Skip to comments.
Boeing may use Antonov An-72 as platform for FCA bid
FlightInternational.com ^
| 20/01/2006
| STEPHEN TRIMBLE
Posted on 01/25/2006 10:28:11 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
To: martin_fierro
"NOW ISS SWIMWEAR! NOW ISS EEVENINKVEAR!" ROFLMAO! Those commercials were some of the funniest ever. Anybody know where I might find them to download?
41
posted on
01/26/2006 3:04:56 AM PST
by
Squint
Comment #42 Removed by Moderator
To: gridlock
You know. your C-295 looks a lot like the old Lockheed P-3 Orion.
Actually the CN-295 is a stretched CN-235
CN-235 ![](http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/5/71/517715.jpg)
CN-295
43
posted on
01/26/2006 4:47:00 AM PST
by
Oztrich Boy
(Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering)
To: Squint
Still, what does it say about the state of the U.S. aircraft industry when Boeing, the 800 lb. gorilla of the transport aircraft business, has to offer a Soviet-era aircraft to meet a government requirement? That the current U.S. military requirements are the same requirements the Russians were designing to for years?
Really, that's not being sarcastic. Engineering design is driven by user requirements. The U.S. military is placing increased emphasis on rapid theater movement under austere conditions as a force multiplier, thus the emphasis on STOL performance into unimproved fields with limited TALCE support. As it turns out, the Russians already have some experience in designing in these environments.
We could (and have, in the past) design a new aircraft to meet these requirements, but it does pay to consider existing (even foreign) designs which may meet the user requirements.
44
posted on
01/26/2006 5:28:38 AM PST
by
Jonah Hex
("How'd you get that scar, mister?" "Nicked myself shaving.")
To: Jonah Hex
You make some valid points.
45
posted on
01/26/2006 5:52:46 AM PST
by
Squint
To: martin_fierro
LOL! Sick minds think alike.
46
posted on
01/26/2006 5:56:15 AM PST
by
RckyRaCoCo
("When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk!")
To: Dashing Dasher
Them Russians sure build ugly airplanes! You forgot to add, "after copying our technology." [chuckle]
47
posted on
01/26/2006 5:56:59 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: null and void
Also, the exhaust over the wing gives additional lift; when you drop the flaps on that sucker (which are probably HUGE) it also gives downward thrust. That airplane probably has STOL performance.
48
posted on
01/26/2006 5:59:50 AM PST
by
Little Ray
(I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
To: Paleo Conservative
I'd like to see Americans top the AN-225.
To: martin_fierro
To: Squint
Still, what does it say about the state of the U.S. aircraft industry when Boeing, the 800 lb. gorilla of the transport aircraft business, has to offer a Soviet-era aircraft to meet a government requirement? That it is shaving a few bucks in order to win a contract?
51
posted on
01/26/2006 6:02:20 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: Fierce Allegiance
There is no way that thing can fly. Post all the photos you wish, I'll never believe it . . . they are all produced by the same folks who mocked-up our moon landings.
52
posted on
01/26/2006 6:04:55 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
To: Fierce Allegiance
I'd like to see Americans top the AN-225.That's one big airplane! It was built, I believe, to transport the never used Soviet space shuttle Buran.
53
posted on
01/26/2006 6:08:07 AM PST
by
Squint
To: 1rudeboy
Ok, yep sure!
I have a signed picture of Buzz Aldrin on the moon right over my shoulder, it must be a fake too.
To: Squint
It's now used for commerical heavy lift operations. History profiled it a few times on Modern Marvels, my favorite show.
To: Fierce Allegiance
I have it on good authority that the eagle is a prop.
56
posted on
01/26/2006 6:17:09 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
(I know it's early, but I'm kidding-around, folks.)
To: 1rudeboy
...the same folks who mocked-up our moon landings. What's sad is there are quite a few people out there who actually believe there is a vast conspiracy, with thousands of participants, covering up a 35 year old event.
57
posted on
01/26/2006 6:20:14 AM PST
by
Squint
To: Paleo Conservative
I seem to recall that early in the process of designing and bidding on the C-17, Boeing had an offering with the over-the-wing jet engines. Performance on short and unimproved runways was supposed to the reason for that design. The plane pictured looks like a standard aircraft with the OTW engines kludged on for experimental purposes. IMO. IRRC. YMMV.
58
posted on
01/26/2006 6:20:28 AM PST
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: hattend
Thank you! I did remember correctly!
59
posted on
01/26/2006 6:21:20 AM PST
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: Squint
We actually had at least one bona-fide sceptic on FR, but I no longer remember who it was.
60
posted on
01/26/2006 6:21:38 AM PST
by
1rudeboy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson