Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paleo Conservative

would make one hell of a bomber


12 posted on 08/10/2005 7:43:01 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dila813
would make one hell of a bomber

Nope. Wing spars on a low-wing airframe are in the wrong location -- bombs have to fall through them. Thus the high-wing design of the B52. However, there were (are) designs for a 747-based cruise missile platform, which uses a rotary elevator and back-drop rails. Would much rather use an 737 based airframe instead, though -- those little pocket rockets are well stressed and way overpowered.

14 posted on 08/10/2005 8:21:10 PM PDT by HolgerDansk ("Oh Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: dila813

I don't think, that thought has been lost passed the minds of the Pentagon.


17 posted on 08/11/2005 2:57:14 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: dila813
No, it would NOT make one helluva bomber.

First of all, the fuselage is not designed to have the bottom open up. Most of the strenght of the fuselage is due to the stressed outer skin much the same way that a sealed 2 liter Coke bottle has strenght. Squeeze the sides of a 2 liter bottle and you will find you can hardly dimple it. If you want the belly to open up then you have to really beef up the interior ribs and stringers. Remove the cap from a 2 liter bottle then squeeze the sides and you will see what I mean. There have been 747s that have broken apart and crashed when their cargo doors were not closed properly and blew open in flight.

Second, for the bomb load you would have to remove the cabin floor, which in a passenger liner is basically the backbone of the aircraft. Removing the floor would require beefing up the ribs and stringers even more.

Third, the aircraft does not have self sealing tanks, attack and navigation radars, electronic and physical countermeasures, and is not capable of combat evasive maneuvers without ripping itself to pieces, especially if you've modified the fuselage for bombing. Adding all that crap to a 777 would eat up most of your payload capability.

It makes a good long range passenger liner and palletized freight hauler, but a piss poor bomber.

The B-2 can fly a 50,000 lb bomb load for 8,000 miles unrefueled. It is capable of mid-air refueling, and have made US-Afghanistan-US nonstop bombing runs.

Who needs a 777 bomber???
27 posted on 08/11/2005 10:04:26 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson