kalvasflam Posted December 10, 2006 Posted December 10, 2006 Hardware wise not much compared to the personnal (management) issues Airbus is facing. Still pretty small compare some of truly monsterish thread there. Slow news day on that subject, usually thread derailments tend to be informative instead of the rehashed subsidy argument. From what I've seen in magazines such as aviation week, it's not very obvious what the issue of conversion really is. Although, it very well could be that the minor changes they need to make will need a lot of human resources which if taken could mean a even longer delay to the pax version of the A380. Or that new airframes for airline would push back the scheduled delivery date out much further than even current projections. Those are reasonable answers then to why they could not convert. But I doubt the true reason is refusal to shuffle customers a little is the primary cause.
Lightning Posted December 10, 2006 Posted December 10, 2006 In other news.....the space shuttle launched from my backyard last night. and the Shuttle's replacement is.......another rocket-launched space pod.
Graham Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 Yummy Hind pic, but I'm wondering why the guns in the chin turret? I thought all newer Hinds had dropped the chin turret guns for cannon mounted on the side of the fuselage? Graham
joseph Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 (edited) The new Hind version has twin 23mm canon in move torret. This version also has 80mm rockets, ATM Ataka V and anti humidity motor for tropical climate of Venezuela. Edited December 11, 2006 by joseph
Phyrox Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 Yummy Hind pic, but I'm wondering why the guns in the chin turret? I thought all newer Hinds had dropped the chin turret guns for cannon mounted on the side of the fuselage? Graham I don't have my books with me, and I don't remember the official designations... But the Nato "Hind-F" replaced the chin 12.7mm with the fixed 23mm because of the realization that the older, smaller gun was no longer sufficient. The fixed arrangement on the "-F" was always a stopgap. On later models a new turreted 23 was standard, which I believe was retrofitted to some of the earier models. I've been out of the modern aviation world for a few years though, so that's all I remember.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 11, 2006 Posted December 11, 2006 An image of new Venezuela's Mi-35: Does anyone find that the vehicle looks a bit slanted? i.e. the foremost cockpit seems warped to the starboard side when compared to the vehicles vertical axis.
joseph Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Does anyone find that the vehicle looks a bit slanted? i.e. the foremost cockpit seems warped to the starboard side when compared to the vehicles vertical axis. I think that is a focus problem in the camera. More Su-30MK2V:
Phyrox Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Does anyone find that the vehicle looks a bit slanted? i.e. the foremost cockpit seems warped to the starboard side when compared to the vehicles vertical axis. I think that is a focus problem in the camera. Actually, I'm pretty sure the Mi-24/35 canopy is actually asymetrical as the photo shows. I don't think any of my books explained it, but I've poured over enough images of the "hind" to know it's there. Most orthographic views ignore it, but in good quality photographs you can tell the pilot's canopy is not centered. It is no trick of the lens. This image shows the alignment fairly well:
David Hingtgen Posted December 12, 2006 Author Posted December 12, 2006 That's what I was thinking--and looking at the drawing seems to confirm something else--that the entire upper fuselage and rotor assembly is tilted too. Or the fuselage doesn't match the tailboom and stub wings, or something. They drew a handy reference line for us. I didn't think any camera/lens error could "twist" the fuselage like the pic seemed to show, but I also didn't think any chopper would be built like that----it's like the helicopter equivalent of planes built to counter the P-effect. (Which makes for really weird, incredibly asymmetrical ugly planes, that are like 1% more aerodynamically efficient)
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 That's what I was thinking--and looking at the drawing seems to confirm something else--that the entire upper fuselage and rotor assembly is tilted too. Or the fuselage doesn't match the tailboom and stub wings, or something. They drew a handy reference line for us. I didn't think any camera/lens error could "twist" the fuselage like the pic seemed to show, but I also didn't think any chopper would be built like that----it's like the helicopter equivalent of planes built to counter the P-effect. (Which makes for really weird, incredibly asymmetrical ugly planes, that are like 1% more aerodynamically efficient) PHEW! I thought my eyes was wierd. I was wondering why the upper fuselage was warped too. OK OK OK, so what is this P-Effect?
David Hingtgen Posted December 12, 2006 Author Posted December 12, 2006 Propeller effect. The spinning makes the air take slightly different paths, etc. Most noticeable with a nose-mounted prop. Most planes just ignore it, or use a bit of rudder etc to counteract it. But if you REALLY want to, you could make one wing bigger than the other, set at a different angle. The one I always think of (possibly the only one actually built to do so) was called the "Boomerang" IIRC. Same idea with a helicopter I'd guess---angle/shape things so that everything "lines" up aerodynamically/balances each other out---might not look "right" but would fly better.
Phyrox Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 I always figured that was why the "hind's" fuselage was skewed, but had never read anything confirming it. On a related note, one of my very knowledgeable grad school buddies mentioned that one of the reasons the Avia S-199 was such a bad plane was that the BF-109s tail was slightly twisted to compensate for the Daimler-Benz's P-effect, and that the propeller on the new Jumo engines spun in the opposite direction. I never bothered to confirm this, and had always figured the poor handling was due to the small airframe with the huge bomber propellers they used. Too much torque. He knew more than anyone about 1939-1960s era aircraft than anyone I've met though, so I belive him.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Propeller effect. The spinning makes the air take slightly different paths, etc. Most noticeable with a nose-mounted prop. Most planes just ignore it, or use a bit of rudder etc to counteract it. But if you REALLY want to, you could make one wing bigger than the other, set at a different angle. The one I always think of (possibly the only one actually built to do so) was called the "Boomerang" IIRC. Same idea with a helicopter I'd guess---angle/shape things so that everything "lines" up aerodynamically/balances each other out---might not look "right" but would fly better. Ah thanks! Boomerang? That WW2 2nd line Aussie fighter?
David Hingtgen Posted December 13, 2006 Author Posted December 13, 2006 No, really strange-looking one-off. Could easily be one of Burt Rutan's designs. ASYMMETRICAL. Very. Like, if you took an F-15, and replaced one tailfin with an A-10's, and one wing with an F-14's.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 (edited) No, really strange-looking one-off. Could easily be one of Burt Rutan's designs. ASYMMETRICAL. Very. Like, if you took an F-15, and replaced one tailfin with an A-10's, and one wing with an F-14's. Ha! It is indeed Burt! http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...166.html?page=3 Not as ugly as I thought it would be. FSW too! Seems like its designed more for safety in case of engine failures rather then aerodynamic efficiency. Edited December 13, 2006 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
David Hingtgen Posted December 13, 2006 Author Posted December 13, 2006 I hadn't seen it in so long I forgot what it really looked like. It's like they were trying to build a P-38, but ran out of materials.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Ever wondered how Burt and Kelly would have gotten along? After all, Kelly was famous for sticking to his 'look-good = fly good" theory. I'd like to see what would have happened if they were forced to co-design an aircraft.
VF-19 Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Propeller effect. The spinning makes the air take slightly different paths, etc. Most noticeable with a nose-mounted prop. Most planes just ignore it, or use a bit of rudder etc to counteract it. But if you REALLY want to, you could make one wing bigger than the other, set at a different angle. The one I always think of (possibly the only one actually built to do so) was called the "Boomerang" IIRC. Same idea with a helicopter I'd guess---angle/shape things so that everything "lines" up aerodynamically/balances each other out---might not look "right" but would fly better. Actually, the Italian built M.C. 202 (and 205) have one wing longer than the other, to counter the rotation of the aircraft, and this was back in the 1930-1940s. The 1:48 Hasegawa recreates this quite nicely, but it's only noticable if you line up the upper wing halves together.
Chewie Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 I never would have noticed that until you guys said something now I can't miss it. Lol Odd, but I guess if it flies better....(or makes it easier for an Apache to shoot down =P)
Nied Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Interesting to see Flankers in a new Air Force. The grey and white camo scheme is pretty sharp. Looks like the FAV opted for the wet tail fins but not the canards (IIRC no TVC either). I wonder what kind of avionics fit they have.
F-ZeroOne Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Actually, the Italian built M.C. 202 (and 205) have one wing longer than the other, to counter the rotation of the aircraft, and this was back in the 1930-1940s. The 1:48 Hasegawa recreates this quite nicely, but it's only noticable if you line up the upper wing halves together. The Germans also did an asymmetrical design during World War II. Apparently it flew quite well, and was intended as an Army co-operation aircraft, but lost out to the Focke-Wulf "Uhu".
Noyhauser Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Probe? What Probe? AKA How the the Rafale still doesn't have an order yet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6181949.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6182831.stm
Apollo Leader Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 http://www.geocities.com/asymmetrics/index.html A bunch of more asymmetrical aircraft, real and fictional, including aircraft by the king of asymmetrical aircraft, Blohm and Voss.
kalvasflam Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Probe? What Probe? AKA How the the Rafale still doesn't have an order yet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6181949.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6182831.stm When billions are at stake, it's easier to think less about one side or the other. The Saudis are probably looking at this purely from the political standpoint. I doubt if they care too much about the differences between the Rafale and the Eurofighter.
Apollo Leader Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 (edited) B-1B belly landing. Crew forgot to deploy the landing gear after having saved the aircraft from an onboard fire. Doh! At least it looks like its repairable. Edited December 18, 2006 by Apollo Leader
Phyrox Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 B-1B belly landing. Crew forgot to deploy the landing gear after having saved the aircraft from an onboard fire. Doh! At least it looks like its repairable. Where did it say they saved it from an onboard fire before they landed? Sounds to me like they CAUSED the onboard fire with that landing.
Nied Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 It flies. Here's something a little more official from Lockheed on the F-35's first flight.
Lightning Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 it's about time that thing got in the air......how much junk did they have to toss out of the canopy?
reddsun1 Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 I swear, this thing looks just like the "Morningstar" fighter from the old Wing Commander games....
joseph Posted December 16, 2006 Posted December 16, 2006 Interesting to see Flankers in a new Air Force. The grey and white camo scheme is pretty sharp. Looks like the FAV opted for the wet tail fins but not the canards (IIRC no TVC either). I wonder what kind of avionics fit they have. The best Su-27 version is without canards and without TVC already they aren't need. Su-30Mk2V with much zoom:
Warmaker Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 (edited) B-1B belly landing. Crew forgot to deploy the landing gear after having saved the aircraft from an onboard fire. Doh! At least it looks like its repairable. It's very surprising to even think this would happen from aircrew "forgetting" to lower the landing gear. On the F/A-18A-D Hornets, there's a system that warns the pilot if the landing gear are not lowered and the altitude, AOA, etc. all seem to indicate a landing approach. Even the 40+ year old Navy / Marine KC-130F/R/T models have this system. I'd even be more surprised if the ultra-expensive aircraft like a B-1 (which itself isn't young) does not have a similar system. Unless there was a big problem that prevented the lowering of the landing gear for this B-1, then the problem is the idiot(s) behind the stick. Edited December 17, 2006 by Warmaker
Noyhauser Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 When billions are at stake, it's easier to think less about one side or the other. The Saudis are probably looking at this purely from the political standpoint. I doubt if they care too much about the differences between the Rafale and the Eurofighter. Uhhh apparently they did http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,32...-102285,00.html Thats some pretty harsh sanctions.
kalvasflam Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 Uhhh apparently they did http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,32...-102285,00.html Thats some pretty harsh sanctions. Yikes, they must really want the Typhoons. I'm getting a bit confused though, it seems like there is a political faction within UK that wants to see this deal fall through. But heck, BAe is a british company. I wonder if those politicians have some axe to grind somewhere. Most people would think that BAe maintianing the contract would be a good thing for the Brits. Oh well.
Recommended Posts