Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Mislovrit]

Iirc weren't the 40mm BOFORS cannons and ammunition WWII vintage?

[Skull Leader]

Iirc weren't the 40mm BOFORS cannons and ammunition WWII vintage?

389783[/snapback]

AND the 105s.....

obviously the 40mms in use today are newer vintage, but during vietnam, there was still plenty of weaponry (and soldiers) from WWII fighting.

[David Hingtgen]

Every C-130 pilot I've seen comment has hated the J. They consider them inferior and that Lockheed basically F-d up the entire design forever, eliminating a lot of things the C-130 is known for. A LOT of operators/countries really want H's etc, or even to rebuild A's and B's! They do NOT want the J as it will no longer fulfill a lot of the roles they bought the 130 for in the first place.

[Knight26]

Who is telling you this DH, most pilots I have talked to have universally liked the J and the AMP once they started flying them. I know there were a lot of misgivings at first because of some initial design problems, but those have since been resolved.

[Skull Leader]

I've heard the same as Knight, David. I know the ILRP had serious issues, but in recent years has been pretty much hailed as the best variant out there.

[Phalanx]

OK I'm confused. Exactly how many variants of the C-130 are there? I know the AC-130 Spectre gunship, the British one used for weather tracking, the one the U.S Coast Guard uses the Fat Albert for the Blue Angels and that's just about it.

[Knight26]

Global Security to the rescue:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...t/c-130-var.htm

[David Hingtgen]

There are approximately 1 trillion C-130 variants, including all the unofficial mods and "doesn't official exist" non-variants in black paint.

The most outspoken "doesn't like the J" guy I know is one who flys the Spectre. His "Tales from Kandahar" are always interesting.

[Mislovrit]

The most outspoken "doesn't like the J" guy I know is one who flys the Spectre.  His "Tales from Kandahar" are always interesting.

389913[/snapback]

Could you throw us a bone and list some or all of the problems with the C-130J?

[David Hingtgen]

I'll try to remember what I could--the site he usually posts (and that I go to) has like a 3-week limit for searching for old posts, so I couldn't find anything he said earlier. But I certainly recall him (and several other people) disliking the J quite a lot, mainly because I was quite shocked that they did---I thought the J was supposed to be a lot better.

I know there's an issue with field performance for some reason (basically I think they consider the new powerplant installation inferior for STOL), and the one thing I really specifically recall was with the electronics---basically, the computer demands the plane be 100% serviceable to fly---it won't let the tiniest thing "go".

There was a report I think of something like the toilet's exterior vent door was open,(pretty close to inconsequential) and the computer knew it, and refused to let the plane take off----when they were trying to get the hell out of there while under fire. Sure it might have created a minor pressurization problem or something, but not nearly as bad as getting shot at on the ground.

Basically, the computer is so finicky that you can't jury-rig anything any more, and the plane has lost its ability to always fly no matter how bad things get.

But all of the above is just what I remember/gather from various posts from a few people, but mainly 1 or 2.

[Skull Leader]

OK I'm confused. Exactly how many variants of the C-130 are there? I know the AC-130 Spectre gunship, the British one used for weather tracking, the one the U.S Coast Guard uses the Fat Albert for the Blue Angels and that's just about it.

389857[/snapback]

Knight's post should cover most of it. It's worth noting on the standard cargo variants, that beyond a few minor things, all the variants pretty much look alike. Antennas will change from variant to variant, as will the engines in some cases. Except for A models, which had 3 bladed props, most variants have 4 bladed props. The new J models have 6 bladed props.

Once you get into the different prefixes, you encounter all KINDS of changes depending on the type. For example. the MC-130 special ops series (nicknamed "Combat Talons I & II depending on the variant) have unique noses molded to the aircraft. EC-130s (having various nicknames depending on the type) carry a great many different antennas on them. The british aren't the only one that use the C-130 for weather tracking. the USAF has a squadron of WC-130s for the same purpose. "Fat Albert" is used by the USMC, not the Coast Guard, but you are right that it's part of the Blue Angels team. It's actually a KC-130H (or is it still an E model? can't remember) which serves as both a refueller for the team in transit as well as a travelling workshop.

[Mislovrit]

Iirc weren't the 40mm BOFORS cannons and ammunition WWII vintage?

389783[/snapback]

AND the 105s.....

obviously the 40mms in use today are newer vintage, but during vietnam, there was still plenty of weaponry (and soldiers) from WWII fighting.

389785[/snapback]

I'm talking about AC-130s in 2005 and 2006 using the old 40mms.

[Skull Leader]

Iirc weren't the 40mm BOFORS cannons and ammunition WWII vintage?

389783[/snapback]

AND the 105s.....

obviously the 40mms in use today are newer vintage, but during vietnam, there was still plenty of weaponry (and soldiers) from WWII fighting.

389785[/snapback]

I'm talking about AC-130s in 2005 and 2006 using the old 40mms.

389940[/snapback]

The ones mounted now, so far as I know, are newer builds. I could be mistaken though.

[buddhafabio]

the"u" gunships have the AN/APQ-180 radar. but i think that this plane would be the perfect platform to display the AN/APG-77 offensive capabilities.

[Phalanx]

Knight 26, do you have any upcoming information about the X-36? I think it;s an interesting design and I've always wanted to learn more about the X-36 since I only know half of it's background

[Knight26]

Ah yes DH the Mission Computer and CIP problems that they WERE having. Those were problems in early blocks that even the pilots/engineers/FTEs here noted. To the best of my knowledge a lot of that has been fixed. I'm still surprised that Lockheed did that anyway, heck we can practically fly the C-17 with the wing falling off and all the MC will do is yell at us for it.

Phalanx: As for the X-36 the project is completed. Basically the X-36 was just an RPV used to study/experiment with tailless design concepts. IIRC it was counted as a very successful program, and the two planes are now in storage out here at NASA/DRYDEN. It was a very interesting design, too bad that it did not go full scale and is probably one of the prime reason why we see so many X-planes going unmanned now.

[Phalanx]

OK, well that's all I needed to know. When I saw the X-36 for the first time in 1999 and read more information about it just recently, I honestly assumed that NASA had designed the X-36 in conjunction with Lockheed as a means to experiment with transatmospheric flight capabilities for future fighter aircraft since NASA is an association for space related works. I thought that it would make a good design for NASA's new space shuttle but they already have a new shuttle design in the works; can't remember the name.

[Phalanx]

]OK, well that's all I needed to know. When I saw the X-36 for the first time in 1999 and read more information about it just recently, I honestly assumed that NASA had designed the X-36 in conjunction with Lockheed as a means to experiment with transatmospheric flight capabilities for future fighter aircraft since NASA is an association for space related works. I thought that it would make a good design for NASA's new space shuttle but they already have a new shuttle design in the works which is the X-33.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Phalanx

[Knight26]

Man you are behind the times Phalanx, the X-33 has been canned for a long time, too bad it was a nice design, loved that linear aerospike. Also NASA stands for the National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration, they still do a lot of aero work, not everything they do is space related.

[kalvasflam]

The funny thing is NASA just seem so screwed up from the outside, part of me wonders if it's just Congress slowing things up, or if it's in fact NASA that's bungling the job. The shuttle is going on 25 years at this point, and they have managed to do endless studies without having an actual replacement. Then they have all these little patches for the current shuttle.

The stupid ISS is still draining money like crazy, if NASA was a business, it would be bankrupt by now. I wish they end up with one or the other of the proposed new shuttle design and just move onto the next generation already. Right now, what they have is so inefficient and ineffective, that it's nothing more than a joke.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Basically, the computer is so finicky that you can't jury-rig anything any more, and the plane has lost its ability to always fly no matter how bad things get. 

389932[/snapback]

Going OT but thats the exact damn beef I am having with all the damned higher end cars (esp from Germany) now. Damned computers and electronics where you don't need em. WTF do I want an electronic parking brake for?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Anyone hear that NASA might be interested in F-14D's? I read it over at tomcatsunset.org. I say it'd be sweet! Hopefully they mod it with GE F1120 engines with TVC to see the affect or enhancements that TVC would bring to a swingwing bird. Hey they gave the ACTIV, F-16XL, Blackbird, and Crusader a new life as test planes, why not the supercat?

[Knight26]

Interesting idea Shin but the rear fuselage of the F-14 couldn't support TVEs without serious modification.

[Phalanx]

Shin, I DID remember hearing about that plan for NASA to retrofit F-14'S with large engines for transatmospheric flight research on some website but for NASA to use F-14D's for test planes no, but I really wish that they did with the tomcat. I really wonder what it would look like with canards and thrust vectoring nozzles like you say or even better a new wing design concept with FBW control systems. (ain't sayin that I hate the swing wing design). Also, thanx Knight 26 for correcting me about NASA's acronym and the work they do. I also didn't know that they canned the idea for the X-33 space shuttle a long time ago, so it looks like we gotta stick to the usual design.

P.S Shin, if you add TVC's to the F-14D we may get a bootleg VF-11!

[Knight26]

More then likely IF NASA gets an F-14 or two they will be used in the same way as their old F-111s, general testbeds for swing wing technologies. The current NASA F-111 have been used for a lot but most notably as morphing wing technology developers. AS for putting canards and TVEs on F-14s, sorry not going to happen. There is really no place to put the canards, except for maybe where the glove vanes are, but even then their use would likely prove impractical and of limited usability, unlike on the F-15. The F-14s design would just not welcome their installation. And no, you could not mount them on either side of the cockpit, they would interfere too much with airflow into the engines. As for TVEs, I have already stated that they would have to completely redesign and rebuild the aft end of the aircraft to put them in, possibly moving or removing the vertical and horizontal stabs in the process. Also, how would it be a bootleg V-11, more like a bastardized VF-0.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Knight26

[Phalanx]

Well Knight26, since the VF-11 has canards and if an F-14 had them too it would look like a bootleg VF-11 but then again when I think about it would look more like a VF-0 in terms of design aesthetics but that's your opinion and I greatly respect that but I don't want to start an argument about this so I'll just forget I ever said that.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Phalanx

[Knight26]

I didn't want to start an argument, i was just curious as to waht you meant, as even with canards it really wouldn't look like a VF-11 IMHO.

[Kin]

Lol I too can't see any ressemblance. My opinion is that it looks more like a sukhoi su30 and there is a version with canards.

Edited April 11, 2006 by Kin

[Skull Leader]

There WAS a NASA F-14A out at Dryden that DID have experimental deployable canards, but they were found to be pretty much useless. They were located on the nose just forward of the canopy (kind of under the windscreen). It was F-14A BuNo 157991. One of the original test airframes that was modified as a single-seat aircraft. It had the early glove-sealing plates, tall glove strakes, and a spin-chute dispenser on the beavertail. They had this airframe from 1979 to 1985.

They had a second tomcat out at Dryden in 1986 for a series of wing-sweep tests, using a different jet. The only modifications they made were to put some specialized plates on the wings that would make it easier to monitor airflow over the wings. This was F-14A BuNo 158613. Note the early, short gunport on the nose. This jet also had the interim beavertail with no dialectric panels..

Edited April 11, 2006 by Skull Leader

[Knight26]

Oh I remember that canarded F-14 now, IIRC the canards also created unfavorable vortex flow into the engine intakes, and pilots complained about visibility problems with them. The canards would have been most useful on landing, but becuase of their placement they also interfered with seeign the carrier deck, oops.

[Skull Leader]

Oh I remember that canarded F-14 now, IIRC the canards also created unfavorable vortex flow into the engine intakes, and pilots complained about visibility problems with them.  The canards would have been most useful on landing, but becuase of their placement they also interfered with seeign the carrier deck, oops.

390091[/snapback]

Yeah, about the only time they proved useful was during spin-recovery testing. While F-14As had a serious issue departing controlled flight when the pilot flew the aircraft outside the engine's parameters (the airframe could handle more extremes than the TF-30s could... which is why the Super Tomcats got better engines), it was decided that there were enough other things that could be done that made the canards pretty much pointless.

[David Hingtgen]

While we're talking F-14's, I finally downloaded the F-14D's NAVAIR, lots of interesting stuff---like the fact that idle on the F110 can be as high as 78%. That's really high even for a military engine.

Also, despite being the primary roll control, stabilator deflection is limited to 7 degrees off of neutral. (looks like a lot more, but I doubt the manual's wrong)

Max stab deflection for pitch is 33 degrees up, 10 deg down. Rudder deflection is 30 deg. Wing sweep modes are numerous and complex, as you might imagine.

F-14D NAVAIR manual, 85 megs or so: http://www.patricksaviation.com/aviation_f...AIR_01-F14AAD-1

[Mislovrit]

Looks like Japan is interested in buying the F-22 if no one pulls a Tonya Harding on it.

link

[Lightning]

... if no one pulls a Tonya Harding on it.

390416[/snapback]

not to sound stupid, but what's that?

also, what's the F-15FX? I haven't heard of that variant before.

[Mislovrit]

... if no one pulls a Tonya Harding on it.

390416[/snapback]

not to sound stupid, but what's that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonya_Harding#The_Kerrigan_attack