Quote from: Diamondback on July 28, 2014, 11:38:23 AM

At least the Boeing SST would've used REAL, full-size seats...

IIRC Boeing never actually got around to building it, let alone flying it...........

If you've ever flown on an Andover,a shoehorn comes in handy for anyone over 5ft 10. I never got to fly on Concorde but I've been inside the ones flown by BA when I worked at Heathrow Airport. The ground support crew gave tall tales of the putty melting around the windows and the floor plates moving. Still an impressive aircraft.
As to the BAe Nimrod, that too was crampt. Walking down the aisle was a sideways affair, knees got in the way. A heavy beast to fly, great at making toasted bacon sandwiches. If I wasn't tripping over the refueling hose fitted to the early Mk2 Ps. Yes it was fast when new,but this was reduced to 320-350 knots in transit.Flying a typical 8 hour mission. There was a lot of BOAC fittings carried over. I managed to get five flights whilst I was in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

Had an old boss who flew Concorde NY to LHR the day after the "Big Storm" in the South East. Loads of customers hadn't made flights out to the US so she was half empty and British Steel being good customers they put him on it instead of his scheduled flight.

He remarked on how cramped the seats were rather than small. He was quite tall and he said his upper body had to bend with the airframe. Plus by the flights end his shoulder was rather warm as he had a window seat.

Having said that he reckoned it was one of the most amazing experiences of his life, and yes he applauded when she hit Mach 1 

Quote from: NARSES2 on July 29, 2014, 06:19:04 AM
Had an old boss who flew Concorde NY to LHR the day after the "Big Storm" in the South East. Loads of customers hadn't made flights out to the US so she was half empty and British Steel being good customers they put him on it instead of his scheduled flight.

He remarked on how cramped the seats were rather than small. He was quite tall and he said his upper body had to bend with the airframe. Plus by the flights end his shoulder was rather warm as he had a window seat.

Having said that he reckoned it was one of the most amazing experiences of his life, and yes he applauded when she hit Mach 1 

One of my co-workers has a twin brother who is an airframe Engineer for BA.  I met him when he visited my co-worker.  He worked on Concorde for 10 years before they retired it. When I heard, I asked him if he'd been supersonic in it and he smiled and said, "a few times."  He said it was an experience he wasn't likely to forget.   I've been meaning to pump him for more info about some of the myths about the aircraft but never got around to it.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 28, 2014, 09:43:02 AM

Quote from: Mossie on July 28, 2014, 08:35:02 AM
Concorde B would have removed the reheat.  Airframe improvements, plus some tinkering with the engine and extra sound proofing would have given more power with much less noise.  Any further Concordes ordered after the original 17 that flew would have received these upgrades.
http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html

Well yes, but now we're entering into the world of full size Whiffery, and as Concorde B never got further than a paper exercise the US couldn't have bought it.

So???

Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 29, 2014, 12:48:37 AM

Quote from: Diamondback on July 28, 2014, 11:38:23 AM

At least the Boeing SST would've used REAL, full-size seats...

IIRC Boeing never actually got around to building it, let alone flying it...........

What's left of the mockup was moved here to Everett a few months back, I need to
run over and take a look. It's at the Museum of Flight's Restoration Center at Paine Field.
I wonder if they put it next to their Comet 4C. 

Reading through my big pile of '60s-early '70s AvWeeks it's clear that the biggest issue
was money, Boeing and P&W were ready to build, airlines were ready to buy but none
were willing to commit without the government subsidizing the whole project; design,
construction and purchase. Wasn't gonna happen.

LOL Brad....too funny !

USAF Concorde would be a neat whif I've never really thought of....

Quote from: Captain Canada on July 29, 2014, 03:13:47 PM
LOL Brad....too funny !

USAF Concorde would be a neat whif I've never really thought of....

Well, Eisenhower got embarrassed when Khrushchev showed up in London in a Tu-104, and all Ike had was one of the Columbines.  A SAM 28000 Boeing 2707 would have truly one up'd the Russians.

The US funded a Tu-144, I think it was linked to NASA.

Quote from: McColm on July 29, 2014, 04:13:08 PM
The US funded a Tu-144, I think it was linked to NASA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-144#Use_by_NASA

QuoteIn the early 1990s, a wealthy businesswoman, Judith DePaul, and her company IBP Aerospace negotiated an agreement with Tupolev, NASA, Rockwell and later Boeing. They offered a Tu-144 as a testbed for its High Speed Commercial Research program, intended to design a second-generation supersonic jetliner called the High Speed Civil Transport. In 1995, Tu-144D No. 77114 (with only 82.5 hours of flight time) was taken out of storage and after extensive modification at a cost of US$350 million, designated the Tu-144LL (where LL is a Russian abbreviation for Flying Laboratory, Russian: Letayuschaya Laboratoriya, Летающая Лаборатория). The aircraft made a total of 27 flights during 1996 and 1997. Though regarded as a technical success, the project was cancelled for lack of funding in 1999.[/url]

It was after the Cold War ended, and then only 27 flights as a research testbed.

Thanks.

Re visiting old post and have come around to the practicality of the following

Quote from: Logan Hartke on July 26, 2014, 09:29:03 AM

The early adoption of the Puma helicopter would have given commonality with the rest of NATO and eliminated the need for the CH-46 Sea Knight and later Blackhawk, though that's a fine helicopter, as well.


Cheers,

Logan

I'm thinking a 'modified' [foldable rotors and folding tail boom] SA 330 Puma would have a smaller deck spotting factor than a CH-46 Sea Knight.🤔
What's the external lift capability of the SA 330 vs the CH-46?

With the exception of the eliminating the need for the Blackhawk, for the Blackhawk in my opinion offered exceptional strategic air transportability the Puma and later Super Puma couldn't match.

MAD

The fact that the Blackhawk is in the running (as a very dark horse) to replace the UK's Pumas speaks volumes on this topic.

Specifications CH-46E Sea Knight
(Data from The International Directory of Military Aircraft, 2002/2003, The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft : Boeing Vertol Model 107 (H-46 Sea Knight), Encyclopedia of world military aircraft : Volume One)

General characteristics
    Crew: 5: two pilots, one crew chief, one aerial gunner/observer, one tail gunner
    Capacity:
        24 troops or
        15 stretchers and two attendants or
        7,000 lb (3,200 kg)
    Length: 44 ft 10 in (13.67 m) (fuselage)
            83 ft 4 in (25.40 m) (rotors turning)
    Height: 16 ft 9 in (5.11 m) to top of rear rotor head
    Empty weight: 15,537 lb (7,047 kg)
    Gross weight: 24,300 lb (11,022 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 24,300 lb (11,022 kg)
    Fuel capacity: 350 US gal (290 imp gal; 1,300 l) internal
    Powerplant: 2 × General Electric T58-GE-16 turboshaft engines, 1,870 shp (1,390 kW) each
    Main rotor diameter: 2 × 50 ft (15 m)
    Main rotor area: 3,926.99 sq ft (364.829 m2)
    Rotor blade section: root: Boeing VR-7; tip: Boeing VR-8
Performance
    Maximum speed: 144 kn (166 mph, 267 km/h) at sea level
    Cruise speed: 143 kn (165 mph, 265 km/h) maximum at sea level
    Range: 550 nmi (630 mi, 1,020 km) with 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) payload
    Ferry range: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,100 km)
    Service ceiling: 17,000 ft (5,200 m)
    Hover ceiling IGE: 9,500 ft (2,900 m)
    Hover ceiling OGE: 5,750 ft (1,750 m)
    Rate of climb: 1,715 ft/min (8.71 m/s)
    Disk loading: 4.43 lb/sq ft (21.6 kg/m2)
    Power/mass: 0.215 hp/lb (0.353 kW/kg)
Armament
    Guns: Two door-mounted 0.5 in (12.7 mm) GAU-15/A machine guns (optional), one ramp-mounted 7.62 mm (0.30 in) M240D machine gun (optional)


Specifications SA 330H Puma
(Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1976–77)

General characteristics
    Crew: 3
    Capacity: 16 passengers
    Length: 18.15 m (59 ft 6½ in)
    Rotor diameter: 15.00 m (49 ft 2½ in)
    Height: 5.14 m (16 ft 10½ in)
    Disc area: 177.0 m² (1,905 ft²)
    Empty weight: 3,536 kg (7,795 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 7,000 kg (15,430 lb)
    Powerplant: 2× Turbomeca Turmo IVC turboshafts, 1,175 kW (1,575 hp) each
Performance
    Never exceed speed: 273 km/h (147 knots, 169 mph)
    Maximum speed: 257 km/h (138 knots, 159 mph)
    Cruise speed: 248 km/h (134 knots, 154 mph) econ cruise
    Range: 580 km (313 nm, 360 mi)
    Service ceiling: 4,800 m (15,750 ft)
    Rate of climb: 7.1 m/s (1,400 ft/min)
Armament
    Guns: Coaxial 7.62 mm (0.30 in) machine guns, Side-firing 20 mm (0.787 in) cannon, Various others


Specifications AS332 L1 Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma
(Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1993–94)

General characteristics
    Crew: 2
    Capacity: 24 passengers plus attendant / 4,490 kg (9,899 lb)
    Length: 16.79 m (55 ft 1 in) fuselage
                18.7 m (61 ft) rotor turning
    Height: 4.97 m (16 ft 4 in)
    Empty weight: 4,660 kg (10,274 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: 9,150 kg (20,172 lb)
    Powerplant: 2 × Turbomeca Makila 1A1 turboshaft, 1,376 kW (1,845 hp) each
    Main rotor diameter: 16.2 m (53 ft 2 in)
    Main rotor area: 206.12 m2 (2,218.7 sq ft)
    Blade section: root: NACA 13112; tip: NACA 13106[112]
Performance
    Cruise speed: 277 km/h (172 mph, 150 kn) max,
                247 km/h (153 mph; 133 kn) econ.
    Never exceed speed: 327 km/h (203 mph, 177 kn)
    Range: 851 km (529 mi, 460 nmi)
    Service ceiling: 5,180 m (16,990 ft)
    Rate of climb: 7.4 m/s (1,460 ft/min)


Given that the Sea Knight design is of an age with the Puma & 35 years older than the Super Puma, it's holding its own rather well on the stat's above.

The key advantage/limitation of the Blackhawk is that it fits into a C-5 or C-17 without any serious dismantling, by virtue of it's rather low cabin height. To do the same thing with a Puma, you have to dismantle the rotor head. Mostly the Blackhawk design is a good compromise for a power that regularly deploys in force around the world. The biggest criticisms have come from medevac operators because the low cabin makes life difficult for medics. This is also why you don't see many civilian Blackhawks. The S-92 started life as, effectively, a tall-cabin Blackhawk to address this complaint for civvie users like offshore support companies, although it subsequently evolved into a complately different machine.

When it came out, the Bo105 was the only twin-engined helicopter in the 5-seat range and as such, was the 'high-end' option for many years. For the US to adopt it, an awful lot of Jet Rangers, OH-6s and Bell lobbyists would have had to bite the dust though. Of course the Bo105's descendent, the EC145, has now been adopted by the US Army as the UH-72A Lakota.

I doubt whether the Lynx couold have flown the same missions as the Seasprite. The USN concept of small helicopter ops was very different to the RN one at the time, the helo being seen (under LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System 1) as a flying extension of the ship's weapon system, equipped with sonobuoys to carry out limited searches and a continuous data link. The RN's MATCH (Manned Anti-submarine Torpedo-Carrying Helicopter) concept, by contrast, simply saw the helo as a weapon-delivery platform which only localised a detection using MAD and smoke floats rather than making that detection in the first place (it's worth pointing out that RN Lynxes never had the lightweight dipping sonars that some export versions had). I doubt whether the Lynx would have been able to carry the Seasprite's avionics and sonobuoy outfit (interesting whiff though...)

The Lynx didn't do MATCH significantly better than the Wasp, but what it did a WHOLE lot better was the anti-FAC role, since it had more speed, more range, a radar and Sea Skua. This was very relevent to smaller navies whose warships would be more exposed to FAC attack, but less so to the USN whose task-forces could call on organic fixed-wing recce and strike aircraft to massacre FACs at a comfortable distance.

The Army Lynx would have made another classy and capable replacement for the Jet Ranger and early, short-body Huey, but it would have been signifcantly more expensive, plus there's the eternal problem of lobbying and NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome in US politics.