T.V. Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 I believe the Rafale has a launch bar specifically so that it can cross deck with US carriers, though I'm having a batty of a time finding a photo to illustrate this. The Charles de Gaulle actually has the same steamcatapult system as the US carriers do. It's simply easier to operate the US style launchbar than the old cable launch attachment as used on the (Super) Etendard.
Coota0 Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Not that I disbelieve it but _that_ pic really looks photoshopped. I didn't mean that I didn't believe fowl, I was only saying the same thing you were, it looks really photshopped.
David Hingtgen Posted February 23, 2007 Author Posted February 23, 2007 They have to take the phases of the moon into account when building the Eurofighter: http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsRel...7120145958.html USS John F Kennedy to be decommissioned: http://www.news4jax.com/news/11060487/detail.html Su-30MKI's practice again Mirages, French surprised they lost: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Su-30s_...how/1653818.cms (pop ups a plenty, and not much more info than the title really)
Phyrox Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 They have to take the phases of the moon into account when building the Eurofighter: http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsRel...7120145958.html Tolerences like that are just ridiculous. I know we can't go back to the days of wires and fabric, but maybe we should pull back a bit on the overengineering going on with modern aviation. The end results are spectaular to be sure, but...well I don't know but what. But something doesn't feel right about decade long gestation periods, more wiring than a small town, and tolerances so fine the goddamned tidal forces need to be accounted for. But maybe I'm just crotchety.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 (edited) Tolerences like that are just ridiculous. I know we can't go back to the days of wires and fabric, but maybe we should pull back a bit on the overengineering going on with modern aviation. Well, you wouldn't want the hip joint on your ride to fall out due to stress when in Battroid mode right? I suspect they wouldn't have had to do that if the plant wasn't sited near the coast. Quoted from the Article : The F-35 Lightning II will be the world’s first and only stealthy, supersonic, multi-role fighter. Eh? Edited February 23, 2007 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Lynx7725 Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 Tolerences like that are just ridiculous. I know we can't go back to the days of wires and fabric, but maybe we should pull back a bit on the overengineering going on with modern aviation. I'd agree. I hate to think about the maintenance of those things -- are we going to have to put in a 2.5m pound facility wherever the Typhoon is based? That might get a tad bit silly..
Phyrox Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 I suspect they wouldn't have had to do that if the plant wasn't sited near the coast. I'm not sure I understand you here
David Hingtgen Posted February 23, 2007 Author Posted February 23, 2007 FYI, the 777 is assembled so carefully, that the tolerance is less than the difference between "when one wing is in the shade, and one in the sun". The temperature difference will affect the wingspan like 1/32000 of an inch. The 727 has certain parts that they literally shut down the factory, and have one guy in thick boots standing on a rubber mat, holding his breath, insert them--otherwise they won't fit (and they have to be within .1 degree of each other, and are kept in dry ice to maintain it) Tolerances like that have been a big part of *US* aviation for a while. Britain? That's pretty new. Go look at a US Navy T-45. It's real obvious which half is built in the UK, and which half is built in the US.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 I'm not sure I understand you here The plant is near the sea. Its the movement of the tides which moves the floor on the plant, rather then the direct gravitation effect from the moon bobbing closer and further.
Phyrox Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 The plant is near the sea. Its the movement of the tides which moves the floor on the plant, rather then the direct gravitation effect from the moon bobbing closer and further. That doesn't seem to be what the article says. The level of the sea outside isn't what's bothering them, its the crust of the eath distorting 1-2mm. It's the moon's pull on the floor of their factory they are concerned with. I don't see how the movement of the tides could effect the plant in any way. Although I'm sure there is a great deal I do not understand about tidal forces.
T.V. Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 (edited) Tolerances like that will be more prevalent in the future. Using such tolerances, means that aircraft can be built with more predictable behaviourisms and higher built in performance. Advancement comes through refinement in a lot of cases. The Eurofighter is actually meant to be a lot less maintainance intensive than the Panavia Tornado. Maintainance cost/time is actually a bigger factor than production cost for through life support of aircraft, and other product. The F-14 was decommissioned not because it was too outdated in terms of combat potential, but too expensive and maintainance intensive to operate. Edited February 23, 2007 by T.V.
Loner Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Tolerances like that will be more prevalent in the future. Using such tolerances, means that aircraft can be built with more predictable behaviourisms and higher built in performance. Advancement comes through refinement in a lot of cases. The Eurofighter is actually meant to be a lot less maintainance intensive than the Panavia Tornado. Maintainance cost/time is actually a bigger factor than production cost for through life support of aircraft, and other product. The F-14 was decommissioned not because it was too outdated in terms of combat potential, but too expensive and maintainance intensive to operate. The problem that the F-14 faced, was that no new parts were made because one particular moron ordered the tooling to be destroyed.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Hey guys its been hard digging up info on the Super Crusader. We know it was super fast and that some pilots who flew both that and the F-4B liked it over the phantom, but how manueverable was it supposed to be? Was it supposed to outfight and outturn the original crusader? It looked futuristic for its time and awesome. Now thats a plane that screams flying grim reaper all over it.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 The problem that the F-14 faced, was that no new parts were made because one particular moron ordered the tooling to be destroyed. Its not just that. Even if parts can still be made for the F-14, changing a part for an F-14 is supposedly a lot more time-consuming then changing an equivalent part for an F-18.
Warmaker Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 All aircraft, given age, time, use & abuse, will wear and tear. Just like cars, they will demand more attention and maintenance. I used to know a Master Gunnery Sergeant (retired now) who was around when the USMC accepted the-then-new F/A-18 Hornets. They were told that the Hornets are easier to maintain and won't break much. Right. That's because they were new. Most things you get brand new you expect to be pretty reliable and hassle free. Yes, I know there's bugs and such which require airframe changes & modifications over an aircraft's service life. Well, fast forward to 2007. The Hornets require alot of maintenance now. They're about 20 years old and have seen alot of rigorous life on the carriers, and the maintenance hours to flight hours are going higher. Sounds familiar? That's just what the Tomcat went through. (As far as the "moron" that canceled the Tomcat and scrapped tooling for its parts, that's Dick Cheney when he was Sec.Def. years ago) I have some Sailor buddies who are Super Hornet maintainers. They like it, it hardly breaks. Of course, the thing is new. We'll see years down the road after the rigors of carrier life. As for the "Ease Of Maintenance," as a maintainer myself, that's a load of bulls**t. Given time and modifications, there will be all sorts of parts crammed into every space available to get in your way. If it's already like that when the aircraft just began production for the military, then I feel sorry for those guys that have to work on it There's always going to be something more complicated than it needs to be, on any aircraft (seriously, how complicated do you REALLY need to make an exterior lighting system? ). When I first entered service in the USMC, I was a KC-130 Electrician. Yes, we had our share of problems as maintainers, especially since some of the aircraft were approaching 40 years of service. Later, for a variety of reasons (and a looooonnngg story) I ended up being a Marine F/A-18 Electrician. It's not "easier." I gave up one set of problems maintaining a Hercules for another new set of problems on the Hornet... even if the Hornet was decades younger.
buddhafabio Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 if planes are anything like cars, they also get more complicated to work on do to tech advances. for instance 1969 mustang brand new is easier to swap engines in it then a 2007 mustang. so the same for f-4s,f-14s when they were brand new vs f-18s
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2007 Author Posted February 24, 2007 Shin--I have a Crusader book with a section on the Super Crusader. I'll get back to you on it.
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2007 Author Posted February 24, 2007 So, how good is the F-22? Well, the 94th FS is back from taking their F-22's to Red Flag. Choice quotes on fighting the F-22: Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th Aggressor Squadron commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power. "I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me." From un-named Topgun pilots: "that thing is <expletive deleted> magic" "the laws of physics do not apply to that airplane" Note that the first quote is from the commander of the Nellis Agressor Squadron, who are probably THE most skilled air-to-air pilots in the US. They train for pure air-to-air all the time and usually mop the floor with any other squadron.
buddhafabio Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 from what is said on this thread that thing is a pain to maintain. the f-22
Lynx7725 Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 DH, odd but you hadn't mentioned a thing about Airbus' current financial squeeze? Various news agencies are putting up stories that aren't very pretty about them at the moment.
David Hingtgen Posted February 24, 2007 Author Posted February 24, 2007 Actually, some other quotes from Red Flag had mechanics raving about the F-22, compared to the F-15. Many hours less work for the same job. As for Airbus--it's not exactly news. The A380 problems have been, are, and will in the future, suck that company dry. In related news, the A380's max-weight rejected takeoff test is supposed to happen in early March. If it goes anything like the A340-600's, expect lots of explosions and flaming debris.
Lynx7725 Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Yeah, but now it looks like UPS is getting cold feet on the A380, having switched to 27 Boeings on 5 Feb. If UPS goes, that means Airbus has no customers for the cargo version. Coupled with various reports on "restructuring" and "layoffs" and "national interests", it seems that Airbus is headed into some turblence in the near future.. at least. Sorry, Max-weight rejected takeoff = ??
Warmaker Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Hopefully the USAF gets a good deal out of the F-22. Replacing the F-15? Better do a d**n good job of it!
HoveringCheesecake Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 The F-22 is only operated by two squadrons at Langley, right? Up to this point, I mean.
F-ZeroOne Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 They have to take the phases of the moon into account when building the Eurofighter: http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsRel...7120145958.html Thats because union rules dictate certain phases of the Moon allow the workers to have an additional tea break per day, except on the first Sunday after Lent, unless Lent falls on St. Swithins day, in which case the tea break may be taken on the first Friday afternoon following a Bank Holiday (unless Boxing Day falls on a Friday)...
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 I was reading about the UPS and Airbus today while waiting for my roommate to get the money orders for bills. Seems the realistic delivery date of the cargo planes is not what the signed contract says. So UPS is looking at probably dropping Airbus and going for cargo planes from Boeing. Planes are i believe for some 727's and some DC-11's. Cruel Angel's Thesis
joseph Posted February 24, 2007 Posted February 24, 2007 Very nice! (The airplane ain't half bad, either.) They really cleaned up the chunky proportions of the Mig-29 with this version! I love Brunettes but I'm diggin' the Blonde. The jet's beautiful, too, BTW Mig-35 girl: MRCA India photo:
Nied Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 All aircraft, given age, time, use & abuse, will wear and tear. Just like cars, they will demand more attention and maintenance. I used to know a Master Gunnery Sergeant (retired now) who was around when the USMC accepted the-then-new F/A-18 Hornets. They were told that the Hornets are easier to maintain and won't break much. Right. That's because they were new. Most things you get brand new you expect to be pretty reliable and hassle free. Yes, I know there's bugs and such which require airframe changes & modifications over an aircraft's service life. Well, fast forward to 2007. The Hornets require alot of maintenance now. They're about 20 years old and have seen alot of rigorous life on the carriers, and the maintenance hours to flight hours are going higher. Sounds familiar? That's just what the Tomcat went through. (As far as the "moron" that canceled the Tomcat and scrapped tooling for its parts, that's Dick Cheney when he was Sec.Def. years ago) I have some Sailor buddies who are Super Hornet maintainers. They like it, it hardly breaks. Of course, the thing is new. We'll see years down the road after the rigors of carrier life. As for the "Ease Of Maintenance," as a maintainer myself, that's a load of bulls**t. Given time and modifications, there will be all sorts of parts crammed into every space available to get in your way. If it's already like that when the aircraft just began production for the military, then I feel sorry for those guys that have to work on it There's always going to be something more complicated than it needs to be, on any aircraft (seriously, how complicated do you REALLY need to make an exterior lighting system? ). When I first entered service in the USMC, I was a KC-130 Electrician. Yes, we had our share of problems as maintainers, especially since some of the aircraft were approaching 40 years of service. Later, for a variety of reasons (and a looooonnngg story) I ended up being a Marine F/A-18 Electrician. It's not "easier." I gave up one set of problems maintaining a Hercules for another new set of problems on the Hornet... even if the Hornet was decades younger. To be fair brand new Tomcats were known to be maintenance nightmares as well. The F-14D was supposed to be a hangar queen like the A and most of them were built between 1990 and 1992. I'm sure old Hornets are getting to be PITAs now that they're getting on in years but every thing I've read says the F-14 was that much worse at the same age.
David Hingtgen Posted February 25, 2007 Author Posted February 25, 2007 So UPS is looking at probably dropping Airbus and going for cargo planes from Boeing. Planes are i believe for some 727's and some DC-11's. Ummm---no. The 727 is way too old and small, and UPS already has all they need. And any they could get now probably wouldn't be up to their specs--most are third or fourth-hand now. There is no such thing as a DC-11. If you meant the MD-11---they're all taken. (same with the DC-10) UPS and FedEx (and Gemini and any other cargo carrier) will pay almost anything for an MD-11 nowadays, but there's simply none out there. If there's one plane type you won't find "sitting out in the desert", it's an MD-11. I wouldn't be surprised if some day someone's desperate enough to fix up Delta's burned one. As for a max weight rejected takeoff test: Fill the plane up to its maximum takeoff weight. Wear the brakes down to less than 10% of the pads left. Take it up to V1, and stop it as hard as you can, without using reverse thrust. Always results in white-hot glowing brakes, and usually requires replacing the entire brake assembly and wheels. When it doesn't go well (747SP, A340-600) the tires and brakes really can't take it, and the landing gear starts to melt and stuff starts burning and exploding. The only way to really fail is to not stop in the alotted space, or to actually have debris penetrate the passenger cabin, or to somehow prevent evacuation of the aircraft. As for F-14 maintenance: About half of the F-14D's were upgraded from A's, and so were still 1970's vintage. New cockpit and engines, but all the other systems were decades old still.
Nied Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 (edited) MATS says 37 new build F-14Ds vs 18 re-builds. You might be thinking of F-14Bs, of which the majority were re-built F-14As (48 vs 38). I specifically remember reading an article in Combat Aircraft with quotes from maintainers saying the F-14D's APG-71 radar was significantly harder to keep FMC than the AWG-9 on F-14As and Bs so it's not just the systems that weren't upgraded that were a problem. Edited February 25, 2007 by Nied
Warmaker Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 Hey joseph, where is this airshow taking place at, with MiG's, Hornets, and F-16s at the same place? Are they even in the same show? Oh, and again, the Russians are cheating with MiG Girls
joseph Posted February 25, 2007 Posted February 25, 2007 Hey joseph, where is this airshow taking place at, with MiG's, Hornets, and F-16s at the same place? Are they even in the same show? Oh, and again, the Russians are cheating with MiG Girls I don't know the exact place, but is in India. The air show is for see the future MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircrat) for India, it buy 126 unit; winner Mig-35 with 90% possibilities. Su-30MKI with LCA? Mig-35 ELT/568(v)2 for Mig-35. See label and red circle in design.
David Hingtgen Posted February 26, 2007 Author Posted February 26, 2007 I like that camo a lot. If it was US, it'd be Light Ghost Grey, Intermediate Blue, and either Neutral or Dark Gull grey.
Vince Posted February 26, 2007 Posted February 26, 2007 Has anyone heard more on this yet? http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-to-hawaii.html
Recommended Posts