 307 Stratoliner, B-29 v. 367 Stratofreighter/377 Stratocruiser... originally, the KC-135 and 707 were identical but the airlines wanted a bigger-section fuselage for more passenger room.
-
I thought it would be very cool to have a 707, 727, and 737 as some kind of missile carrier. :)
Well, in essence the 737 has accomplished that in the P-8:
(http://zarco-macross.wdfiles.com/local--files/wiki:maritimes-patrol-aircraft/P-8MTRain%20No%202.jpg)(http://www.naval.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/P-8A-weapons.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Vl40176Jbo/UPvFWBWbcmI/AAAAAAAAB3Q/vsGGc-jzi1E/s1600/Boeing+P-8A+Poseidon.jpg)
(http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/Flutter_Test_with_Bombbay_doors.jpg)
-
One idea I have had for a while is to combine the features of the P-8 with that of the Catbird:
(http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircraft/small/000/387/387575.jpg)(http://www.thenorthspin.com/photos_people_alan_r/44.jpg)
I have this scenario whereby the F-35 is cancelled, along with most other fighters and instead, to keep the USAF operating, they develop the Catbird into an operational platform.
-
Speaking of the 737, this might be of interest to some:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/B737Familyv1.0.png)
Click on for bigger view
-
and the same for 727:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/B727FAMILYv1.0.png)
-
How about turboprop or propfan versions of the 707 and 737?
-
That's kinda hilarious considering the relationship between the Tu-16 and Tu-104, or Tu-95 and Tu-114...
Projecting much on Ivan's part? Just 'cause Nazi bastards and Commie bastards alike did it... and yes, a large portion of the Boeing propliners leveraged bomber engineering, like the 200/221 Monomail v. B-9 Death Angel, XB-15 v. 314 Clipper, B-17 v. 307 Stratoliner, B-29 v. 367 Stratofreighter/377 Stratocruiser... originally, the KC-135 and 707 were identical but the airlines wanted a bigger-section fuselage for more passenger room.
Some of the lessons learned on the Model 200 were applied to the design of the B-9, but the two were
not directly related, and there was certainly no bomber engineering leveraged in the design of the
Model 200.
A bit of trivia that may interest some, there were only ever two Monomails, the Model 200(221A)
and the Model 221. The 221 had a stretched fuselage and a number of differences to the 200, which
was in turn was renumbered as 221A when modified to a configuration similar to the 221.
Seattle area modeler Jim Schubert has been working on a set of Model 200 Monomail drawings for
a proposed resin kit, in 1/72 for those who care about such things.
;)
-
EP-8 anyone? Model using a lot of the EP-3 "lumps and bumps" on a P-8, or equivalent, airframe. One of my former employers, L-3 Communications, Integrated Systems Division, would be perfect to produce this; besides the USAF/RAF "Rivet Joint" aircraft, they maintain, update, and convert the USN's EP-3 fleet and they've got plenty of experience on 737/BBJ completions.
For that matter, how about P-8 style wingtips or 737-style winglets on CFM-56 powered 707's with whatever electronics fit works withthe backstory?
-
I'd go for the swept tips, which were first used on the 767-400, and are now appearing
on 777s. I think they'd look good on a 707 or 720 based aircraft, and use the 737
AEW&C style array.
Posted this before, a handy link to the D6 planning manuals for Boeing commercial
aircraft:
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page (http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.page)
-
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/08/p3-to-p8-an-airsea-saga-1/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/08/p3-to-p8-an-airsea-saga-1/)
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/mt/flightglobalweb/blogs/graham-warwick/757sm.jpg (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/mt/flightglobalweb/blogs/graham-warwick/757sm.jpg)
My uncle used to work in airfreight and I remember him telling my that their 727 freighter could cruise just over the speed of sound flying NZ to Aust with a tail wind. A cleaned up, re engined strike variant could possibly have been capable of super cruise.
-
EP-8 anyone? Model using a lot of the EP-3 "lumps and bumps" on a P-8, or equivalent, airframe. One of my former employers, L-3 Communications, Integrated Systems Division, would be perfect to produce this; besides the USAF/RAF "Rivet Joint" aircraft, they maintain, update, and convert the USN's EP-3 fleet and they've got plenty of experience on 737/BBJ completions.
Ahem....
-
Speaking of 727s:
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/images/B727100UHB_USAirShuttle.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/images/B727100UHB_TWA.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/images/B727100UHB_Republic84.jpg)
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/images/B727100UHB_Republic87.jpg)
And a conventional one...
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/images/B727200_Australian.jpg)
-
Love 727 UHB :)
What was the problem with all those pusher prop projects of '80s?
-
Love 727 UHB :)
What was the problem with all those pusher prop projects of '80s?
Two very important ones. One, it's incredibly loud. Loud enough to cause fatigue in the adjacent parts of the airframe. The other is there's no fan casing to catch a prop blade when one inevitably comes off. There's a good chance it would go right into the fuselage, which is a problem. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/DAL1288a.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/DAL1288a.jpg) This, but worse.
-
What you're calling "727 UHB" is very reminiscent of a Boeing/Mitsubishi (IIRC) project called 7J7, to jointly build a commuter-jet for the Japanese market.
It failed mostly because Mitsubishi wanted technology transfers that Boeing was unwilling to transfer at that time--specifically their wing technology.
-
Yes, the Unducted Fan (or Unducked - see below ;)) did suffrage big time from noise.
(http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Random/UnDuckedFan.jpg)
They are making potential comebacks though thanks to new technology such as active noise cancellation. They also go by multiple names, including Open Rotor Turbofans.
-
It failed mostly because Mitsubishi wanted technology transfers that Boeing was unwilling to transfer at that time--specifically their wing technology.
Err are you sure of that? Japanese involvement was something like 25% IIRC and I thought it failed mainly because of the same reasons as other such UDF proposals did - i.e those detailed above by Talos and also the perception that customers wouldn't like them (old fashioned with props)"
Either way, the 7J7 was certainly attractive. Makes me think to do a similar 737 variant.
(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/wp-content/blogs.dir/10/files/2013/03/Boeing-7J7.jpg)
-
Love 727 UHB :)
What was the problem with all those pusher prop projects of '80s?
Two very important ones. One, it's incredibly loud. Loud enough to cause fatigue in the adjacent parts of the airframe. The other is there's no fan casing to catch a prop blade when one inevitably comes off. There's a good chance it would go right into the fuselage, which is a problem. [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/DAL1288a.jpg[/url] ([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/DAL1288a.jpg[/url]) This, but worse.
I remember I first ride in a Herc and realising what the red parallel lines inside the fuselage signified..... :o
-
Greg, my sources worked for Boeing at the time--and it came up in context of reservations about the hasty farm-out of major subassemblies and the large amount of technology-transfer on 787.
Multiple observers have voiced strong opinions to me that the first five to ten aircraft should have been built completely in-house to validate and debug the engineering, THEN start farming smaller pieces out to the subcontractors and progressively let them do more as they demonstrate they can deliver... those first few took a LOT of rework to assemble because A LOT of the subassemblies weren't as "Plug and Play" as they were designed to be due to manufacturing issues...
Don't press a lot on naming sources, as I get a lot of things that aren't supposed to be heard outside the company.
-
Yes, the Unducted Fan (or Unducked - see below ;)) did suffrage big time from noise.
([url]http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Random/UnDuckedFan.jpg[/url])
They are making potential comebacks though thanks to new technology such as active noise cancellation. They also go by multiple names, including Open Rotor Turbofans.
Looks to me like a Ducked Fan.
Crow or Hawk mounted would be Un Ducked,,, right ?
-
Greg, my sources worked for Boeing at the time--and it came up in context of reservations about the hasty farm-out of major subassemblies and the large amount of technology-transfer on 787.
Multiple observers have voiced strong opinions to me that the first five to ten aircraft should have been built completely in-house to validate and debug the engineering, THEN start farming smaller pieces out to the subcontractors and progressively let them do more as they demonstrate they can deliver... those first few took a LOT of rework to assemble because A LOT of the subassemblies weren't as "Plug and Play" as they were designed to be due to manufacturing issues...
Don't press a lot on naming sources, as I get a lot of things that aren't supposed to be heard outside the company.
Are you talking about the 7J7 or the 787 here? This still doesn't alter my comments regarding the reasons behind the 7J7 failure to be produced.
-
Due to their excessive noise, I propose a P-8 Poseidon utilizing propfans. These aircraft would then be used to intercept and scare off Russian Tupolev Bears. Give them a taste of their own medicine! >:D ;D
-
Greg, my sources worked for Boeing at the time--and it came up in context of reservations about the hasty farm-out of major subassemblies and the large amount of technology-transfer on 787.
Multiple observers have voiced strong opinions to me that the first five to ten aircraft should have been built completely in-house to validate and debug the engineering, THEN start farming smaller pieces out to the subcontractors and progressively let them do more as they demonstrate they can deliver... those first few took a LOT of rework to assemble because A LOT of the subassemblies weren't as "Plug and Play" as they were designed to be due to manufacturing issues...
Don't press a lot on naming sources, as I get a lot of things that aren't supposed to be heard outside the company.
*nods* I can well believe this. I'm quite familiar with how well the first B-2, which was subassembly "plug and play" on a masive scale, went together. Let's just say that, IMHO, it should have remained a R&D aircraft and a new one added to the production order rather than bringing it up to near-production status (there's some flight test items you'll never get out without complete disassembly of the aircraft in addition to various issues that arose during assembly).
-
:icon_crap: And we grouse when a kit doesn't fit well...... :icon_nif:
;D ;D ;D
-
With 5 engines
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing707-5engin.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing707-5engin.jpg.html)
-
With 5 engines
([url]http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing707-5engin.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing707-5engin.jpg.html[/url])
The six-engine variant could have two engines located at the tail as seen on the Tupelov Blinder bomber and the other four engines under the wings :)
-
Five-engined with two under the wings in addition to the tail engines? Hmm, could JT8D-200 series engines fit under the wing? You could then do new naclles for the tail engines ("borrow" from DC-9-80), a "fitted" JT8D-200 variant for the center engine (you're airflow limited by the intake and re-designing that is a non-trivial taks), and JT8D-200 nacelles under the wings.
-
Just add a four pack to the tail like a VC.10 and you'd be up to 10 engines. Hmm, four more in the wing roots and that gives you 14... I think that's enough for an airliner.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Boeing 707: transition from propelers to jets
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/turbo-707-1.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/turbo-707-1.jpg.html)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/turbo-707-2.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/turbo-707-2.jpg.html)
-
Something different...
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/image_zpsb8090903.jpg)
-
What if insert in tail fin base of a Boeing 707 at 1/144 the fuselage of a Tamiya MiG-19 at 1/100? ::)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing-turbo-707-3.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing-turbo-707-3.jpg.html)
... or perhaps add a pair of turboprops made with two fuselages of MiG-21 at 1/144? ???
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing-turbo-707-4.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing-turbo-707-4.jpg.html)
... well, why not both?! ;) 8)
(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/boeing-turbo-707-5.jpg) (http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/ysi_maniac/media/Drawing/boeing-turbo-707-5.jpg.html)
-
I'd love to see the latest generation wing of the 737 on the 727.
-
In this book there are several drawings of projects/studies around Boeing 707 design.
http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-707-Pioneer-Jetliner-History/dp/0760306753/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385264660&sr=8-1&keywords=boeing+707 (http://www.amazon.com/Boeing-707-Pioneer-Jetliner-History/dp/0760306753/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385264660&sr=8-1&keywords=boeing+707)
pg 20
- Similar to B-47: 2 jet double pods and shoulder mounted swept wings.
pg 22
- Boeing model 473. Idem first one in pg 20, but only 2 engines
- Boeing model 473-25. Idem first one in pg 20, but 6 engines: 4 jet pods 2 single inboard and 2 double outboard
pg 23
- Boeing model 473-47. Idem first one in pg 20, but low wings and only 2 engines. Smilar to Boeing 737 but straight tail surfaces and moderately swept wings.
pg 25
- Boeing model 707-6. Low wings 2 jet double pods. Very close to 367-80 (dash 80)
pg 28
- Boeing 707-7-27 like dash 80 but with 4 turboprops and wing tip tanks
- Boeing 707-7-39 like dash 80 but with 6 engines: 4 jet pods 2 single outboard and 2 double inboard, and wing tip tanks
pg 58
- Boeing 707-020 Shortened version with only 2 engines
pg 75
- Boeing 707-320-101 Double deck large-capasity (up to 250 passengers) version
-
All the following drawings are from a 17-page document on the origins of the 707. A local club member has been clearing out his file
boxes. I snagged this one.
;D
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-gkXSKN3/0/4e3110a1/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_01.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-7LVwjkj/0/330bbc42/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_02.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-TCFVX65/0/8d7a1c5f/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_03.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-67rZJ4v/0/374875ce/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_04.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-NLGT2Tt/0/afabbf60/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_05.png)
-
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-5wPz5SR/0/d712b3c2/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_06.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-LjztJtf/0/99be2047/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_07.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-rNWPjkD/0/a7045f75/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_08.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-PrGzP4F/0/6a7eb599/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_09.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-DnH3p42/0/d8f4f4cf/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_10.png)
-
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-qVBvDDv/0/5c428f7f/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_11.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-Psf9DNZ/0/1b24ecfe/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_12.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-xkkdfvm/0/bd568e9f/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_13.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-mTghgzf/0/76c22d3d/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_14.png)
;D
-
Wow, thanks for that Jon! I love the Model 707-6 :-*
-
Yer welcome. :icon_fsm:
Lemme know if you want higher res versions or the full doc PDF.
-
Just love design sketches and seeing the thinking that led to the designs we know so well today, thanks for that.
-
I saw that Minicraft does an E-3/E-8 kit in 1/144 and also does a KC-135R. I know they aren't the best, but I keep seeing both radomes on a CFM56-powered airframe. Either that or mount both radomes on a 1/144 767 or 777 and use the remaining bits for more "out-there" whiffery.
-
How about a 737 based mini-tanker?
-
How about a 737 based mini-tanker?
Actually doable, a history of the 737 design states that the necessary provisions are there. Perhaps just three drogue spots (fuselage and under each wing) rather than with a boom. I wonder how a 727 tanker would fare?
-
When I was a kid I was really into the history and aircraft of NAC, the domestic forerunner to Air New Zealand. I made a 737-200 out of Lego to play with which, with less than 2min of mods, became a Fokker Friendship. Perhaps there are some ideas to be explored here?
-
Without planning it. I happened to be at right place at right time to see first flight of 727.
Chase plane was F-86.
-
How about a 737 based mini-tanker?
Actually doable, a history of the 737 design states that the necessary provisions are there. Perhaps just three drogue spots (fuselage and under each wing) rather than with a boom. I wonder how a 727 tanker would fare?
I recall there was some interest in the late 90s early 2000s in a small tactical tanker that would actually also serve as a C3I node and possibly as a stand off jammer as well as a tanker in support of strike packages. Rumour had it that Lockheed was working on something stealthy/sneaky off the books to fill the role but if it had existed and the high end stealthy version had been cancelled there could be a whiffie justification for a non stealthy 737 doing the job.
-
Considering the build BdB did turning 1/144 DC-6 into 1/72 Mugger.
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6619.msg113328#msg113328 (http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=6619.msg113328#msg113328)
1/144 727 JT8D engines scale comfortably 1/72 J85 engines. Using three J85-GE-21 series engines otta provide sufficient thrust for jetliner speeds.
Could be a 1/72 tactical air-to-ground missileer or whatever........
-
How about a 737 based mini-tanker?
Actually doable, a history of the 737 design states that the necessary provisions are there. Perhaps just three drogue spots (fuselage and under each wing) rather than with a boom. I wonder how a 727 tanker would fare?
I recall there was some interest in the late 90s early 2000s in a small tactical tanker that would actually also serve as a C3I node and possibly as a stand off jammer as well as a tanker in support of strike packages. Rumour had it that Lockheed was working on something stealthy/sneaky off the books to fill the role but if it had existed and the high end stealthy version had been cancelled there could be a whiffie justification for a non stealthy 737 doing the job.
See here: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%202480.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%202480.html)
-
How about a 737 based mini-tanker?
Actually doable, a history of the 737 design states that the necessary provisions are there. Perhaps just three drogue spots (fuselage and under each wing) rather than with a boom. I wonder how a 727 tanker would fare?
I recall there was some interest in the late 90s early 2000s in a small tactical tanker that would actually also serve as a C3I node and possibly as a stand off jammer as well as a tanker in support of strike packages. Rumour had it that Lockheed was working on something stealthy/sneaky off the books to fill the role but if it had existed and the high end stealthy version had been cancelled there could be a whiffie justification for a non stealthy 737 doing the job.
See here: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%202480.html (https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%202480.html)
Thanks, that's not the article I read and it is far more informative. I wasn't aware they had actually gotten as far as a proposal, sort of looks like a Gulfstream doesn't it?
-
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18404125_10203116937521624_2277288735786500410_o.jpg?oh=70c575b238d2a6c8bd1222973bc87cf9&oe=597605CC)
Boeing NT-43A Radar Test Bed
The Air Force operates a modified NT-43A as a Radar Test Bed (RTB) with radar imaging gear on its nose and tail in radomes that are 9 feet long and over 6.5 feet in diameter.
-
And I thought the last Nimrod was as ugly as they could get!
-
Hmmm....I wonder how one would go crossing a 737 with a Nimrod AEW3:
Basically cross this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3%2C_UK_-_Air_Force_AN0792940.jpg)
With something like this:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ziXU5H-pvyc/U4Ihc6urlnI/AAAAAAAACC0/z2r0OMSEfrc/s1600/momosergeidragunov.comq.jpg)
-
Please don't. I feel ill!
-
Please don't. I feel ill!
You know that will just encourage me...(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ff/65/28/ff65281ecee55d4d5b97cefe15de74b4--smiley-faces-emojis.jpg)
-
Hmmm....I wonder how one would go crossing a 737 with a Nimrod AEW3:
Basically cross this:
([url]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/British_Aerospace_Nimrod_AEW3%2C_UK_-_Air_Force_AN0792940.jpg[/url])
With something like this:
([url]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ziXU5H-pvyc/U4Ihc6urlnI/AAAAAAAACC0/z2r0OMSEfrc/s1600/momosergeidragunov.comq.jpg[/url])
Actually it would work, I've offered up my Cammett conversion to one of the 737's I have
-
Please don't. I feel ill!
I'm with you. :-X
-
Do it, Greg! ;D
-
I will need to get the bits...
-
I will need to get the bits...
Amazon has numerous listings. ??? :icon_fsm:
-
I will need to get the bits...
So these are close to 1/48 scale ;)
http://www.westway-aircraft-models.com/5.html (http://www.westway-aircraft-models.com/5.html)
-
Found this via Facebook:
Coulson Aviation is adding not only additional air tankers to their fleet, but is branching out into a different model of aircraft. The company has purchased six 737-300’s and intends to convert them into 4,000-gallon “Fireliner” air tankers. Britt Coulson said they saw an opportunity when Southwest Airlines made a decision to replace their 737-300’s with the new 737-Max. Since the FAA only allows Southwest pilots to fly two of the 737’s with the same rating, the airline opted to sell the 737-300’s even though they have a relatively low number of hours in the sky.
No images of final conversion.
Full story here: http://fireaviation.com/2017/05/21/coulson-to-convert-737s-into-air-tankers/ (http://fireaviation.com/2017/05/21/coulson-to-convert-737s-into-air-tankers/)
-
Photo's of the prototype. Tanks are not yet installed.
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18672868_1526981250687815_4159190888518635926_o.jpg?oh=123ee390c6343f8d50fe8b261c8a2418&oe=59BCACCF)
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18672957_1667188880257544_2148062004196317500_o.jpg?oh=22d59e8734f93d31315f3ac6a84ed4d9&oe=59A36B30)
(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/18738476_1667188903590875_1695554208931515179_o.jpg?oh=fe34c37a6f35e552f48bf0c7faf90ed4&oe=599C161D)
I think they missed a great opportunity to paint the cool looking black anti-glare panels that TCA had on their Vanguards and DC-8s and 9's.
-
Fire bombers getting to be more fun all the time!
-
Random idea: VTOL 737 based on similar concept to HS.141 commuter airliner:
(https://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/HS141.jpg)
-
In reference to Robert's recent purchase of the BPK 737-200, I have the T-43 boxing.
(https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/5/5/1/180551-12623-pristine.jpg)
It will be finished as a CAF CE-43A. I will be taking a nose from the Amtech EC-135N/E ARIA/ALOTS "Snoopy".
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48164551151_5098c07014_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2go8V2H)
CAF-EC-43A (https://flic.kr/p/2go8V2H) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
Other possible options are:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48164551116_e0b4fc6152_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2go8V27)
CAF-EC-43B (https://flic.kr/p/2go8V27) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48164551076_b8e1b00c16_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2go8V1q)
EC-43N (https://flic.kr/p/2go8V1q) by Big Gimper (https://www.flickr.com/photos/21812089@N02/), on Flickr
-
Similar bulge on the back for a British-style fore and aft AEW radar fit?
-
Found this via Facebook:
Coulson Aviation is adding not only additional air tankers to their fleet, but is branching out into a different model of aircraft. The company has purchased six 737-300’s and intends to convert them into 4,000-gallon “Fireliner” air tankers. Britt Coulson said they saw an opportunity when Southwest Airlines made a decision to replace their 737-300’s with the new 737-Max. Since the FAA only allows Southwest pilots to fly two of the 737’s with the same rating, the airline opted to sell the 737-300’s even though they have a relatively low number of hours in the sky.
No images of final conversion.
Full story here: [url]http://fireaviation.com/2017/05/21/coulson-to-convert-737s-into-air-tankers/[/url] ([url]http://fireaviation.com/2017/05/21/coulson-to-convert-737s-into-air-tankers/[/url])
I bet Southwest Airlines wishes they had these -300s back!
-
A 4 engined 737?! Boeing/Kawasaki 737-PXL:
(http://www.b737.org.uk/images/737-pxl.jpg)
This was a joint venture between Boeing and Kawasaki to build a 4-engined maritime patrol aircraft for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. It was proposed in 1974 to replace the Kawasaki's licensed P-2 "Neptune" but Japan chose the Lockheed P-3C "Orion." and in 1977 Kawasaki began producing P-3C under license. The PXL was to have four 9,280lb, GE TF34 engines and a MTOW of 120,000Lbs with fuel of 5,270USG wing tanks and 1,250USG centre tank.
The illustration shows an extended and lowered nose radome and wing tip booms which are possibly MAD probes or other antennae.
-
It could be built in 1/72 using the BPK kit and engines from a pair of S-3s.
-
Ancestor of the P-1?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/63/94/286394ea0a6daf6facb88eb788dce99e.jpg)
-
It could be built in 1/72 using the BPK kit and engines from a pair of S-3s.
This is getting a bit close to a project I've got in the planning stage. But I'm thinking of a shoulder wing 737 using four A-10 nacelles (same engine as the S-3s) as a military transport. I was a bit surprised to read that for both these aircraft, the engines are rated at a little bit more that 9000lbt, whereas the civilian version of it is rated at 17,000lbt
-
It could be built in 1/72 using the BPK kit and engines from a pair of S-3s.
This is getting a bit close to a project I've got in the planning stage. But I'm thinking of a shoulder wing 737 using four A-10 nacelles (same engine as the S-3s) as a military transport. I was a bit surprised to read that for both these aircraft, the engines are rated at a little bit more that 9000lbt, whereas the civilian version of it is rated at 17,000lbt
I don't think the US military ever had the real need, or cash, to develop uprated versions of the A-10 or S-3 engines. For what you are proposing, I could see an uprated version that fit the same envelope being developed as part of the transport design. For purposes of a tactical transport, the A-10 nacelle would be the preferred choice as it should have a lower IR signature than the S-3's nacelle.
-
All the following drawings are from a 17-page document on the origins of the 707. A local club member has been clearing out his file
boxes. I snagged this one.
;D
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-gkXSKN3/0/4e3110a1/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_01.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-7LVwjkj/0/330bbc42/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_02.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-TCFVX65/0/8d7a1c5f/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_03.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-67rZJ4v/0/374875ce/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_04.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-NLGT2Tt/0/afabbf60/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_05.png)
-
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-5wPz5SR/0/d712b3c2/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_06.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-LjztJtf/0/99be2047/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_07.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-rNWPjkD/0/a7045f75/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_08.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-PrGzP4F/0/6a7eb599/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_09.png)
(http://photos.smugmug.com/BTS/i-DnH3p42/0/d8f4f4cf/O/707_DEV_3-VIEW_10.png)
-
The first design, 473-12 reminds me of the Baade 152 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_152) The flying wing version is cool, too. Too bad we ended up with boring tubes with wings.
-
Thanks for sharing Jon. Some very cool designs. And some very ugly ones too!
-
If anybody wants the higher resolution PDF including the text (10MB), PM me your
email.
-
The first design, 473-12 reminds me of the Baade 152 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_152) The flying wing version is cool, too. Too bad we ended up with boring tubes with wings.
My thoughts exactly
-
Interesting tidbit I just came across: the RAAF for 6 B707-320C aircraft including a boom refuelling system suitable to support F-111s. They were also pushing the 707s as a C-130A replacement. Could be an interesting subtle whiff: a RAAF 707 but with added boom:
(https://www.ausairpower.net/HISTORICAL/Boeing-707-338C-A20-627-RAAF-1989-CKopp-4S.jpg)
-
What if a turboprop Boeing-707?
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/B-707_turboprop.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/5dd5aca4-75ad-43d9-8570-6332b8ee0438)
-
Carlos, a glass nose for the navigator and Aeroflot livery on the turboprop 707 would look good.
-
727-51
USAF SEA Night scheme, no national markings.
SAT operated.
1968.
-
Earlier Wedgetail layout, note the refueling probe and the position of the radar.
-
:smiley:
-
Interesting tidbit I just came across: the RAAF for 6 B707-320C aircraft including a boom refuelling system suitable to support F-111s. They were also pushing the 707s as a C-130A replacement. Could be an interesting subtle whiff: a RAAF 707 but with added boom:
(https://www.ausairpower.net/HISTORICAL/Boeing-707-338C-A20-627-RAAF-1989-CKopp-4S.jpg)
What timeframe are we talking here for the above Greg?
MAD
-
Interesting tidbit I just came across: the RAAF for 6 B707-320C aircraft including a boom refuelling system suitable to support F-111s. They were also pushing the 707s as a C-130A replacement. Could be an interesting subtle whiff: a RAAF 707 but with added boom:
(https://www.ausairpower.net/HISTORICAL/Boeing-707-338C-A20-627-RAAF-1989-CKopp-4S.jpg)
Interesting, I was aware of the F-4E/RF-4C/KC-135 proposal to replace the F-111C if the project was cancelled, but not this 707 one.
-
Errr...can't remember where I came across that info. Will need to do some digging.