NationStates Jolt Archive

I am trying to develop a new aerial transport vehicle the “Bulldog (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/Alidor/Indigenous%20aircraft/Bulldog2.png)"
It would travel at around 0.8 to 0.9 Mach,
Have a crew of three or four (pilot, co-pilot and one/two crewman/men in cabin,
Be able to carry up to twenty combat load equipped troops or one light vehicle,
Have a range or 500+ miles/kilometres (whatever’s more realistic) and an operational time of four to five hours.

If someone could help me with specs and equipment please, it would be greatly appreciated.

Finally would this be acceptable as MT?

(Bulldog is a link to the picture, scroll down)

Based on what you say you want to do with it and the size you describe, you might want to check out stats for the Osprey aircraft somewhere online and use them to develop your specs.

Depending on measurements you can use the C-5 to. Though the back of the plane seems impractical and dangerous to me.

Thank you for your help and comments.

If you could get that for MT it would be revolutionary in war IMO.
Would it have paratrooper capabilities? (I imagine it would)

You're looking at a practical version of the Osprey.

Note: Don't use C-5, that is used for carrying multiple full size MBTs, not a single afv.

That's a pretty nice drawing, you can definitely make that modern tech. I can see the thrust engines and the lift engines, perfect. It would be lik a jet powered Osprey. I am sure it is doable and the tail isn't that bad to be honest, it's unconventional but it seems feasible. A pair of M134 7.62MM Miniguns would be awesome on the sides for defense as well. I would definitely give it some hardpoints, to carry rockets, incendiary, cluster, Mavericks, and close-range AAMs. Pretty ncie bud!

I don't know about the C-5 though, that's huge. I would definitely expand off the Osprey.

As for range and speed extrapolate from the Harrier.

It looks like a killer whale. (Compliment.)
I like the idea. It should definatly have paratrooper capabilities.

awsome pic, good job. just wondering if it will be for sale when finished, because i wouls like to buy some.

Hell I'd blow my budget on it. Transporting all my army around in that thing....

(OOC: I'll say it right now, those wings need just a little shaping up. They're a bit too small imo. I like the horiz. Stabilizers though. The dip down gives a nice effect. As for the specs of the plane, refer to the others posts so far.)

OOC:

Its a nice original design, and from what I know of aeronautical design, could well work. Incorporating some kind of mission-adaptive wing surfaces would give you plenty of extra lift and manouvrability, although it would make it slighlty post modern tech, around 2010. Your best would be a tilt-jet, much like a larger version of the Harrier, add some light armament, perhaps a 20-mm cannon pod with maybe two-fifty to three hundred shells, and hardpoints for Stingers and short range FFARs or anti-surface missiles.

Good design, if you wanted to go way into the feuture, look at the specs for the Pelican dropship, hell it looks like the pelican.

mmm...might I point out that you need something more in the way of the tail, ailerons, and flaps. The thing has wheels, so I will assume it is not vertical launch. In this case, you may well need to stick extra ailerons on the wings to ensure it can take off, and not get stuck on the runway. And flaps to slow it down upon landing. From the looks of the current tailplane, it could currently turn in midair, but with something of the motion of a rally car, back end sliding out as it goes round corners (ailerons on the wings should fix that). It also could probably do with a vertical tailplane, with a rudder, although I am not sure it is absolutely necessary for it to fly safely.

But not to downgrade your efforts. It's a good design imo otherwise, and nice work on the pic.

OOC:

Its a nice original design, and from what I know of aeronautical design, could well work. Incorporating some kind of mission-adaptive wing surfaces would give you plenty of extra lift and manouvrability, although it would make it slighlty post modern tech, around 2010. Your best would be a tilt-jet, much like a larger version of the Harrier, add some light armament, perhaps a 20-mm cannon pod with maybe two-fifty to three hundred shells, and hardpoints for Stingers and short range FFARs or anti-surface missiles.

Yeah his best bet would be to use a propulsion system like the F-35 JSF.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/jsf-lockmart-chart3.jpg

In this way he can have his two engines provide forward thrust and a pair of lift engines powered by a lift fan or pair of lift fans for vertical take off. It would allow him to take off with a good amount of load.

mmm...might I point out that you need something more in the way of the tail, ailerons, and flaps. The thing has wheels, so I will assume it is not vertical launch. In this case, you may well need to stick extra ailerons on the wings to ensure it can take off, and not get stuck on the runway. And flaps to slow it down upon landing. From the looks of the current tailplane, it could currently turn in midair, but with something of the motion of a rally car, back end sliding out as it goes round corners (ailerons on the wings should fix that). It also could probably do with a vertical tailplane, with a rudder, although I am not sure it is absolutely necessary for it to fly safely.

But not to downgrade your efforts. It's a good design imo otherwise, and nice work on the pic.

Perhaps he could run a pair of shafts down to the tail for thrusters? I mean you technically don't need any control surfaces on the tail, it's been done, but you do have a point. I am sure he anticipated flaps, alerons, or elevons, and the like on the wing but just didn't draw them as it gets tedious.

mmm...might I point out that you need something more in the way of the tail, ailerons, and flaps. The thing has wheels, so I will assume it is not vertical launch. In this case, you may well need to stick extra ailerons on the wings to ensure it can take off, and not get stuck on the runway. And flaps to slow it down upon landing. From the looks of the current tailplane, it could currently turn in midair, but with something of the motion of a rally car, back end sliding out as it goes round corners (ailerons on the wings should fix that). It also could probably do with a vertical tailplane, with a rudder, although I am not sure it is absolutely necessary for it to fly safely.

Good points, but a tilt-jet would still require wheels and wouldn't need flaps, and with a little technical jiggery-pokery and liberal use of adaptive profile wings, ailerons and spoilers would be obsolete, and ruddervators could be used in place of a vertical tail fin.

Yeah his best bet would be to use a propulsion system like the F-35 JSF.


Yeah, or he could use a system that'll let him take off, and wouldn't use an f-ing great clutch to hold it all together, like the Harrier / AV-8 Pegasus style engines.

Yeah, or he could use a system that'll let him take off, and wouldn't use an f-ing great clutch to hold it all together, like the Harrier / AV-8 Pegasus style engines.

Yeah well if he uses that F-35 system and takes the problems of the Harrier and the JSF in mind walla.

The use of 2 engines is good also because of their spacing it'll have a low IR signature. Make them non-afterburning turbofans and incorporate some cooling like on the B-2 and F-117 and the thing will be almost immune to ground-based MANPADS (serious threat to this type of a/c).

Perhaps he could run a pair of shafts down to the tail for thrusters? I mean you technically don't need any control surfaces on the tail, it's been done, but you do have a point. I am sure he anticipated flaps, alerons, or elevons, and the like on the wing but just didn't draw them as it gets tedious.

Could be done, that could work. I couldn't say which would be the more responsive, in truth, so your way may be better. As for the drawing, you have a point. I just figured they would be drawn on if they were present, as they are on the tail.

Good points, but a tilt-jet would still require wheels and wouldn't need flaps, and with a little technical jiggery-pokery and liberal use of adaptive profile wings, ailerons and spoilers would be obsolete, and ruddervators could be used in place of a vertical tail fin.

Also a good point. My reply, however, is that the jets appear to be fixed. If they appeared to have a rotation mechanism I would acknowledge that your comment had alleviated the problem behind the advise I gave. The thing is (and I hasten to add, I could be wrong) the jet does appear to be fixed in the wing.

Goodness people. Does it have to be V/TOL? The way this thing seems to be designed, along with its mission profile, and trying to keep this reasonably PMT, ST/VL, or Short takeoff and landing seems to suit the thing just fine.

Goodness people. Does it have to be V/TOL? The way this thing seems to be designed, along with its mission profile, and trying to keep this reasonably PMT, ST/VL, or Short takeoff and landing seems to suit the thing just fine.

That is the assumption I was going off. I image seems to reflect this, although I could be mistaken.

Goodness people. Does it have to be V/TOL? The way this thing seems to be designed, along with its mission profile, and trying to keep this reasonably PMT, ST/VL, or Short takeoff and landing seems to suit the thing just fine.

V/STOVL is what I am pointing out (Vertical/Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) capabilities. The vertical nozzles can be vectored from perhaps 45° to 100°. 45° will provide STOL and 90° will provide VTOVL. 100° will provide emergency stopping ability for hovering.

There is a cargo plane, the Japanese C-1, which is small but has good STOL capabilities. Perhaps its landing and take off runs should be used for the figures for this? The C-1 is probably about the same size as this appears to be.

Thanks, I understood what you meant by V/STOVL. ^_^ . I personally am just trying to stay a bit more over to the realistic side. When making a cargo plane, having V/TOL capabilities might be of some use in an emergency, but only if the aircraft has lost its main load.

I mean, we all know that it takes a lot of power to get a plane to take off vertically, so trying to make a plane , especially a cargo one, which will be loaded with all sorts of heavy loads a primarily V/TOL craft just doesn't make much sense. Although, I'm sure you know all this already too.

Thanks, I understood what you meant by V/STOVL. ^_^ . I personally am just trying to stay a bit more over to the realistic side. When making a cargo plane, having V/TOL capabilities might be of some use in an emergency, but only if the aircraft has lost its main load.

I mean, we all know that it takes a lot of power to get a plane to take off vertically, so trying to make a plane , especially a cargo one, which will be loaded with all sorts of heavy loads a primarily V/TOL craft just doesn't make much sense. Although, I'm sure you know all this already too.

I thought this as a troop carrier? I don't see it as a cargo plane. I mean I see it hanging a HMMWV or an APC underneath but that's about it. Maybe a few palettes of medical supplies but not heavy loads.

I thought this as a troop carrier? I don't see it as a cargo plane. I mean I see it hanging a HMMWV or an APC underneath but that's about it. Maybe a few palettes of medical supplies but not heavy loads.

Damn, your right. I forgot that along the way somewhere. This is more of a Chinook type thing. I kept picturing something like a C-130 type of plane... You can see where my distorted train of thought would lead me now I guess.

Thank you for your comments and help so far but to clarify the original idea for the bulldog – I was thinking of a VTOL aircraft for the insertion/recovery of special force and airborne soldiers as well as utility roles. In short if you think of a Blackhawk helicopter but with wings instead of a rotor, with the extra fuel load for vertical take off/landing and hovering being carried in the wings.
I think that I was a little too vague in my first post and, again with the new information would this be a feasible as an MT aircraft?

Thank you for your comments and help so far but to clarify the original idea for the bulldog – I was thinking of a VTOL aircraft for the insertion/recovery of special force and airborne soldiers as well as utility roles. In short if you think of a Blackhawk helicopter but with wings instead of a rotor, with the extra fuel load for vertical take off/landing and hovering being carried in the wings.
I think that I was a little too vague in my first post and, again with the new information would this be a feasible as an MT aircraft?

This would be MT, yes it would. And you can bet I might be buying some once you have specifications up. This is a PHENOMINAL DESIGN.

FYI, the only non-indigenous stuff I buy are tanks from Soviet Bloc so for me to buy something from someone else is pretty good. Pat yourself on the back, this is good!

Apart from me planning to use this name for the naval variant of my indiginous multirole fighter, I'd say this is a pretty good hauler. I was planning on making something like this, but never got around to thinking it through & applying a budget to it to justify it, so if this gets out I'll consider buying a few.

Same here, it is ag reat design, how many troops did you say this could carry?

I'd say 4 crew (2 pilots & 2 gunners) and then what 24 - 32 soldiers? I think that would be fine.

http://pma275.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm

This link might help with specs.

When it gonna be on the market?

hm inspiring plane design
*crawls off to design lair

it does remind me of a special operations type vehicle, usefull for getting there and back and dropping a small recon/assault force on the way. you could make a fire support model , like the mh-60, and the fire support (http://unx1.shsu.edu/~lib_kab/Pics/Mh60-1.jpg) version of that.

explosive round chain gun
auto cannon
hellfires
ffar
machine gun

hm inspiring plane design
*crawls off to design lair

it does remind me of a special operations type vehicle, usefull for getting there and back and dropping a small recon/assault force on the way. you could make a fire support model , like the mh-60, and the fire support (http://unx1.shsu.edu/~lib_kab/Pics/Mh60-1.jpg) version of that.

explosive round chain gun
auto cannon
hellfires
ffar
machine gun

The Black Hawk is a beast. Imagine those 4 wing pylons with 76x Hydra :). YOUCH!

I’ve had ago with the spec could someone have a look at them and tell me what they think.

MT-80 “Bulldog”

Design

The primary mission of the Bulldog VTOL transport is as a troop carrier and logistical support aircraft; however additional roles can include medical evacuation, search and rescue, command and control, armed escort and executive transport.

The MT-80 has excellent nap-of-the-earth flight capabilities and has the ability to absorb high-impact velocities. The crew seats and the landing gears are energy absorbent and the fuel system is crash resistant and self-sealing. The flight controls are ballistically hardened and the vehicle is equipped with redundant electric and hydraulic systems. Bulldog is resistant to small arms fire and most high-explosive, medium calibre (23mm) projectiles.

Cockpit

The Bulldog is equipped with armoured and digital avionics. The cockpit is equipped with night-vision compatible display. The cabin and the cockpit are NBC protected with a positive pressure filtered air system.

Weapons

The Bulldog has a chin mounted .50 calibre machine gun on a rotating mount. The mount is equipped with an infrared sensor, with three fields of view as well as digital optics and is controlled by the co-pilot through an integrated helmet.
The Bulldog has a unique gantry weapons system fixed to the cabin windows in which; when the vehicle is at high cruise speed the cabin windows are closed and the weapons are retracted into the cabin. When the Bulldog approaches its target area and slows to combat speeds the cabin windows can be opened and retracted into the cabin roof and the weapons mounts slid into place and clamped into the unique “snap-in” clamping system in less than a minute.

Each wing can be fitted with three weapons mounts (Missile and wing mounted weaponry are currently at the development stage due to several set backs) soon to be updated.

Cargo

The cabin provides accommodation for twenty four fully equipped troops or eight litters (stretcher patients) with a medical officer for medical evacuation missions.

The MT-80 can carry external loads of up to 9,000lbs (4,072kg) on the cargo hook – a 155mm howitzer for example.

Communications

The MT-80 is equipped with a voice and data communications suite including VHF, UHF, communications, Identification friend or foe (IFF) transponder, secure voice communications, satellite communications and an internal intercom system.

Engines

For its trial flights the bulldog is equipped with two Altis-Bronich AB-199-XA-2B ( http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/Alidor/Indigenous%20aircraft/Bulldogengineassembly1.png) engines providing a combined thrust of 58,000 lbs

Specifications for the MT-80 Bulldog

Crew – 4 (Pilot, co-pilot, 2 cabin crew)
Dimensions
Length – 17.25 metres
Width – 17.80 metres (wing tip to wing tip)
Height – 6.2 metres
Weights
Empty – 15,030kg
Max vertical take off – 23,251kg
Internal fuel – 7,500 litres
With external tanks – 10,500 litres
Cabin and cargo
Cabin length – 7 metres
Cabin width – 1.85 metres
Cabin height – 1.85 metres
Cabin provisions – 24 troops or 8 litters
Performance
At 2,000 feet – 510 km/h
At 20,000 feet – 903km/h
Range
Internal fuel – 1,800 miles
VTOL with 24 troops – 480 miles

Thanks for all the help so far,

Some critiques:

Cockpit: Is the cockpit armored as well or do you mean all glass as in the MFDs and the like.

Weapons: I'd say at least six hardpoints per wing in addition to the two door mounted things for rocket pods and/or air to ground missiles and maybe even Sidewinders and gun pods.

Cabin: I'd say beef that up to at least 24 soldiers inside.

Otherwise, looks good. What is the cost?

The cockpit is armoured I included the all glass part to convey good visibility for the pilots, perhaps I should change that part.

I've edited last post so it reads 24 troops, I need to look at weapons systems before I add the missiles to it and I was thinking of between $38-$40 million per unit as a cost

The cockpit is armoured I included the all glass part to convey good visibility for the pilots, perhaps I should change that part.

I've edited last post so it reads 24 troops, I need to look at weapons systems before I add the missiles to it and I was thinking of between $38-$40 million per unit as a cost

Not a bad asking price either!!! Good job! Yeah glass on the cockpit = easy shooting. An AK-47 will rip through that and there goes the AC. I would put an armored plate at the bottom so at least you can't be shot from the bottom while in hover and just put a camera underneath to see the ground and have that on an MFD. I would armor the whole pit and just keep visibility like a normal AC and use cameras and the like for when you are hovering, this way your pilots don't get shot out.

Also for weapons this would be a good loadout:

1 2 3 4 5 6 fuse 7 8 9 10 11 12

6 pylons per wing
1 & 12: Up to 2 AIM-9 each (800)
2 & 11: Up to 2 AIM-9 each, single 7-round rocket pod, 500 lb. bomb, triple Brimstone mount, gunpod (800)
3 & 10: Up to 2 AIM-9 each, single 7-round rocket pod, 500 lb. bomb, triple Brimstone mount, gunpod (800)
4 & 9: Single 19-round rocket pod, 1,000 lb. bomb, dual gunpod, triple Brimstone mount, AGM-65 Maverick, dual 7-round rocket pods (2,000)
5 & 8: Dual 19-round rocket pods, 2,000 lb. bomb, dual gunpod, triple Brimstone mount, AGM-65 Maverick, dual 7-round rocket pods, 370 gallon fuel tank (4,000)
6 & 7: Same as 5 & 8 (4,000)

You are looking at a weapons load of 12,400 lb., which isn't bad at all. You could really do some damage with that. That would allow you to provide Close Air Support for other craft.

Example: You have 6 aircraft all dropping 24 men each. The LZ is HOT!!! You go in with two of them and have them drop their men while four cover. Then two more go in and four cover. Then the last two go in and four cover. Then six egress and walla!!! Figure you will not even really need F/A-18s, helicopters, A-10s, F-16s, unless you are fighting something serious.

The rocket pods will take care of soft targets (vehicles, soldiers); the bombs will help clear trees and also work on soft, medium, or heavy targets (depending on the size); gunpods will allow you to do some damage to the soldiers on the ground and the soft targets; the Mavericks will let you take out armored vehicles and AAA emplacements; Brimstones are excellent anti-tank, anti-vehicle, anti-AAA, anti-SAM missiles and are basically a seriously improved Hellfire meant for aircraft carriage (US JCM works the same way). With that I would suggest using the European HMP-400 gunpod. It has a 12.7 x 99mm machine gun with 400 rounds. It's very impressive and mounted on the Tigre attack helicopter. Using the Brimstone will allow you even better firepower over a Maverick and they are lighter (50kg each) and are meant to be triple mounted. The Tornado carries 12 underneath the fuselage!!! They are fast missiles, very accurate, long-range, MMW guidance (fire and forget), and they can take out a single tank in one shot.

EDIT: Hell just thought of this. You could mount a pair of guns along the bottom fuselage to be forward firing. Perhaps you could use maybe the HMP-400 gun that is in there or an improved 12.7 x 99mm and that would do wonders for hovering, especially as you come to the ground. Being rushed? Just rotate and walla!!! 12.7 x 99mm rounds weigh a quarter of a pound. So seriously if you had 1,000 per weapon you're only looking at, between the 2,000 bullets, another 500 pounds!!! Add in two guns, M3P by FN each at 84 lb. That is only 668 more pounds. Check this out:

Empty: 33135
Max TO: 51230
Usable: 18085
Fuel: 13077
Usable: 5008
Weapons: 13068
Total to Add: 8060

That AINT bad!!!


Load up these on there and I guarantee you, you could raise the price to $50M and still be underpricing this!

Yeah, send me a telegram when those are up for sale from your nation. I'll buy some, I am looking to replace my Blackhawks and C130s. :)

Can't wait till it is up for sale.

Some stats I think we need are:

(1) engines (thrust) [when tba]
(2) ceiling
(3) wingspan

A couple Ideas,
1) engines, I'd probably go for High Bypass Turbofans, maybe around 20,000 lb class... and maybe one top engine for some thrust vectoring ducts....
2) Cieling: not too high unless you feel like pressurizing and de-pressurising every time you land, maybe around 25,000ft at most.
3) wingspan... Hrm... if we're goin off the osprey, maybe around 20 meters, possibly twentyfive with 6 weapons pylons..

A couple Ideas,
1) engines, I'd probably go for High Bypass Turbofans, maybe around 20,000 lb class... and maybe one top engine for some thrust vectoring ducts....
2) Cieling: not too high unless you feel like pressurizing and de-pressurising every time you land, maybe around 25,000ft at most.
3) wingspan... Hrm... if we're goin off the osprey, maybe around 20 meters, possibly twentyfive with 6 weapons pylons..

(1) Yeah high-bypass and a top would be a good idea.
(2) definitely no more than 25k because of that pressurization thing. hell above what 10k you need oxygen?
(3) more wing = more lift = more place for weapons

(1) Yeah high-bypass and a top would be a good idea.
(2) definitely no more than 25k because of that pressurization thing. hell above what 10k you need oxygen?
(3) more wing = more lift = more place for weapons

Hmmm, about that number 3 point. More wing span only means more bulk, and a harder to manage craft in V/TOL doesn't it?

How about making a specialized attack variant that has the larger wings.

It'd follow the JSF in terms of differing design details for differing missions.
(Navy has larger wings, the USAF version is simpler, etc.)

The one with smaller wings will be the Black Hawk type, and the larger wing version geared towards attack will have the larger wings.

...Or is this just a bad idea, and despite what I'd like to think, I actually know nothing about aircraft at all...

Hmmm, about that number 3 point. More wing span only means more bulk, and a harder to manage craft in V/TOL doesn't it?

How about making a specialized attack variant that has the larger wings.

It'd follow the JSF in terms of differing design details for differing missions.
(Navy has larger wings, the USAF version is simpler, etc.)

The one with smaller wings will be the Black Hawk type, and the larger wing version geared towards attack will have the larger wings.

...Or is this just a bad idea, and despite what I'd like to think, I actually know nothing about aircraft at all...

I thought more wing meant more lift.

Either way, a specialized attack variant would be good. What would be in the cabin though? I'd say though for the main version, it should not go unarmed. If I were making this I would, honestly, have a single version with all the weapons on it, the 24 people, etc.

I thought more wing meant more lift.

Either way, a specialized attack variant would be good. What would be in the cabin though? I'd say though for the main version, it should not go unarmed. If I were making this I would, honestly, have a single version with all the weapons on it, the 24 people, etc.
I was thinking when the plane is hovering...

Umm, I do have a question though, I think it was you who said earlier that this design was phenomenal. I guess I'm a bit blind, because I can't really see what's so fantastic about it. To me, this seems like every other jet propelled hover transport idea I've seen. I guess this means I haven't seen that many?

I was thinking when the plane is hovering...

Umm, I do have a question though, I think it was you who said earlier that this design was phenomenal. I guess I'm a bit blind, because I can't really see what's so fantastic about it. To me, this seems like every other jet propelled hover transport idea I've seen. I guess this means I haven't seen that many?

I have seen a lot. The drawing is very nice and the design shows a lot of promise. It makes the V-22 Osprey obsolete and it hasn't even entered service yet.

I have seen a lot. The drawing is very nice and the design shows a lot of promise. It makes the V-22 Osprey obsolete and it hasn't even entered service yet.

Ha, I agree with you there. I guess I see it now.

Ha, I agree with you there. I guess I see it now.

Indeed. I must have these in the ILM.

don't think most people have noticed, but I have had a tiltjet aircraft based off of the osprey a while ago... It's the TJ-44 I think... and that's where my knowledge comes from... though the third engine was an after thought i had... anyways, with a tilt-jet/rotor, the only RL one's wingspan is longer than the aircraft itself.

I've added a .50 cal turret gun to the chin of the bulldog and illustrated three other versions of the bulldog

the first one is the Bulldog TTT - Tactical Troop Transport
The second one is the Bulldog MV - MediVac
The third on is the Bulldog TKCGS - Tank Killer and Close in Ground Support
The Fourth one is the Bulldog DT - Diplomatic Transport

Ill work some more on the specs and it should be available for sale soon

Up dated the stats for now.
There on page three or here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9430280&postcount=35)

I’ve altered the Bulldog picture to show variable direction nozzles and a top nozzle for increased forward movement “Bulldog” (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/Alidor/Indigenous%20aircraft/XT80-B2.png)

Final specs to come tomorrow or later tonight (depends on the missus,LOL)

MT-80 “Bulldog”

To view the Bulldog click here (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/Alidor/Indigenous%20aircraft/XT80-B2.png)

Design

The primary mission of the Bulldog VTOL jet engine transport is as a troop carrier and logistical support aircraft; however additional roles can include medical evacuation, search and rescue, command and control, armed escort and executive transport.

The MT-80 has excellent nap-of-the-earth flight capabilities and has the ability to absorb high-impact velocities. The crew seats and the landing gears are energy absorbent and the fuel system is crash resistant and self-sealing. The flight controls are ballistically hardened and the vehicle is equipped with redundant electric and hydraulic systems. Bulldog is resistant to small arms fire and most high-explosive, medium calibre (23mm) projectiles.

Cockpit

The Bulldog is equipped with an armoured cockpit and digital avionics. The cockpit is equipped with night-vision compatible displays. The cabin and the cockpit are NBC protected with a positive pressure filtered air system.

Weapons

The Bulldog has a chin mounted .50 calibre machine gun on a rotating mount with 1,200 rounds. The mount is equipped with an infrared sensor, with three fields of view as well as digital optics and is controlled by the co-pilot through an integrated helmet.

The Bulldog has a unique gantry weapons system fixed to the cabin windows in which; when the vehicle is at high cruise speed the cabin windows are closed and the weapons are retracted into the cabin. When the Bulldog approaches its target area and slows to combat speeds the cabin windows can be opened and retracted into the roof and the weapons mounts slid into place and clamped into the unique “snap-in” clamping system in less than a minute.

The wing of the Bulldog can carry three weapons carrying mounts each, obviously with the inner mounts being able to carry the greater weights. The weights that each weapon mount can safely carry are,

Wing mounts 1 and 6 – up to 1.000 lbs
Wing mounts 2 and 5 – up to 1,500 lbs
Wing mounts 3 and 4 – up to 2,000 lbs

Cargo

The cabin provides accommodation for twenty fully equipped troops or eight litters (stretcher patients) with a medical officer for medical evacuation missions. When the Bulldog is configured for anti-tank missions the cabin can carry extra ammunition and/or personnel.

The MT-80 can carry external loads of up to 9,000lbs (4,072kg) on the cargo hook – a 155mm howitzer for example.

Communications

The MT-80 is equipped with a voice and data communications suite including VHF, UHF, communications, Identification friend or foe (IFF) transponder, secure voice communications, satellite communications and an internal intercom system.

Engines

For its trial flights the bulldog is equipped with two Altis-Bronich AB-199-XA-2B (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/Alidor/Indigenous%20aircraft/Bulldogengineassembly1.png) engines providing a combined thrust of 58,000 lbs, however due to a sever and terminal loss of power during test flights the engine lay out and design was radically altered to the Altis-Bronich AB-200-D-3-C (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/Alidor/Indigenous%20aircraft/Bulldogengineassembly3b.png) providing a combined output of 62,000lbs of thrust.


Specifications for the MT-80 Bulldog

Crew – 4 (Pilot, co-pilot, 2 cabin crew)
Dimensions
Length – 19.25 metres
Width – 17.4 metres
Height – 6.2 metres
Weights
Empty – 17,030kg
Max vertical take off – 27,251kg
Internal fuel – 7,500 litres
With external tanks – 10,500 litres
Cabin and cargo
Cabin length – 7 metres
Cabin width – 1.85 metres
Cabin height – 1.85 metres
Cabin provisions – up to 24 troops max or 8 litters
Performance
At 2,000 feet – 510 km/h
At 20,000 feet (service ceiling)– 903km/h
Range
Internal fuel – 1,800 miles
VTOL - with 20 troops – 480 miles
- With 24 troops – 390 miles
Cost
MT-80 Bulldog – 48.5 million USD

Ok I think thats everything done, its now up for sale.

HOORAH! Man what an aircraft. V-22 is nothing anymore!

A little problem the US Army found when developing the V-22, when tinkering with vectored thrustand "ducted fans"

If one of those engines die, you'll drop like a stone...

Helicopters and tilt-props have the advantage of "autogyroing" which allows it to glide, the V-22 also has a connected drive shaft so one engine may power both sides.

I suggest you run a recall and get the plane fixed up so that this won't happen, to those who have it:

Use at your own risk.

I am surprised that nobody has noticed this little gem of experiance, and to think, if this passes in the real world, all those brave test pilots would have died for nothing.

As for time frame:

Harrier was tinkered with since 1970 or so, pick up a Popular Mechanics, it went by a different name but looks exactly the same.

The V-22, well, that has had similar designs poppong out since 1965, nobody saw the advntage of a helicopter that could tip its prop, the reasons for its long R&D time is mostly political and for safety clearances. The FAA never liked the bird.