Embraer's new KC-390 looks like it could fit the job, with mission gear installed.
Sorry to be so late but things have been distracting me from AH lately!Any chance of a VSTOL tactical transport aircraft entering widespread service by mid 70s ?
Bit of confusion here. The DO-31 was submitted to the NMBR-22 requirement, which was a modification of NMBR- 4. NMBR-4 was for a V/STOL transport, and though the committee selected 5 designs for further study, they basically came to the conclusion that joint production of a NATO transport was impracticable. NMBR-22 was then launched with the requirements widened. Dornier were not the only ones to submit. NMBR-4 had 25 submissions from 6 countries, at least some of which ended up in NMBR 22. Some of aircraft associated with the process are:Sorry to be so late but things have been distracting me from AH lately!
There was just such a project in the works in West Germany in the 1960s.
As you can see from the Wikipedia link provided, Dornier responded to a general NATO call for proposals--remarkably but perhaps in view of the outcome not surprisingly apparently no one else did. The bottom line was that it could be done but it cost a great deal. Perhaps if an American firm had responded they'd have the pockets to persist and then lobby Congress to approve funding the thing? The easiest ATL shortcut would be to have Dornier partner with such a firm. Another approach would be for a British firm to respond using Pegasus engines--or of course any company in any nation could have opted to procure Pegasus engines I guess.
the OP specified V/STOL, which means at least some vertical lift at zero ground speed capability, which narrows down the field.Bit of confusion here. The DO-31 was submitted to the NMBR-22 requirement, which was a modification of NMBR- 4. NMBR-4 was for a V/STOL transport, and though the committee selected 5 designs for further study, they basically came to the conclusion that joint production of a NATO transport was impracticable. NMBR-22 was then launched with the requirements widened. Dornier were not the only ones to submit. NMBR-4 had 25 submissions from 6 countries, at least some of which ended up in NMBR 22. Some of aircraft associated with the process are:
Breguet 941 -STOL, not VTOL. Marketed by Breguet to the French Airforce and McDonnel Douglas, who bought the license, in the US. No orders presented and only one prototype and 4 production aircraft were ever built
De Haviland Canada DHC-4 Cariboo - STOL as well. 150 some built for the US Army as a tactical transport, also operated by Australia, Canada, India, Malaysia and Spain, among others. Also found a niche in civilian transport in rough areas.
Ling-Temco-Vought XC-142- American Tilt Wing V/STOL. Five prototypes built but the three American services pulled out of the program one by one and the project was cancelled.
Armstrong-Whitworth AW.681. Jet V/STOL transport that actually won a similar contest in Britain but was killed by the 1957 white paper
Fiat G.222 - Twin Engine STOL Turboprop. When the NATO requirement fell through it was adopted by the Italian Airforce. It is still in service and over 100 have been sold to 9 other Airforce's around the world.
There were also about a dozen other designs from British companies submitted (it was a hard time in the British aircraft industry) with at least 3 just from English Electric. Some of these were STOL but others were V/STOL or could be converted to be.
This Potez is a nice tie-in with the English translation of the great "France Fights on/Fantastique Time Line(France Fights On)". The OTL Potez 63 series aircraft make some appearances there.View attachment 722761
The National Steel Car Company / Potez Nighthawk
In 1939, faced with the outbreak of war, France's Armee d'Air sought to procure aircraft from overseas, both to supplement France's own production and to provide fallback options in case French production lines were shut down by the conflict. One nation approached by the AdA was Canada.
The Canadian government and the National Steel Car Company, not to mention their brand-new Chief Engineer Elsie MacGill, were enthusiastic about the plan. The aircraft chosen for production was the Potez 635, equipped with Pratt and Whitney Twin Wasp Jr. engines to make North American production simpler. Production of the advanced aircraft proved challenging for the company, a newcomer to the aviation business, but with plenty of support from France the first flight of a Canadian-built Potez 635 had occurred by mid-1940.
The Fall of France meant that the AdA was no longer around to accept the National Steel Car Company production, but the RAF- desperate for modern combat aircraft- agreed to accept the already produced aircraft and a group coming off the production line until NSC could retool for a more British aircraft. Efforts to determine what to do with this sudden windfall of 635s, a heavy fighter that did not fit the RAF's doctrine and a reconnaissance / ground attack aircraft which had proved terribly vulnerable during the Battle of France, began immediately.
A proposal to use them in the night fighter role was vigorously supported by Bomber Command, who were looking for an alternative to the plan to use Bristol Blenheims as night fighters. An AI Mk. III radar set was therefore fitted to one of the NSC/Potez 635 aircraft, and although performance was negatively impacted, the aircraft was considered capable enough to have the handful of other airframes available also converted for the night fighter role. Ultimately, analysis has shown that their was little difference between the NSC 635 and the Bristol Blenheim in terms of performance as night fighters- the difficulties with the temperamental early airborne intercept radars proved more important than the minor differences in weapons fit and speed between the two aircraft.
A later proposal by National Steel Car to develop a NSC 635 Mk. III aircraft (the Potez name having generally been dropped in British and Canadian documentation by this time), intended as a tank buster using the Vickers S gun, as a competitor to the Hurricane Mk. IID , would ironically be the first airplane in the series to be officially called the "Nighthawk". For obvious reasons of operational security, the actual night fighters had not been officially referred to by that name.
Well, not many, but there were some:And in the long period between their question and today, no one responded with any of these options.
To try and answer your actual question. It’s technically possible. The issue is politics and economics. If you look at the NATO spec NMBR-4 and follow on NMBR-22 for S/VTOL transports they produced some really good designes and a few working aircraft still in service, like the DHC-4 Caribou and the Fiat G.222 (both STOL). All VTOL submissions were cancelled. Basically everyone went with C-130’s.
The problem is that when it comes down to it, VTOL is expensive for doubtful benefit. It was mostly driven by a fear of the destruction of airports in the event of WW3, leading to a need for disbursed basing. However, it quickly became doubtful that WW3 would leave any ability or need for transports and even disbursed these aircraft would need a strong supply chain to keep them active. And once you remove that requirement, a conventional transport can do what you need cheaper and easier.
Maybe in ussr could be useful in peacetime too given the terrain in Siberia
The Osprey didn't really come along until the 80's. Though I don't doubt the earlier tiltrotor designs were dug up for reference when the project started, it doesn't seem to have followed directly from the NMBR 4/22 designs.Only the Osprey emerged from this cluttered field of proposals, the vast majority of which for sensible enough reasons (in this flight regime; there were quite a few jump jet proposals some of which became operational more or less for fighters) bypassed jet lift.
AW.681 was, as was at least the de Haviland (later Hawker Siddley) 129:I don't think any of the other ones you listed used jet propulsion. As I said it is my goof that I somehow thought the OP meant jets, but I was willing and able to point out that even that extreme solution was taken seriously and actually flown by someone.
B-17 transformed into a gunship support aircraft in Korea and Vietnam?
It already had lots of place to fit MGs
Yeah but can you imagine flying and maneuvering something like that, that close to the ground? Also, what a target...
I know, but you still need to go low and slow and manouver; with such a large plane... well...Hammerbolt: Wrong kind of support aircraft Not the A-10 more like the AC-130 which would make sense given the use of converted C-47s and C-119s but...
I know, but you still need to go low and slow and manouver; with such a large plane... well...
But yeah by then any B-17 will be too worn out.
Can the 23mm dual cannons be mounted in nose and tail ( like soviet Cold War bombers)Thing was unlike the converted cargo aircraft the B-17 was built for, and very proven to be able to also take a licking while dishing it out so given the right circumstances I think it would have worked out quite well. But the issue is getting it to 'live' long enough to get there.
(Edit) Really the issue would be that the .50s would not cut it and you'd need to mount at least 20mm cannon instead to get any kind of actual utility. The cargo conversions worked out even though they used 7.62mm rifle rounds due to the amount of lead they put 'down-range' per second. The .50 out-ranges the 7.62 but the volume of fire, along with the 'fire-control' is vastly more limited.(/Edit)
I would say its likely a quickly drawn from memory based on something the artist thought was a commie jet but may well have been one of a dozen types deals. Basically the show runner said, "I want a sequence animated with some Ruskie jets" and the artists did their best from memory.
McBain is in C130 but are the “ commi nazis” in mig23 lookalikes ? Maybe mirage G ?
Yet another fictional Mig that didn’t get much media attention
Can the 23mm dual cannons be mounted in nose and tail ( like soviet Cold War bombers)
And maybe 2 50 cal in the ball turret and 2 50 cal in the waist on each side ?
Good?, Yes. Cheap? I'm afraid not:Does anyone know of any good sources for Austro-Hungarian aircraft of the first world war?
Ooh, well if I ever get a new computer (is it too late to opt out of this adult thing?) I know what's on the top of my priority list.Good?, Yes. Cheap? I'm afraid not:
Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft Of World War I: Grosz, Peter, Haddow, George, Schiemer, Peter: 9781891268052: Amazon.com: BooksAustro-Hungarian Army Aircraft Of World War I [Grosz, Peter, Haddow, George, Schiemer, Peter] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft Of World War Iwww.amazon.com