Message posted by Mark Lincoln on July 30, 2011 at 7:27:37 PST:
Over 50 years watching the circus has left me a bit cynical. There are always those who have favorite aircraft that think they was stiffed. I have a great empathy for the aerodynamic purity of the flying wing. The problem with the flying wing was Northrop blew the development of the XB-35 due to dispersing it's design talent upon lots of trivial contracts (XP-56, 79, JB-10, etc. When the government provided gear box for the B-35 proved defective, the delay was terminal. By the time the B-49 was flying there were two things which mitigated against it's production. First was the thick wing which limited mach number and second was it's inability to carry a Mk-III, Mk-IV or the projected MK-VI atomic bombs. The aircraft was in competition not with the B-36, or even B-50, but the B-47 which had astounding performance which the B-49 could never match. The Arrow (CF-105) was way, way, over budget and the new Conservative Prime Minister, Diefenbacher was privy to information (U-2) which proved there was no 'Bomber Gap' that needed to be shot down. As magnificent as the CF-105 was, there was no job for it to perform. I remember reading the announcement of cancellation in Av Leak. I was one very disappointed kid. Many other such examples exist. F-107 'better' than the F-105? The airplane was required to sit ramp alert in in winter. The F-105 could hold the Mk-28IN or Mk-57 in a climate controlled bomb-bay, while the F-107 had only semi-recessed external carry. We are facing something like - or deeper than - the Eisenhower defense cuts. We cannot afford aircraft that come in below specification, a decade late and at 2-3 times anticipated costs anymore.
In Reply to: Re: Edwards History video for August posted by Andre' M. Dall'au on July 29, 2011 at 3:52:29 PST:
Replies: