David Hingtgen Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 China not respecting copyright on a massive scale: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/200.../2004087045.jpg It's China's first "entirely home grown" airliner. Cough, cough. Any resemblance to the DC-9 (specifically the MD-90) is entirely coincidental. Can Boeing sue? PS--this is not an instance of "they just look similar". MDC did send some parts/tooling for China to assemble their own MD-80's and MD-90's from kits sent from MDC. China is basically building new DC-9's from that tooling. I mean, if Iran started actually building new F-14's from scratch, you can bet Northrop wouldn't be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 having flown air china before, I'll take a coal powered cab before I fly in another plane serviced by china, let alone built there. No offense intended, but the airbus I flew in rattled like a 30 year olf VW rabbit held together with gum and duct tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Actually, the rattling was likely because it's an Airbus. Was it an A320, and was it the overhead bins? Inherent issue with that design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugimon Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Actually, the rattling was likely because it's an Airbus. Was it an A320, and was it the overhead bins? Inherent issue with that design. oh no, the rattling came anytime the flaps or airlerons did anything, or when the pilot throttled up or down or when the landing gears went up or down... it was enough to shake the entire seat and vibrate it like I was sitting on a cheap "massage" chair. And it was definitely coming from the carriage. The overhead noise was just incidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necron_99 Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 more on the F-35. I found it pretty interesting, but i'm sure alot of you already know this. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/07...stem-works.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 24, 2007 Share Posted December 24, 2007 Just a little pic of the world's biggest and most powerful jet engine: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1230919/M/ 127,900lbs on a test run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Just a little pic of the world's biggest and most powerful jet engine: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1230919/M/ 127,900lbs on a test run. any chance there is one with a man standing by it to put it in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Not that I have readily available, but the diameter of that fan is equal to the diameter of a 757's fuselage. So you could fit 6 people across in that nacelle, with cargo below and overhead bins above... Just google "GE90" and you should find pics like you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Damn, that will eat some birds. looks like something that raced aniken in the podrace in epp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 China not respecting copyright on a massive scale: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/200.../2004087045.jpg It's China's first "entirely home grown" airliner. Cough, cough. Any resemblance to the DC-9 (specifically the MD-90) is entirely coincidental. Can Boeing sue? PS--this is not an instance of "they just look similar". MDC did send some parts/tooling for China to assemble their own MD-80's and MD-90's from kits sent from MDC. China is basically building new DC-9's from that tooling. I mean, if Iran started actually building new F-14's from scratch, you can bet Northrop wouldn't be happy. Then we'd have too bomb that Iranian factories right? As for the home grown airline, it was going to happen sooner or later. It's just business at the end of the day, and part of it makes me wonder how much of a hand US companies had in the Chinese aviation industry. They are investing in Japan as a hedge against the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 Damn, that will eat some birds. looks like something that raced aniken in the podrace in epp 1 Oh, that's one of the smaller GE90's, with the older blade style. The big ones are little bit bigger than that even. The blade shape of the newer GE90's is quite unique--they call them "swept" blades, though I think scythe blades (like some turboprops have) is a better description. No one wants to call them "wavy curvy" blades though. PS---while I haven't seen a GE90's bird ingestion test, I have seen a PW4080's on tape, which is of similar design/purpose, just a bit smaller/weaker. And it's like a world's biggest, fastest, deli-slicer machine. Sliced the chicken piece by piece as it flew through. I mean, titanium-edged blades at 3000rpm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Was looking up something and came across this, happened last month. Surprised it wasn't posted. Airbus vs. Wall http://www.airlineempires.net/blog/2007/11...l-airbus-loses/ However what happened might be different. http://www.aviation-safety-security.com/cu...-airbus-fa.html Still damn. . .someone is going to be in trouble once it gets sorted out. Cruel Angel's Thesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Ouch. The first photo, I thought it was a bump against a wall. But the subsequent photos, that was an impact at quite some speed. I think the fuselage is a writeoff, and the left inner engine looks to be well off. But they might be able to recondition the left outer engine (that left a mark on the wall, so some impact damage too, I imagine), and the tail/ right engines should be salvagable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Well, since this was a turn check, is the aircrew or whoever was in the cockpit fine? Hope they were. An airliner smashing through a wall is bad for one's health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 Way too much to repair. The well-known 707 nose repair was from just behind the cockpit forward, not the first 50 feet of the plane. Also, it had no wing/engine/gear damage. And nothing's more expensive than the engines and gear! Write off, salvage the remaining bits to build a new one with its parts. I think I did post about this, not sure. Somewhat ironically, while the A340-600 has yet to crash, 2 were lost that week---hitting the wall, and sliding off the runway. The one that slid off was one of Iberia's in Quito, Chile. The aircraft is pretty intact, but frankly---the airport is small enough that they just don't have the equipment to bring it back up out of the embankment and fix it up enough to fly it out of there. It could easily be repaired to ferry-flight status to fly it to somewhere for full repairs with the right equipment and better position, but it's just "stuck" and that airport doesn't have enough to repair the left gear and pylon and replace one engine to get it flightworthy---so they're going to have to scrap it where it lays. Hopefully they can save some other engines, gear, and tail parts to build a replacement. (aircraft parts are salvaged whenever possible--there are airliners built with the parts from ones that crashed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Because the MOAB just isn't a big enough bomb: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123080622 (technically though, I think the MOAB makes a far bigger boom---more explosive, less casing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 The MOAB is going to make a bigger boom. This baby is designed to hit the ground and keep going up to 200 feet before saying hello. We just didn't enough to hit underground bunkers in Iraq and N. Korea according to intel are even deeper, so we need something thats going to hit and keep going. Thought makes me wonder if you are in a underground bunker do you even have time to realize. like your playing a card game with your buddies, does this just go through the ground, land on your card table play a quick mp3 detailing how screwed you are, then explode. I'd pay some good money to see that. Cruel Angel's Thesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 Because the MOAB just isn't a big enough bomb: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123080622 (technically though, I think the MOAB makes a far bigger boom---more explosive, less casing) I think the MOAB was also a 30,000 pound weapon though of course it was designed for a large surface blast and not to penetrate deep within the ground. Compared to other similar sized conventional bombs of the past, I wonder how this compares in regards to the ratio of explosives and weight of the steel case? Of course since this new bomb is precision guided, just imagine the havok you can do with this.... drop one, creat a deep massive crater, then drop another one through the hole. Since the B-2 previously had an official max load of 40,000 pounds and two of these bombs weigh 60,000, I wonder what modifications had to be done or if the B-2 was structurally capable of a bigger load then previously revealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 (edited) One for David - I recently saw a picture of a F-16 carrying AMRAAMs on the wing-tip rails - is this common practice for F-16s and other aircraft with wing-tip rails these days? Edited December 30, 2007 by F-ZeroOne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Australia might cancel the F/A-18 contract? We Report, You Decide http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jet...8949675268.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Leader Posted December 30, 2007 Author Share Posted December 30, 2007 One for David - I recently saw a picture of a F-16 carrying AMRAAMs on the wing-tip rails - is this common practice for F-16s and other aircraft with wing-tip rails these days? They've been mounting AMRAAM's on the F-16's wing tip rails for years. The AMRAAM is small enough and light enough for them to do it unlike the Sparrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 Australia might cancel the F/A-18 contract? We Report, You Decide http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jet...8949675268.html To be honest, I was very surprised Australia even decided to get Super Bugs as an interim aircraft when the JSF is supposed to come along sometime (with or without delays). It wouldn't surprise me either if the gov't decides to axe the SBug purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted December 30, 2007 Share Posted December 30, 2007 One for David - I recently saw a picture of a F-16 carrying AMRAAMs on the wing-tip rails - is this common practice for F-16s and other aircraft with wing-tip rails these days? It's common for F-16's that have AMRAAM rails on their tips. They've started going away from it recently though---too heavy, they're cracking the wings and causing fuel leaks. F-16/18 seem VERY sensitive to weight at the tips---they're fine hauling 1000lb loads on the outer pylon, but 100lbs extra on the tips really mess them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Aparently the reason they started mounting AMRAAMs on the wingtips of F-16s (other than it looking really cool) is that the missiles had an easier time locking up a target when they were mounted as far out from the centerline as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-ZeroOne Posted December 31, 2007 Share Posted December 31, 2007 Thanks for all the replies about the F-16 AMRAAMs - and to think, at one point it was proposed to put Sparrows on the F-18L wingtips...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nied Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Thanks for all the replies about the F-16 AMRAAMs - and to think, at one point it was proposed to put Sparrows on the F-18L wingtips...! Better than mounting them on the landing gear doors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 I always wondered about clearance with those, especially with inboard drop tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Boeing Gets $1.3B Deal for C-17 Fleet Wednesday January 2, 10:50 am ET Boeing Gets Five-Year Pact Worth Up to $1.3 Billion to Upgrade C-17 Aircraft Weapons WASHINGTON (AP) -- Aerospace manufacturer Boeing Co. has won a $1.3 billion deal from the U.S. Air Force to upgrade weapons on the C-17 military cargo aircraft, according to the Defense Department. The five-year pact awarded to Boeing's McDonnell Douglas Corp. unit is an add-on to the company's original contract awarded in January 2001. Boeing has received $13.6 million under the new contract. The company will provide planning, design and development of prototypes to improve the aircraft's weapons, the Defense Department said late Monday in a statement. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalvasflam Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Boeing Gets $1.3B Deal for C-17 Fleet Wednesday January 2, 10:50 am ET Boeing Gets Five-Year Pact Worth Up to $1.3 Billion to Upgrade C-17 Aircraft Weapons WASHINGTON (AP) -- Aerospace manufacturer Boeing Co. has won a $1.3 billion deal from the U.S. Air Force to upgrade weapons on the C-17 military cargo aircraft, according to the Defense Department. The five-year pact awarded to Boeing's McDonnell Douglas Corp. unit is an add-on to the company's original contract awarded in January 2001. Boeing has received $13.6 million under the new contract. The company will provide planning, design and development of prototypes to improve the aircraft's weapons, the Defense Department said late Monday in a statement. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Upgrade weapons? I had no idea there was an AC-17 in the works, I wonder if they really mean buying a few new planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 AC-17's? I didn't know the USAF had so many C-17's that they could afford to give up valuable transports for attack roles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddhafabio Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 real recently the air force complained that a congressman in texas forced more unneeded c-17 down their throats. so the airforce does think it has too many c-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 (edited) Buddahfabio can you provide a link for your article... I'd actually like to see it. If anything the Airforce wants more C-17s so they can take the stress off of the older C-5 fleet. Also, the wording of the AP article is the problem here. This is the actual wording of the Pentagon's press release: McDonnell Douglas Corp., A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of the Boeing Co., Long Beach, Calif., is being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for $1,300,000,000. This contract is a follow-on contract to the PE/PI contract awarded in January, 2001. The contract is for continued efforts associated with the analysis, study, plan, design, development and qualification/test and kit prototype of enhancements and improvements to the C-17 weapon system. This is an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with a five-year ordering period. The contract ceiling is $1.3 billion. Funding will be identified on individual delivery orders. Delivery Order 0001 is the initial delivery order to be awarded with the basic contract. Delivery order 0001 is for efforts which support Air Mobility Command requirements to participate in planning, provisioning, conducting, analyzing, and documenting and integrated Follow-On Flight Test program. At this time $13,600,000 (Delivery Order 0001) has been obligated. 516 AESG/PKP (C-17), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8614-08-D-2080). Really this is just an normal upgrade program for the C-17, probably some new avionics and increased defense from anti aircraft weapons. Its been buried on New Years Eve because its a large sum, and not seen as a major defence project which would get broad Congressional support. Look what else was buried in this news release: Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics of Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a firm fixed price contract modification for $498,206,058. This action will provide Foreign Military Sales of F-16C/D new aircraft for the (Pakistan) program for F-16 Block 52 aircraft. The procurement of 12 operational single place F-16C Block 52 aircraft and 6 operational two place F-16D Block 52 aircraft will be accomplished under the firm fixed price portion. This effort supports foreign military sales to Pakistan. Yeah, something you didn't want to see out on a day when news organizations were actually paying attention. Edited January 3, 2008 by Noyhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFT Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 One for David - I recently saw a picture of a F-16 carrying AMRAAMs on the wing-tip rails - is this common practice for F-16s and other aircraft with wing-tip rails these days? I'm not David, but yes, it is, on the F-16. I don't think the FA-18 can do the same, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Heh, perhaps they are planning to mount a GAU-8 Avenger on the nose of a C-17 and market it as an A-10 replacement. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-19 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Heh, perhaps they are planning to mount a GAU-8 Avenger on the nose of a C-17 and market it as an A-10 replacement. Graham Why stop at one? It's a frigging C-17, so go with TWO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts