To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 6407
6406  |  6408
Subject: 
Re: Secret Agent Theme for 2001? (was: Re: New S@H Catalog)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 8 Sep 2000 16:53:05 GMT
Viewed: 
866 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
Selçuk Göre <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote:
<CHOP OTHER STUFFE>

If you want to take photos or made some electronic survey, you may be
right about SR-71, but you don't need anymore since the effective use of
spy satellites. But if you want carry and drop something (human, etc.)
what can you do with a SR-71? Parachuting it while cruising at an
altitude around 100,000 feet, at a speed around 3.5 mach?..:-)

That could be a spectator sport, not unlike dropping large melons
from the rooftops of tall buildings.  "I believe it will land some-
where inside this 200-km circle..."

His logic is completely true here, since from the beginning of the
thread, since people here are talking about delivering something, not
surveying.

Not a better spy plane, but way better spy carrying plane, I
suppose..:-)

...When I used to work for an airport maintenance service, my boss
commented that the CIA really liked using little Cessna like planes that had
an incredible lift to wingspan ratio and could fly at 35mph. I got to watch
one take off one day and it took off on a length of runway shorter than my
driveway. In terms of being able to drop into somewhere and get back out,
short of a helicopter, these little planes were perfect (and undoubtedly are
cheaper and more fuel efficient than a helicopter... and a good bit quieter).
A 50 foot clearing would be plenty to park one.

   In addition to needing V/STOL capability, any craft doing pickup
   and dropoff duties would need good time-over-target, something
   that jet aircraft don't have (both because of the speed and the
   fuel consumption / noise issues).  The most welcome sight for
   troops beleaguered under fire in Viet Nam was a "Spooky" (C-47
   gunship mod) or an AH-1 Skyraider, because unlike the Thuds or
   B-52s, they might stick around and would carry the ordinance to
   make that time good.  Of course, helicopters were even more
   welcome, but until helicopter gunships became relatively common
   piston-engined planes carried the load for close-support.  (Even
   the A-10 can't perform quite the same duties.)

   But as to the light aircraft, they can be extremely quiet--the
   exploits of the Fi-56/156 and its derivatives (the German Storch)
   are legendary, including putting down on a mountaintop to rescue
   Mussolini from prison.  Supposedly the plane really needed only
   about 100m for takeoff and landing with a standard 2-person load.
   There is a suggestion that for individual spy insertion, the CIA
   may have gone over to ultralight or microlight aircraft--they're
   cheap, can be made quiet easily, and best of all they have almost
   no radar cross-section.  What's more, you can disassemble them,
   and some varieties will take off in a stiff wind by themselves if
   you don't lash them down.

   Anyhow, my .geeky NLG 0.02.

   best

   LFB.nl



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Secret Agent Theme for 2001? (was: Re: New S@H Catalog)
 
Selçuk Göre <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote: <CHOP OTHER STUFFE> (...) ...When I used to work for an airport maintenance service, my boss commented that the CIA really liked using little Cessna like planes that had an incredible lift to wingspan (...) (24 years ago, 8-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

72 Messages in This Thread:



























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR