Jennings Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 The RC-46B... A bit more floor space, if not quite as handsome compared to the RC-135... :) J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Litvyak Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 That looks a natural! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
parche Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Slap a Pinocchio nose one it and it'll work :) Cheers, Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pminer Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 The RC-46B... A bit more floor space, if not quite as handsome compared to the RC-135... :)/> J Yeah! The pinnocio nose! Thats what it needs Quote Link to post Share on other sites
I.Martin Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Looks Great!!. APPROVED :thumbsup:/> I.Martin Edited December 15, 2012 by I.Martin Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevan Vogler Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Looks just fine from here. No plane flies forever, RC-135 included. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share Posted December 15, 2012 She doesn't need the extended nose in that big old fuselage, and I've tried, and you just can't make a hog nose look good on a 767 :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
parche Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 The intent wasn't for it to look good :) Cheers, Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jay Chladek Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Interesting concept, although I figure whatever sensors are in the cheeks might get relocated to other areas on the fuselage given that I seem to recall reading that there are some issues with poking holes in the fuselage of some of these more modern airliners compared to how the old 135 airframes were manufactured (i.e. built to a little higher engineering tolerance in certain areas). The thing also potentially needs A LOT more small antennas on the bottom as the baseline 10 bird I looked at from the Offutt airshow this past summer was starting to look a bit like a porcupine down low. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
parche Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Agree with Jay on the added antennas. Was standing outside the other day when one taxied by and it looked like it was dragging a black picket fence underneath it. They are kind of a mess...but still a sweet bird (for beginning life as an airliner) Oh, and you should really change the artwork so that it is shown as the wing king with the cool tail band and unit awards, etc. Cheers, Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moose135 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) ...I seem to recall reading that there are some issues with poking holes in the fuselage of some of these more modern airliners compared to how the old 135 airframes were manufactured... I think that's more an issue with something like the 787 with CFRP fuselage. The 767 is a more conventional aluminum structure. Edited December 18, 2012 by Moose135 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 No plane flies forever, RC-135 included. Oh yeah? I bet the '135 will still be flying after you're (and I'm) dead. The youngest airplanes in the fleet will soon be 50, and there's no real end in sight for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
parche Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Oh yeah? I bet the '135 will still be flying after you're (and I'm) dead. The youngest airplanes in the fleet will soon be 50, and there's no real end in sight for them. Do I need to mention the B-52? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
boom175 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Hows about the RC-87??? The whole sinking airplane is made of Dielectric panels!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jay Chladek Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I think that's more an issue with something like the 787 with CFRP fuselage. The 767 is a more conventional aluminum structure. It can be a concern with aluminum as well depending on how the structure is designed. Putting holes in a panel can change its structural properties somewhat. Plus, the 135 fleet was built to a bit more conservative engineering standard than subsequent aircraft coming from Boeing, which is what made it a good airframe for grafting a whole bunch of antennas all over. Another issue an RC replacement might have is gross weight. Rivet Joints tend to land pretty hot because unlike a normal tanker that can haul up gas to pump it and returning home clean, an RC's weight lies in a lot of equipment. So when it comes in for landing, it is still a rather heavy airplane. Four engines also gives a bit of an extra margin of safety compared to two. Granted the newer generation high bypass turbofan engines are pretty powerful compared to 1960s or 70s vintage turbofans (although most of the active RC fleet now has CFM engines). But I hope it isn't a case where an engine out means the aircraft had enough power with one engine to get it to the crash site. But, there aren't all that many new build four engined airframes around anymore for such a conversion. Hmmm, I wonder what an RC based 747 airframe might look like? Call it an RC-25. Base it on a 747-400/800 airframe and it could certainly contain A LOT of ELINT gear inside of it (although one 747 based airframe can't be in multiple places at once). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RogerPF Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) x Edited December 18, 2012 by RogerPF Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevan Vogler Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Oh yeah? I bet the '135 will still be flying after you're (and I'm) dead. The youngest airplanes in the fleet will soon be 50, and there's no real end in sight for them. You're probably right, but that's still not forever. :lol: When the last whatever -135 gets parked at the boneyard, you can bet that the crew who flew it in will be flown home on a C-130. If any aircraft is a sure bet to still be flying when its design hits the century mark, the Herc is that aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 ...newer generation high bypass turbofan engines are pretty powerful compared to 1960s or 70s vintage turbofans I hate to break this to you, but the JT9D (aka PW4000) and CF6 on the 767 *are* 1960s technology engines. The TF33 turbofans that RC's flew with for decades were 1950s technology :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Captoveur Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 And all things considered, a 767 is a 1980s design. Newer electronics are lighter, the RC-46 would probably have considerable updates the RC-135s can't justify. Also, no engineer who values his career is going to make the thing too heavy to fly safely on 1 engine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.