Register here

Author Topic: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies  (Read 34841 times)

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2006, 01:00:42 pm »
Leave the dirty job to bombs... or to drones with bombs. An aerial drone-carrier (again) loitering at 20.000 m, itself remotely controlled. On the same level of sensors and computer/communication, I'd consider the new explosives (hyper-termites, supercompressed and the like): a 50 kolos bomb could do the job of a half a ton one

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2006, 03:00:04 pm »
Some of those Boeing designs could still be viable today- given an environment with almost zero air threat (Afghanistan, Iraq) an efficient "bomb truck" loaded with LGBs and JDAMs could orbit in patrol areas "on call" to ground units that are engaged with insurgent forces. There is a recent article in the latest issue of AWST that talks about discussions at the Pentagon for a close-support aircraft more geared to COIN warfare than the current high-tech legacy systems in use. The article talks about smaller aircraft, but the current generation of sensors and precision weapons I see no reason right off hand why a larger "bomb truck" type aircraft couldn't do the job.

I think it's a bummer they didn't build 713-1-138.  Think super-sized B-52 with four twin-engine nacelles under each wing instead of two.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #32 on: August 24, 2006, 04:17:33 am »
Since it was hydrogen-fueled, maybe even Greens (well, part of, the H-tribe) would cheer.. 8)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2006, 08:26:28 am »
Since it was hydrogen-fueled, maybe even Greens (well, part of, the H-tribe) would cheer.. 8)

I'm about 99% certain 713-1-138 wasn't LH2 fueled and if it was it didn't carry very much because it didn't have the Goodyear-blimp look of most LH2 aircraft.  It simply looked like a scaled up B-52.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline frank

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 618
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2006, 09:13:25 am »

      I've never seen this 713-1-138. Did I miss a drawing or can someone post one?

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2006, 10:33:49 am »
Frank,

I can't post the picture because I get a warning about "file size is too big" even when it is only 88 Kb. So I'll email you a hi-res scan ;)

Cheers,

Antonio

Source:

Valkyrie
Dennis R Jenkins & Tony R Landis
Speciality Press
ISBN 1-58007-072-8

This book is PURE GOLD :P

Offline frank

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 618
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2006, 11:08:19 am »
     Thanks! However, if it's in the Valkyrie book, I'm pretty sure I have it in my stash at home. I can look it up then. I guess I haven't seen my copy in a couple of years.



Frank,

I can't post the picture because I get a warning about "file size is too big" even when it is only 88 Kb. So I'll email you a hi-res scan ;)

Cheers,

Antonio

Source:

Valkyrie
Dennis R Jenkins & Tony R Landis
Speciality Press
ISBN 1-58007-072-8

This book is PURE GOLD :P

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2006, 11:48:58 am »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2006, 02:03:24 am »
Quote
'm about 99% certain 713-1-138 wasn't LH2 fueled and if it was it didn't carry very much because it didn't have the Goodyear-blimp look of most LH2 aircraft.  It simply looked like a scaled up B-52.

Oooops, you're right. I confused it with with tis one:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=243.msg1444#msg1444

Anyway, not all the liquid hydrogen projects were blimp-like. Think ot he L-400 Suntan, or, in the WS-110A studies, the Boeing 725-101.
Talking of scaled-up B-52s, my favourite is 713-1-135.. almost zwilling...

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2006, 08:48:52 am »
Pometablava: see message above about image sizes.

The current web hosting has a memory limit on PHP code which causes problems with the thumbnail creation process if the pixel size and colour depth of the image combine to exceed the limits.

To minimise these problems:

1) Try not to exceed 1024 pixels in either dimension.
2) Save greyscale images as greyscale JPEGs not colour ones- they use less memory to resize then.

If your image is too large (say, 2000 x 1000), then even saving it as 5% quality for a 20kb file won't stop the error message.

Please note that, generally speaking, 1024 pixels is large enough for a reasonable quality image.

Paul.

"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2006, 09:10:15 am »
Paul,

Thanks a lot for the info. I'll fit my scans according to it.

Antonio

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2006, 09:25:48 pm »
Here's a cool Boeing design I ran across at the patent site, so I thought this would be the best place to post it.

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD231094

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2006, 06:30:20 am »
Ummm, smells AMSA related...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9697
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2009, 12:35:05 pm »
The Boeing ABC prop fan is the most interesting of the concepts. Is there a good source of information on the Boeing ABC prop fan concept? What was the advantage of the prop fan design over the jet engine powered designs?

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies
« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2009, 01:19:05 pm »
Lower infra, lower noise, better fuel efficiency and thus range... However with the important negative effect on the RCS.

Bizarre aviation expert.