'Here's One I've Never Heard Of - "Boeing Skyfox"...'

[Panther_99FS]

Apparently,
It was supposed to replace the T-33....

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2494/3759830746_4dac71b53f_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2657/3759830808_5b39d2acaa_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3759830700_f6fcd43c83_b.jpg

[Prowler1111]

No it was not supposed to replace the t-33 it was supposed to be a T-33 upgrade..see if you can spot the similarities....
Prowler

[jeansy]

going off looks, im tipping if was a animal it wouldve been put down,

one ugly looking thing

[N2056]

Based on what I found at Airliners.net it was a "what if" modified T-33 airframe built in 1987.

[Silver Fox]

Far simpler than the results might suggest!

You remove the T-Bird nose at the pressure bulkhead (it's bolted on), remove the tail at the disconnect, zero-time the wing and centre fuselage, convert the old intakes to fuel tanks and fair them into the new nose. A new aft section complete with mounts for two modern turbofans and sporting a T-tail finishes the conversion.

Canada briefly looked at nodding out T-Birds. The range of Smyfox was astounding, it was more fuel efficient and carried internal fuel equal to a T-Bird with tip tanks. The tip mounts remained and it could add those to let it make Continental hops.

Would have been useful... but nobody bit.

[Prowler1111]

Far simpler than the results might suggest!

You remove the T-Bird nose at the pressure bulkhead (it's bolted on), remove the tail at the disconnect, zero-time the wing and centre fuselage, convert the old intakes to fuel tanks and fair them into the new nose. A new aft section complete with mounts for two modern turbofans and sporting a T-tail finishes the conversion.

Canada briefly looked at nodding out T-Birds. The range of Smyfox was astounding, it was more fuel efficient and carried internal fuel equal to a T-Bird with tip tanks. The tip mounts remained and it could add those to let it make Continental hops.

Would have been useful... but nobody bit.
Exactly and it was kinda cheapo considering the offers back then, it was heavily merchandised in South America, and 2 countries actually showed real interest, Ecuador and Bolivia, but Ecuador stepped off and Bolivia (which by late 80´s still used F-86 as their main jet asset) simply couldn´t afford it, curiously enough, it ended up buying Canadair´s T-33´s and ultimately upgraded their fleet with "almost" a glass cockpit..needless to say, T-33´s are currently Bolivia´s main jet asset...
Prowler

[Flyboy208]

Looks like it has a Piper Aztec E nose !!! :naturesm:

[Javis]

It would suite a white eagle's head paint perfectly, that's quite a vicious beak there at the front... not a designer that went for looks.... :isadizzy: ( same one responsible for Boeing's entry in the JSF program, the X-32 ?.... talk about a beak.... :icon_eek: )

I remember a feature about the Skyfox in one of our dutch aviation mags a few decades ago. I believe it said something about it being 'a poor man's fighter plane to be... '

So, Ed, what about this then :

http://sectionf8.com/f86files/img399.jpg

Another derivative of the great T-33 that eventually bit the dust.... Pity really, always very much liked the looks of it as opposed to that of the Skyfox. :)

Cheers,
Jan

[3/7charlie]

The TV2 SeaStar, the carrier capable version of the T-33. And lets not forget the F-94 Starfire, another F-80/T-33 decendant.

[MisterKleen]

Yes, I have a copy of Flying Magazine from the 80's with a pirep on it. It was quite the performer.

[Gibbage]

The P-80/T-33 had a great life. A lot of T-33's are still in service today, some using there original compressor blades made back in 1940's! Remember, this is a jet that was made in the same time period as the Me-262 (1943) and went from paper, to first flight in 143 days. Considering how little experience the US had, it turned out to be a remarkable aircraft. Able to fight toe-2-toe with the Me-262 in about every way, and did it with 1 engine. Also, remember how I said some T-33's are still flying with its original compressor blades? Me-262 engine life was about 10 hours.

[Ian Warren]

PANTHER ... hells , long forgotten but now found :icon_lol: yup .. have the full rundown on this thing , MisterKleen love to see what you have on it

[deathfromafar]

Been quite a few years since I last saw this. Completely forgot about it. It had it's design merits for sure but too bad it never went anywhere. Looking at the performance stats, the numbers were pretty good. 2 Garrett TFE 731's, damn!

[Bjoern]

It would suite a white eagle's head paint perfectly, that's quite a vicious beak there at the front... not a designer that went for looks.... :isadizzy: ( same one responsible for Boeing's entry in the JSF program, the X-32 ?.... talk about a beak.... :icon_eek: )

I liked the X-32, since it looked way better than the (back then) X-35. The Boeing model had a certain meanness to it, while LM's proposal looks...well...wussy.



The P-80/T-33 had a great life. A lot of T-33's are still in service today, some using there original compressor blades made back in 1940's! Remember, this is a jet that was made in the same time period as the Me-262 (1943) and went from paper, to first flight in 143 days. Considering how little experience the US had, it turned out to be a remarkable aircraft. Able to fight toe-2-toe with the Me-262 in about every way, and did it with 1 engine. Also, remember how I said some T-33's are still flying with its original compressor blades? Me-262 engine life was about 10 hours.

- The Me-262 entered service when the P-80 only made its maiden flight.
- The powerplant of the Shooting Star was actually very british.
- The Jumo 004 of the -262 was intended for easy construction instead of engine life (war situation and stuff...).
- The Jumo 004 was intended for running on synthetic fuels and diesel
- Me-262 - P-80 comparison:

The USAAF compared the P-80 Shooting Star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-80_Shooting_Star) and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 907 kg (2,000 lb), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."

The P-80 was a good aircraft (and a big leap compared to the disappointing P-59), yet not really comparable to the Me-262.

[Panther_99FS]

The P-80 was a good aircraft (and a big leap compared to the disappointing P-59), yet not really comparable to the Me-262.


I agree Bjoern....:guinness: