Sud-Est Grognard

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 04/22/2015 at 09:53 • Filed to: planelopnik, planelopnik history, planes you've (probably) never heard of

3

19

From the Planes You’ve (Probably) Never Heard Of Department of Planelopnik, we bring you the Sud-Est Grognard.

The Grognard (“Grumbler,” the nickname of a soldier in Napoleon’s Old Guard) was developed for low-level ground attack for the French Armée de l’Air. It featured two engines in a stacked configuration, fed by a single dorsal air intake. First flown in 1950, the Grognard went through some significant redesigns, but was retired in 1952.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 10:09

0

Grognard has also been from time to time a term in the D&D/tabletop gaming community for an oldster playing games who favors older systems and is rules-obsessive or otherwise a curmudgeon. Given that a lot of tabletop grows from military gaming, it’s not a surprise.

ttyymmnn > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/22/2015 at 10:19

1

Interesting. As I wrote this post, trying to keep it as short as possible, I at first only gave the translation as grumbler , but it means much more than just the sound so I left the explanation in. The ‘50s was such a fascinating era of jet aviation. It seems like the whole age was dominated by, “What would we happen if we did this ?”

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 10:25

1

This platform is a lot like the RAF Lightning in some basic respects, but less prosaic in setup. Much more experimental/thrown together and I suspect less functional in consequence. Although... the dorsal intake may have been an attempt to avoid the FOD issues that were already plaguing a number of US aircraft like the Douglas Skyknight.

Grindintosecond > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/22/2015 at 10:31

0

....D&D isn’t like it used to be.....

Grindintosecond > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 10:32

1

If they changed it to a straight wing, It might have worked better than hoped. I’m sure though, in the 50’s, that wouldn’t be allowed.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Grindintosecond 04/22/2015 at 10:34

0

I dunno, 5th/Next actually can be. Scalable rulesets with play options and no forced dependency on minis anymore... Unless you were trying to capture the Generic Grognard Sentiment, and if so, I salute you.

ttyymmnn > Grindintosecond 04/22/2015 at 10:36

0

It looks like in the later edition they straightened the wing a bit. But yeah, the ‘50s were all about swept wings (mostly).

Grindintosecond > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/22/2015 at 10:38

0

*boink!* glad you saw that. Thank’s for the salute.

ttyymmnn > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/22/2015 at 10:39

0

It also wasn’t the last time somebody tried a dorsal intake. Eh, who needs rearward visibility?

Grindintosecond > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 10:41

0

oh, and supersonic! Hmm....ground attack. Excellent idea,but can it break the sound barrier? Because that’s what matters most!

I am willing to bet that if someone designed the A-10 back in 1952, it would get cancelled because it didn’t have swing wing and supersonic speeds.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 10:46

1

Things were so bad with the Skyknights the Marines had on bad airfields, they actually experimented with screens over the inlets - can you imagine? They weren’t much good for carrier use either due to issues with setting the teak decking on fire, IIRC.

ttyymmnn > Grindintosecond 04/22/2015 at 10:58

0

They didn’t need the A-10. They had the Skyraider. But I get your point.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 11:51

0

Any idea how many planes flew with dorsal intakes? It can’t have been that many due to their maneuvering limitations. Really outside of FOD I can’t think of any benefits to a dorsal intake.

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 04/22/2015 at 12:06

0

The XF-107 comes to mind immediately. The Avro 707 had a dorsal intake. The 707 was actually a 1/3 scale copy of the Vulcan. None others come to might right away.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 13:15

1

For a bomber or transport it makes a fair amount of sense. The problem with putting a dorsal intake on a fighter is that high alpha maneuvers take air out of the intake because it ends up being shielded by the nose of the airplane. The Avro reminded me of the B-2 and F-117. Not exactly dorsal intakes, but both are above the wing for stealth purposes. The F-117 keeps them pretty close to the leading edge, likely to maintain some semblance of ability to pull high alpha maneuvers, but the B-2 has them way back from the leading edge for optimal stealth.

ttyymmnn > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 04/22/2015 at 13:21

0

Interesting. I figured it had something to do with air flow, or lack thereof, but didn’t know the specifics of it.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > ttyymmnn 04/22/2015 at 13:27

2

Turbine discs are excellent radar reflectors. The F-117 has screens over the intake that reflect the radar away from the turbines. The B-2 has them buried so far in the wings and the inlet is designed to keep radar away from the turbines without the need for screens.

user314 > Grindintosecond 04/22/2015 at 13:59

0

Why do you think the Air Force is still trying to rid of them?

Grindintosecond > user314 04/23/2015 at 13:33

0

A friend of min in the Army (PR work) tells me it really is all about a pissing contest. Who can have the coolest stuff in all of the armed services. Example: The Army needs badly a two-engines smaller version of the C-130. It would fit quite well in forward small deployments that they do alot of. The project got approved for idea submissions. The Air Force fought to get the control of the airplane cause they’re the air force and they do the flying around these parts! So, they got the plane and then had the project cancelled because the C-17 and C-130 do the job just fine they say. And the Army doesn’t know what’s good for it....that’s how everyone thinks.

So, the A-10 is the ugly step-brother do the step-dad Air-Force. The Army and Marines love it and it’s awesome for them but it’s not a true multi-mission fighter so they hate it. The F-35, as a ground attack plane, will suck.

A tremendous book that will prove it is ‘BOYD’ by the man who brought you the F-16 and had to fight hard to get the ultimate gunslinging airplane. The same mathematics that brought it to us were used to design the perfect configuration of the...A-10....So, when applied, the formulas make sense but the top brass wants to gold plate everything with multi-mission ability and swing wings and supersonic speeds the actual solution has no use for. Example? The origional F-16 prototype will kick the ass of a modern freshly built F-16....cause they gold-plated it and never added wing area to compensate for the weight....so the old F-16 will win. BOYD proved that the perfect solution isn’t a swiss-army-knife..its bulky and heavy and complicated to repair. A simple knife for the goal is the only way.

The F-35 will be a maintenance nightmare when deployed. The fan has clutches, and covers to unfold and the tail has a huge twist function...the harrier didn’t have any of those things and is quite simplistic, just not supersonic...oh my god no supersonics? get rid of it. Its not cool enough.

Also, theres the heads of the Defense committee who have to think about the industry they can shovel money to in their home states....or states of people who give them money for their campaigns. Keep in mind the lobbyists spend more money on congress than the Government does.