Here is another example taken from RAF Flying Review, February 1963:Apophenia said:Hesham, the earlier incarnations of the CL-84 had somewhat snubbier noses and PT6 engines rather than Lycoming T53s.
Sure. But I'm not finding time... I'm MAKING time. Usually means getting less sleep in the process... :-\fightingirish said:Maybe good members like Stargazer or hesham will find the time to do so...![]()
![]()
x2Jemiba said:Thanks Stéphane for accepting a sleepless night !
The USN did a bit of thinking in the 1970s of A2A helicopters including Sparrows on a Seasprite. Apparantly to shoot down incoming missiles. The CL-84 would have no problems carrying a fighter type radar with continuous wave (CW) illumination capability. Radar dishes as small as 24” diameter and as large as 48” (F-4B Phantom had a 32” diameter dish) were used to guide Sparrows.Jemiba said:Would mean,that the CL-84 would have been fitted with an Air-to-Air radar. What was the minimal radar suit to enable an aircraft to use Sparrows ?
There were plans to for an anti-ASM variant of a new build (lightweight) version of the Seasprite referred to as the SEALITE. Mission was referred to as CMD (Cruise Missile Defense). It was to be able to mount one or two AIM-7Es, along with a dedicated ECM/ESM suite, apparently.Abraham Gubler said:The USN did a bit of thinking in the 1970s of A2A helicopters including Sparrows on a Seasprite. Apparantly to shoot down incoming missiles. The CL-84 would have no problems carrying a fighter type radar with continuous wave (CW) illumination capability. Radar dishes as small as 24” diameter and as large as 48” (F-4B Phantom had a 32” diameter dish) were used to guide Sparrows.
You mean, huge Soviet antiship missiles such as the AS-6 Kingfish ? (of Red Storm rising fame :Apparantly to shoot down incoming missiles
elmayerle said:One combination I've always wondered about would be a tilt-wing with wingtip engines and prop-rotors. You wouldn't tilt the nacelle, but the whole wing. I could see this reducing loading in vertical modes and definitely simplifying the wiring and plumbing to the engine nacelles.
Stargazer2006 said:elmayerle said:One combination I've always wondered about would be a tilt-wing with wingtip engines and prop-rotors. You wouldn't tilt the nacelle, but the whole wing. I could see this reducing loading in vertical modes and definitely simplifying the wiring and plumbing to the engine nacelles.Isn't this exactly what the XC-142A was about, or am I misunderstanding your point?
The reason that configuration hasn't been demonstrated is that a tiltwing requires relatively high disc-loading propellers located along the wing to keep it from stalling in partial wing-borne flight. As a result, one of the tiltwing's shortcomings is an inability to make a low-power, steep descent because of wing stall. The relatively low disc loading tiltrotor, since it doesn't accelerate the air going through the rotor disc as much, can't keep the tilted wing from stalling over an even larger portion of the flight envelope. The tiltrotor pays a penalty relative to the downloading on the wing and doesn't have as high a top speed as the tiltwing. However, the lower disc loading of the tiltrotor offsets the download penalty relative to the tiltwing's hover performance so it is still more efficient in a hover. Roughly speaking, the tiltwing is a turboprop airplane that can hover, albeit not as efficiently as a tiltrotor and with some limitations on handling qualities. The tiltrotor is not as good an airplane as the tiltwing but closer to the helicopter in its hover capability. So far, the tradeoff of cruise speed and hover performance and handling qualities has favored the operational use of the tiltrotor. However, a case can be made that the tiltwing is more appropriate for a civil passenger-carrying application since only a brief hover would be required and it would be operating from hard surfaces.elmayerle said:No, the XC-142 still had propellers mounted on the wing. If you want a quick description of what I was suggesting, think of a V-22 where the entire wing, not the nacelles, tilts. Those big prop-rotors are rather more efficient in hover that a number of smaller propellers.
Pioneer said:Found this video interesting in regards to the proposed CH-84-1D attack variant & CH-84A AAFSS proposal!!
Mine too ... thanks!AeroFranz said:Fantastic! this made my day! ;D ;D ;D
Many thanks, Kagemusha!
Two other places on the forum actually!AeroFranz said:Such thing was given consideration. Canadair studied a tiltwing regional airliner, we have it somewhere else on the forum. The studies were pretty far along, Flight international even has a cutaway of it. Sorry, i can't remember the designation!
Wow, excellent stuff! Thx for sharing kagemusha!kagemusha said:A great document about the CL-84.
There's also a paragraph describing the McDonnell Model 175.
And details on the General Dynamics proposal for the OVX study, too.
http://documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-CanadairCL-84VSTOLhistory.pdf