Nied Posted September 26, 2007 Posted September 26, 2007 As for the flight, I would say it was pretty smooth for the most part. There was a few spots I could feel the plane take a little dip and my stomach wasn't liking that. But again, I thought it went quite well for my first time. Since that was my first time up in an airplane period, it would be hard for me to compare it to anything else. The dips are the best part! I'll echo David in saying the most fun I've had in a jetliner was in a 757 that hit a Thunderstorm over Philadelphia.
David Hingtgen Posted September 27, 2007 Posted September 27, 2007 Hey look, it's the first KC-30. Personally, I would have waited until the USAF chooses between the 767 and A330 before starting to build them. Also, it doesn't look like I expect the KC-30 would---even ignoring the total lack of refuelling equipment (guess it's not a demonstrator), it doesn't have the revised nose gear/nose area the cargo-based A330's are supposed to get.
Nied Posted September 27, 2007 Posted September 27, 2007 Hey look, it's the first KC-30. Personally, I would have waited until the USAF chooses between the 767 and A330 before starting to build them. Also, it doesn't look like I expect the KC-30 would---even ignoring the total lack of refuelling equipment (guess it's not a demonstrator), it doesn't have the revised nose gear/nose area the cargo-based A330's are supposed to get. Is it supposed to be the first actual KC-30 or the first A330 based tanker? Remember Australia, the UK and a few others are going for A330 tankers roughly similar to the KC-30 (Australia will even get the flying boom).
David Hingtgen Posted September 27, 2007 Posted September 27, 2007 They say KC-30: "Northrop Grumman's KC-30 Tanker, developed for the US Air Force KC-135 tanker replacement programme, has completed its first flight. Aircraft "D-1", a green Airbus A330-200, flew for nearly four hours and will be the first aircraft delivered to the USAF if the Northrop Grumman team is awarded the KC-X contract. Contract award is currently expected in December 2007 or early January 2008. The A330-200 has been reconfigured as a strategic transport aircraft for the military market with aerial refuelling equipment installed. After its flight tests, the tanker will be ready to be outfitted for the aerial refuelling role. Australia, the UK and United Arab Emirates have selected the A330 platform to serve as their next-generation tanker. Its direct competitor is the Boeing's KC-767. Flightglobal.com reported on 23 September that Northrop Grumman may switch to the A330-200 Freighter version, which is in development and has yet to fly." On my main aviation forum, someone said they built it so as to have an aircraft ready very soon if it is chosen--and if it's not, it can easily be converted for the RAF, RAAF, etc--and they'll all be interested to get an extra, cheap, surplus tanker. Note that last sentence---it's what I was referring to about it not being based on an A330-200F. I expect "real" KC-30's will be, if they ever come to be.
Apollo Leader Posted September 27, 2007 Author Posted September 27, 2007 Regarding my trip on the Ford Trimotor on Saturday, I got an e-mail from the president of the Lincoln area EAA chapter last night. He's requested a CD of the pictures I took on Saturday and it's very likely those pictures will appear in an upcoming newsletter of their's and the pictures may be used in some of their other flyers and literature. For all the stuff I've done with this camera in the last year-and-a-half, this camera's turned out to be a pretty good investment.
David Hingtgen Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Really good, big pic of the first SBD dropped by an F-22: (scroll down) http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/pho...F-9999W-011.jpg It won't be long before we start seeing the following standard load: 8x GBU-39 2x AIM-120D 2x AIM-9X
Ratchet Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 There's this bs going on around that the EF-2000 is supposibly better than the Raptor *ROTFLMAO* Thrust vectoring, Mini-AWACS, Stealth, and supercruise....yeah...the Eurofighter is better.
F-ZeroOne Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 There's this bs going on around that the EF-2000 is supposibly better than the Raptor *ROTFLMAO* Thrust vectoring, Mini-AWACS, Stealth, and supercruise....yeah...the Eurofighter is better. Yeah? Well, the Typhoon will have one thing the F-22 won't! RAF Roundels! Er... And a helmet-mounted sight. Eventually...
Ratchet Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 (edited) Yeah? Well, the Typhoon will have one thing the F-22 won't! RAF Roundels! Er... And a helmet-mounted sight. Eventually... Our F-15s in Alaska already have those. What do you think the Raptor will have or already has (can you say top secret). I'm also a firm believer that the British Meteor will someday arm the Raptor. Look at the dimensions of the Meteor vs. AMRAAM. Practically the same. Or maybe we just stick with the 100+ range AIM-120D. EDITED IN: Saudi Arabia just purchased hundreds of EF-2000. I wonder if the U.S. sells the Raptor to Israel and Japan now. Edited September 28, 2007 by Ratchet
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Yeah? Well, the Typhoon will have one thing the F-22 won't! RAF Roundels! Er... And a helmet-mounted sight. Eventually... Its also got a concrete cannon! No plane in the past and presumably the future gets one of those!
Ratchet Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 I can't wait for the AIM-120D to arrive. The F/A-18E/F and Raptor are going to be more deadly.
Nied Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Yeah? Well, the Typhoon will have one thing the F-22 won't! RAF Roundels! Er... And a helmet-mounted sight. Eventually... And an IRST, and Meteor missiles. While the Typhoon may not be quite as awesome as the F-22, it's still all kinds of incredible. Especially once they get the CEASAR radar up and running (maybe in Tranche 3) it should own just about anything out there short of the F-22.
Nied Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 There's a neat article over at DefenseTech about the possibilities for a two seat Raptor variant going into service. Sounds like a good idea to me. A dual seat Raptor with the FB-22's bulged weapons bay doors and the F-35's EOTS system in the nose would make for one hell of a strike plane. Add in the FB-22's proposed stealthy weapons pods and it could even escort itself with a full air to air load in addition to a decent strike load. On a different note I just have to say how much I love living in San Francisco sometimes. Today is the start of Fleetweek here, and I spent this afternoon sitting at an outdoor cafe near my apartment munching on a pastrami sandwich while watching the Blue Angels practice their routine for this weekend. If I had a better camera I'd have some great pictures already (the weather is perfect for an airshow this time of year: chrystal clear but with just enough moisture in the air to make for some awesome vapor trails)
Graham Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 The only advantage the Raptor has over the Typhoon is stealth. And of course, you can buy far more Typhoons for your buck than Raptors. Graham
Nied Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 The only advantage the Raptor has over the Typhoon is stealth. And of course, you can buy far more Typhoons for your buck than Raptors. Graham The Raptor is also faster in supercruise (Mach 1.7-8 vs Mach 1.2-3 for the Typhoon) and has a far more advanced radar. An AESA radar like the APG-77 is going to have longer range, the ability to track more targets and do it all while being much harder to detect than old fashioned pulse doppler radars like the ECR-90. That's not to say the ECR-90 isn't a good radar, it's probably the most advanced pulse dopler radar ever to be mounted on a fighter, but the Typhoon is at a decided disadvantage compared to the F-22 until AMSAR/CEASAR is installed (it's rumoured it will be installed in Tranche 3 if it gets built).
Phyrox Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 The only advantage the Raptor has over the Typhoon is stealth. Graham The Typhoon's a great plane, no doubt. But that's just not true.
Apollo Leader Posted October 5, 2007 Author Posted October 5, 2007 There's a neat article over at DefenseTech about the possibilities for a two seat Raptor variant going into service. Sounds like a good idea to me. A dual seat Raptor with the FB-22's bulged weapons bay doors and the F-35's EOTS system in the nose would make for one hell of a strike plane. Add in the FB-22's proposed stealthy weapons pods and it could even escort itself with a full air to air load in addition to a decent strike load. Over at the Secret Projects website there is a picture posted of the two seat F-22B mockup that was built about 10 years ago. BTW, since we were talking about Washington DC and the Smithsonian, the latest story about my brother-in-law's next assignment after Germany may be Washington DC (I assume the Pentagon) so I might get to go back to DC and maybe even go check out Langley sometime in the future.
Ratchet Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 The only advantage the Raptor has over the Typhoon is stealth. And of course, you can buy far more Typhoons for your buck than Raptors. Graham Dude..I disagree. You forgot supercruise and thrust vectoring. I also think the electronics on the Raptor is better than anything out there. in a one-on-one dogfight beyond visual or close in, the Raptor wins hands down.
Ratchet Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 The Raptor is also faster in supercruise (Mach 1.7-8 vs Mach 1.2-3 for the Typhoon) and has a far more advanced radar. An AESA radar like the APG-77 is going to have longer range, the ability to track more targets and do it all while being much harder to detect than old fashioned pulse doppler radars like the ECR-90. That's not to say the ECR-90 isn't a good radar, it's probably the most advanced pulse dopler radar ever to be mounted on a fighter, but the Typhoon is at a decided disadvantage compared to the F-22 until AMSAR/CEASAR is installed (it's rumoured it will be installed in Tranche 3 if it gets built). That's right. Only the SU-30MKI from India can out manuever the Raptor and it barely does that (Raptor can also do the "cobra" somewhat). Overall, the Raptor is better than the EF-2000 or SU-30MKI.
David Hingtgen Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Nobody (besides the pilots) has the slightest clue what the F-22 can really do. We haven't even seen a real demo yet, much less its true capabilities. Also---raw power. Raw power overcomes any aerodynamic issue---the F-4 proved that. And the F-22 has insanely high amounts of raw power. At least 39,000lbs per engine, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's really over 40,000lbs per engine. Plus it has a very low wing-loading.
RFT Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 I don;t think this has been mentioned- British Airways seem to be hedging their bets by placing orders for both 12 A380s (+7 option) and 24 787s (+ 18 option)
Graham Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Dude..I disagree. You forgot supercruise and thrust vectoring. I also think the electronics on the Raptor is better than anything out there. in a one-on-one dogfight beyond visual or close in, the Raptor wins hands down. Typhoon also has supercruise. Beyond visual, Raptor may have an edge, but when are modern fighters ever allowed to enage beyond visual anyway? These days never. Graham
F-ZeroOne Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 How about this as a compromise - both planes will kick a certain amount of ass, exactly how much to be determined the first time someone is dumb enough to line up for kicking of said ass...?
kalvasflam Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 I don;t think this has been mentioned- British Airways seem to be hedging their bets by placing orders for both 12 A380s (+7 option) and 24 787s (+ 18 option) BA has been hedging their bets for a while now... personally, I couldn't care less what airplane BA picks, I had flown BA once last year, and they're kidding themselves if they think they're the Singapore Airlines of Europe. The service sucked, they lost my bag, and it wasn't even a very long flight.... Stupid BA... By the way, anyone go out to see the A380 in SFO?
Nied Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 By the way, anyone go out to see the A380 in SFO? And here I was just logging on to brag about it! First impression: it's big! Living in San Francisco I see 747s in the air fairly regularly, and even the occasional C-5 out of Travis AFB but the A380 definitely was one of the most impressive things I've seen in a long time (I think partially because it was a lot lower than the other aircraft I mentioned). I could tell that it handled like a pig though, it took them forever between passes to set up for a new one. Also it was interesting that it had a photo chase plane in tow at all times (to get those great publicity photos over the Golden Gate bridge). I would have some photos for you guys but unfortunately my camera is kaput. I'm trying to convince my wife that we need to buy a Nikon D40 by telling her that we can take great pictures when we have kids (and a 300mm telephoto lens so that um... we can get great pictures of them when they're really far away).
Nied Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 How about this as a compromise - both planes will kick a certain amount of ass, exactly how much to be determined the first time someone is dumb enough to line up for kicking of said ass...? To use teh internet lingo: The Tiffy is made of win. However the Raptor is made of awesome plus win.
David Hingtgen Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 F-22's can pull so hard that their afterburner trails curve. (I'd post the pic but I can't find it)
Noyhauser Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 BA has been hedging their bets for a while now... personally, I couldn't care less what airplane BA picks, I had flown BA once last year, and they're kidding themselves if they think they're the Singapore Airlines of Europe. The service sucked, they lost my bag, and it wasn't even a very long flight.... Stupid BA... By the way, anyone go out to see the A380 in SFO? I'm assuming that you haven't flown business or 1st class on BA? The difference between economy and the Buisness, (and from what I've heard of 1st) are, well, lets say night and day. Having flown on Cathay, they are comparable.
kalvasflam Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 I'm assuming that you haven't flown business or 1st class on BA? The difference between economy and the Buisness, (and from what I've heard of 1st) are, well, lets say night and day. Having flown on Cathay, they are comparable. I've no doubt you're right, having flown 1st and business on different airlines, I've also had the experience with economies on all those airlines. And by far, the experience with BA was the worst. As for 1st and business, considering what you're shelling out, I expect to be treated like a king....
kalvasflam Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 And here I was just logging on to brag about it! First impression: it's big! Living in San Francisco I see 747s in the air fairly regularly, and even the occasional C-5 out of Travis AFB but the A380 definitely was one of the most impressive things I've seen in a long time (I think partially because it was a lot lower than the other aircraft I mentioned). I could tell that it handled like a pig though, it took them forever between passes to set up for a new one. Also it was interesting that it had a photo chase plane in tow at all times (to get those great publicity photos over the Golden Gate bridge). I would have some photos for you guys but unfortunately my camera is kaput. I'm trying to convince my wife that we need to buy a Nikon D40 by telling her that we can take great pictures when we have kids (and a 300mm telephoto lens so that um... we can get great pictures of them when they're really far away). Oh... wonder if it's sticking around for fleet week. I don't want to drive up from the south bay to see the A380... but who knows... when does it leave?
Nied Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Oh... wonder if it's sticking around for fleet week. I don't want to drive up from the south bay to see the A380... but who knows... when does it leave? I honestly didn't know it was coming until I was standing in front of Ghiradelli square watching the show and a woman asked me when the new Airbus was supposed to fly. From what I can tell on the Fencecheck forums it was only slated to appear yesterday and today. Although I'd still recommend driving up. Having watched three Fleet Week airshows now IMHO it is absolutely the best way to watch the Blue Angels. Just make sure you bring a good sweater and hat, the wind coming off the water has been really cold lately.
David Hingtgen Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 According to A.net it's already left for France. http://www.airliners.net/discussions/gener...d.main/3640386/ Semi-related note, this is the neatest parallel approach at SFO I've ever seen: http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff130/rpfile/_MG_1179.jpg
Ratchet Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 (edited) Typhoon also has supercruise. Beyond visual, Raptor may have an edge, but when are modern fighters ever allowed to enage beyond visual anyway? These days never. Graham Okay...it has supercruise. Woop-di-do. The Raptor can still outmanuever the EF-2000. The Raptor has the EF-2000 beat close in or beyond visual. How the heck can an EF-2000 out dogfight a fighter with thrust vectoring? The SU-30MKI beats the EF-2000 in this area too. Typhoon does not use internal storage of weapons like the F-22 which increases it's radar cross section but allows for more and larger stores. Although official data is classified it seems very likely that the radar cross section of the Typhoon greatly exceeds that of the F-22 and F-35. Yeah...right. You can't believe what Wikipedia tells you all the time. You only have to look at the Raptor and the EF-2000 visually to know which one is more stealthy. In combat, the EF=2000 has to sling it's armament which exposes it to radar. The Raptor carries it's missiles internally. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-...e-aircraft.html Some people claim the EF-2000 can't supercruise either, and it's just a claim, like Rafales. They say the EF-2000 accelarated past Mach 1.5 during afterburner acceleration testing, and after the test, the EF-2000 turned off it's afterburners and decelerated to Mach 1.1, maintaining the speed for some time. However, in Singapore, the EF-2000 and Rafale were both tested for supercruise capability. The EF-2000 accelerated past Mach 1.3 with an AAM loadout, but Rafale couldn't reach Mach 1 with the same loadout. In the end, neither of them were picked, and Singapore took the F-15SG instead, which I think was a mistake considering the EF-2000 is far superior to it, but the SG was cheaper. Amazingly, despite struggling in an attempt to supercruise while the EF-2000 sailed through, the Rafale was chosen over the Typhoon and lasted until the last round, only to lose to the F-15SG. As of the F-16XL, it supercruised accidentally. It seemed like a desperate attempt to make a fighter-bomber out of the F-16. Replacing the F-16s wing with those Draken-ish cape-delta wings, IMO was a desperate attempt to increase range. Cluttering up the underside of the wings/fuselage with a whopping 27( ) hardpoints, that too of which only 2 could carry 2000lb bombs, only while interfering with 4 other 750lb stations, IMO was a desperate attempt to increase payload. And designating the plane "XL" which presumably means "eXtra Large" was a desperate attempt to make the light fighter F-16 look like a much heavier fighter-bomber. No wonder the F-15E was chosen over it. If it hadn't, this would be "lawn dart jumbo". To put it simply..the EF-2000 can supercruise, but for how long? The RAPTOR CAN SUPERCRUISE ALL THE WAY TO CHINA at Mach 1.8 vs. 1.1?. Up to 12 aircraft in the world have some sort of supercruise ability, but they pale in comparison to the F-22. EF-2000/Rafale 4th Generation Fighter F-22 5th generation fighter AND NOBODY KNOWS IT's true capabilities. 'nuff said. Edited October 6, 2007 by Ratchet
David Hingtgen Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Just like to comment that nothing comes close to the Concorde's Mach 2.23 supercruise capability. The F-22 may be the fastest *active* plane with supercruise, but the Concorde has it beat by far, as does the YF-23.
Ratchet Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 (edited) Just like to comment that nothing comes close to the Concorde's Mach 2.23 supercruise capability. The F-22 may be the fastest *active* plane with supercruise, but the Concorde has it beat by far, as does the YF-23. Overall package of the Raptor > YF-23, EF-2000, SU-30MKI, F-35, SU-47, SU-37, and Rafale. A little refresher on the AIR DOMINANCE FIGHTER: "Supercruise" is the term given to the capability of sustaining supersonic speeds for long periods of time. Conventional fighters(EF-2000), while capable of supersonic flight, can only sustain these speeds for relatively short periods as the result of excessively high fuel consumption using afterburner. The F-22's engines produce more thrust than any current fighter engine, especially in military (non-afterburner) power. Called "supercruise," this characteristic allows the F-22 to efficiently cruise at supersonic airspeeds without using afterburners. The F-22's engine is expected to be the first to provide the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound for an extended period of time without the high fuel consumption characteristic of aircraft that use afterburners to achieve supersonic speeds. It is expected to provide high performance and high fuel efficiency at slower speeds as well. This capability greatly expands the F-22's operating envelope in both speed and range over current fighters that must use afterburner to operate at supersonic speeds. The F-22 can cruise supersonically without afterburner and, therefore, can sustain these speeds for long periods. The enemy must react to any intruder and that reaction time to detect, aim weapons and launch, is severely reduced when the intruder is moving fast. At supercruise speeds, the F-22 (and its pilot) becomes less vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft simply because they cannot react fast enough. The EF-2000 was built to deal with Flankers and Fulcrums. This is what the Raptor was built for: The F-22 Raptor is being developed to counter lethal threats posed by advanced surface-to-air missile systems and next generation fighters equipped with launch-and-leave missiles. The Air Force faces two challenges to providing air dominance with its current fleet of fighter aircraft. First, other nations continuously improve their aerial warfare capability by fielding newer, faster, more maneuverable aircraft, such as the MiG-29, Su-35, Rafale, Gripen, and Eurofighter. Second, potential adversaries have added sophisticated air defenses built around surface-to-air missiles that can target conventional aircraft more accurately and at greater distances than in the past. The F-22 has the stealth, speed, and maneuverability to overcome these challenges and ensure air dominance over any battlefield. Edited October 6, 2007 by Ratchet
Recommended Posts