Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Matt,
Your statement has some validity, but where would we be in the world of aeronautics if we didn't dream of new things and test those dreams? Now days, dreams can be tested on super computers, but in the mid 20th century, the only way to test an idea was to build the item and see if it worked. Granted, the XF-85 used up a lot of money for only a few hours of flying, but we certainly learned a lot in the process.
Darwin, O.F.
Yes, forget the concept and cancel the programGranted, the XF-85 used up a lot of money for only a few hours of flying, but we certainly learned a lot in the process.
or both!!!!Nobody questioned the BS factor of such a program? Either too much money in the Defense coffer or politicians listening to too many Beltway Bandit lobbyists.
A few hours of flying!?!
You don't understand procurement programs, yardbird.
This is not a program of a couple of engineers and a flight test pilot discussing an XF-85 Goblin hanger queen over a couple of beers. This is a soup to nuts development of mission profiles, B-36 modifications/ops modifications/training proviles, Goblin aircraft requirments specification, engineering fabrication... and God Almight a full up test program.
Nobody questioned the BS factor of such a program? Either too much money in the Defense coffer or politicians listening to too many Beltway Bandit lobbyists.
And all but the XB-70 went into production. BTW I could bet that at least some of the development costs you cite were absorbed by the contractor or at least initially2 hours and 19 minutes to be exact. The total cost of the program was $3,210,664 or $23,098.30 per minute. Yes, that is expensive, but what did the XB-70, SR-71, F-15, F-22, C-17, C-5 cost to develop on a per minute scale?
The XC-142 almost went into production - it was discovered that during hover the aircraft was shaking it self apart. NASA played with the last flyer until 1976. In actuality I would guess those programs might of helped the V-22 program, but as far as the Harrier - that came from a place far and separated from the likes of the XFV-1 or the X-13.Actually, I DO understand procurement as well as research and development.
Look back at the various aerospace programs throughout the history of manned aircraft. ie. The Lockheed XFV-1 and Convair XFY-1 Pogo combined with the Hiller XC-142, Ryan X-13 Vertijet and several other VTOL programs. Some people call these programs a failure because they did not achieve operational status. They did contribute very significantly to the development of VTOL/VSTOL airframes and culminated in the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8 Harrier and the Bell CV-22 Osprey. If the R&D folks had not pursued the concept, those two aircraft would never have existed.
While you have a point you also have to have some accountability especially in this day and age.Another example would be the various versions of the man-portable "jet pack", ala James Bond. Quite a bit of time, money and effort was expended on this also, before they finally admitted that it wasn't feasible. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained". If you don't pursue the dreams and ideas, you will stagnate and NEVER progress. When you DO pursue these dreams and ideas, some will work out and some won't. Unfortunately, we don't have a crystal ball to tell us ahead of time which programs fall into which category.
It was also a 1950s mentality that turned out to be unreasonable and expensive.Actually the B-36 was never involved in the program. There were no B-36 airframes available for test, so ONE B-29 was modified and used as the mother ship. As far as the F-85 being a "suicide" mission, that may very well be true. If they could hold off the Soviet interceptors for a short while and allow the bomber to reach it's target, then their mission was a success. Just about ALL of the manned bomber missions to the heart of the USSR would be suicide missions. That is part of the price of waging all out nuclear war.