Author Topic: AWACS competitors  (Read 6798 times)

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
AWACS competitors
« on: November 21, 2012, 05:47:53 AM »
Found this over at Secret Projects. Includes DC-8 with camo, C-141, E-3 with the UFO, I mean dome on top of the tail.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2012, 06:21:34 AM by The Big Gimper »
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline jschmus

  • Aims to please.
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2012, 12:54:55 PM »
That E-3 with 8 TF-34s is tasty.
"Life isnít divided into genres. Itís a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."-Alan Moore

Offline Diamondback

  • SC
  • Head of the crew dog fan boy club
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2012, 01:39:21 PM »
IIRC, the reason the TF33 was selected as a J57 replacement on the B-52H was that at the time an 8xTF33-powered AWACS was being planned.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ‹ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2012, 03:01:51 PM »
IIRC, the reason the TF33 was selected as a J57 replacement on the B-52H was that at the time an 8xTF33-powered AWACS was being planned.
I'm afraid the B-52H predates AWACS by several years.  The last B-52H was constructed in 1964.  The replacement of the J57 by the TF33 was a natural since the TF33 is a faned version of the same basic core engine (civil equivalents are the JT3C for the J57 and the JT3D for the TF33).  The 8X TF34 arrangement was to allow a fuel-saving cruise on four engines while having all eight available for takeoff and landing.

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2012, 03:08:33 PM »
Turbopropped DC-7
Convair 880

kwyxdxLg5T

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ‹ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2012, 03:12:11 PM »
Turbopropped DC-7
Convair 880
Or do the P-3AEW rather earlier.  If you need more room, develop it from an Electra directly.  Mind you, neither, nor the DC-7, has as wide a cabin as the first generation jetliners but, on the other hand, they do have more comfortable cabins than the E-2 (speaking from experience, I've been in both E-2 and EP-3 cabins).

Offline Daryl J.

  • Assures us he rarely uses model glue in dentistry
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2012, 04:48:39 PM »
C-133 then.
kwyxdxLg5T

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2012, 10:49:41 PM »
I've had this idea of an EB-52, it would have a E-3 sized radome but not above the fuselage.  My idea is that the aircraft would fly at extreme altitude so to make the radome more effective it would hang out under the fuselage on a streamlined boom.  When on the ground the radome is stuck away in what was the bomb bay area so that the bottom of the radome is about flush with the bottom of the fuselage.  I did some 'match-up' of parts sometime ago and I don't see any real issues with the installation. The boom would be 'flyable', taking some design idea from the refueling booms of the C-135's. Instead of having a room full of operators and to save space inside the cabin, the whole system would be "real-time' data-linked to a ground operations room, something like how UAV's operate.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2012, 10:58:30 PM by kitnut617 »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2012, 02:11:00 AM »
Hmmm...take one E-3...add engines from B-52....
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2012, 02:45:33 AM »
Go fast or go home ...



Source: http://www.edwardsflighttest.com/b70.html
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 02:47:04 AM by The Big Gimper »
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • ‹ber Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2012, 03:51:50 AM »
I've had this idea of an EB-52, it would have a E-3 sized radome but not above the fuselage.  My idea is that the aircraft would fly at extreme altitude so to make the radome more effective it would hang out under the fuselage on a streamlined boom.  When on the ground the radome is stuck away in what was the bomb bay area so that the bottom of the radome is about flush with the bottom of the fuselage.  I did some 'match-up' of parts sometime ago and I don't see any real issues with the installation. The boom would be 'flyable', taking some design idea from the refueling booms of the C-135's. Instead of having a room full of operators and to save space inside the cabin, the whole system would be "real-time' data-linked to a ground operations room, something like how UAV's operate.
Why use a long  boom?  What you describe is very close to the installation of the "M&M" antenna and radome in the underside former "weapons bay" of the EP-3.  In use it deploys down just far enough to clear the bay and retracts for takeoffs and landing.  There's quite the hydraulic and drive set-up to do all that and it's actuated from a simple lever tucked into a corner of the pressure cabin.

Offline Diamondback

  • SC
  • Head of the crew dog fan boy club
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2012, 04:10:00 AM »
Evan, you're right--misremembered, it was the A-10 that had its engines chosen for commonality. (Pro experience burns things in pretty well, but one of the hazards of being a knowledgeable amateur is that if you spend too long away from the subject fragments of information start blending together in memory.)

And, IIRC, one of Dale Brown's mutant "Old Dog" B-52s in his novels had a radar mounted on its spine that gave it some AWACS capability, but it was an ISAR system, and probably an AESA rather than moving antenna--it was described as a wedge on top of the bird.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 04:23:41 AM by Diamondback »

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2012, 05:06:48 AM »
Oh man, I wonder how long it would take the engineers to rig the rotodome and its support struts for Mach 3  ;D
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2012, 06:39:43 AM »
I've had this idea of an EB-52, it would have a E-3 sized radome but not above the fuselage.  My idea is that the aircraft would fly at extreme altitude so to make the radome more effective it would hang out under the fuselage on a streamlined boom.  When on the ground the radome is stuck away in what was the bomb bay area so that the bottom of the radome is about flush with the bottom of the fuselage.  I did some 'match-up' of parts sometime ago and I don't see any real issues with the installation. The boom would be 'flyable', taking some design idea from the refueling booms of the C-135's. Instead of having a room full of operators and to save space inside the cabin, the whole system would be "real-time' data-linked to a ground operations room, something like how UAV's operate.
Why use a long  boom?  What you describe is very close to the installation of the "M&M" antenna and radome in the underside former "weapons bay" of the EP-3.  In use it deploys down just far enough to clear the bay and retracts for takeoffs and landing.  There's quite the hydraulic and drive set-up to do all that and it's actuated from a simple lever tucked into a corner of the pressure cabin.

That's interesting to know Evan, I was thinking that it had to be well clear of the fuselage like how the top mounted system is.

Offline Diamondback

  • SC
  • Head of the crew dog fan boy club
Re: AWACS competitors
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2012, 06:54:26 AM »
I'd suspect, since most of an AWACS radome's radiation is emitted downward, it's at least partially for crew safety--the high standoff above keeps the cabin out to minimum safe distance to avoid crew cooking, belly radomes don't have that problem.