I've seen another shot of that one in which it has a negative dihedral. Not saying you're wrong just that somehow the impression got out there that it was negative.Orionblamblam said:And *where* did those side views come from?
Note: the Rockwell strategic bomber side view has errors. The main wings had positive dihedral.
Any chance of a higher res version of the 3-view of this proposal?flateric said:Boeing 1970s Faster Penetrator concept courtesy Matej Furda
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.Sentinel Chicken said: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'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.Skybolt said:Since it was hydrogen-fueled, maybe even Greens (well, part of, the H-tribe) would cheer.. 8)
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
Dennis R Jenkins & Tony R Landis
This book is PURE GOLD
Oooops, you're right. I confused it with with tis one:'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.