David Hingtgen Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Heck no, they weren't even supposed to HAVE any, much less build them.
edwin3060 Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 (edited) The CFM-56 is used on the 737 family, A320 family and A340 family though, so it is not difficult for China to get ahold of the engines. Air China, which is the national airlines of the PRC, operates the A320, A340 and the 737 . So they definitely have the engines, and it is not too difficult to get ahold of a few to reverse engineer. Not to mention that they would already have technicians trained in the maintenance of said engines. Edited May 6, 2009 by edwin3060
edwin3060 Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) On a brighter note: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=156704 Privately owned SU-27s in the US! These are the 2 seater versions too--too bad it seems to be going to some PMC that does DACT for the USAF? Would've been cool if it were for some company to offer joyrides Edited May 8, 2009 by edwin3060
David Hingtgen Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 The point was that early on, when they had no airliners with those engines, there was apparently a lot of resistance to selling them---because they feared back-engineering! Look what happened.
Bri Posted May 8, 2009 Posted May 8, 2009 Wasn't that calculated risk? I mean it's still a generation behind the F119 and F135/136.
miles316 Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 I was watching Video of the French aircraft carrier launching plains and the super Etendard doesn't use the standard arrangement for attaching the plane to the catapult. A metal bar shaped like a upside down A that connects planes fuselage to the shuttle cock and is apparently discarded in the ocean.
edwin3060 Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 The point was that early on, when they had no airliners with those engines, there was apparently a lot of resistance to selling them---because they feared back-engineering! Look what happened. Yep.. haha seriously, no one should trust the Chinese when it comes to these sort of things. Look at what happened to the SU-27/J-11, their own J-10 program, and just about everything that companies outsource to China, from mobile phones to computer chips. You can be sure that a replica will be made. Note: This is not a racial bash, I'm ethnically Chinese myself. Just a statement of fact, that the Chinese are amoral when it comes to these things, or when money is involved.
edwin3060 Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 I was watching Video of the French aircraft carrier launching plains and the super Etendard doesn't use the standard arrangement for attaching the plane to the catapult. A metal bar shaped like a upside down A that connects planes fuselage to the shuttle cock and is apparently discarded in the ocean. Hmm that's interesting. Rafale's should use the US style catapult attachment though, since I've seen pics of them operating of a Nimitz Class.
miles316 Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 Hmm that's interesting. Rafale's should use the US style catapult attachment though, since I've seen pics of them operating of a Nimitz Class. I was talking about the Supper Etendard the Rafale does use the same Catapult attachment while on the French carrier. I was watching footage of A-4's taking off from carriers, and they use the same setup as the Supper Etendard. This looks like a wast and would take up valuable space on a carrier I guess that is why they were phased out.
David Hingtgen Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 Ok, now that you mention the A-4 and I re-read the description, I think I know what you're talking about. Those aren't metal bars, they're simply cables under tension. That's called a "bridle" style of catapult launching attachment. They were standard for many years. It's the ONLY way to launch the F-8, F-4, A-4, A-3, F-3, F-2, F-7, F-6, F-9, and just about anything else that's older than the A-6/A-7/F-14. Hooking them up via the nose gear is the "new" way to do it. Also, it's not a waste, as the bridle isn't discarded (usually)----they stay with the shuttle and the whole assembly is "caught" at the end of the run. Ever noticed the "prongs" on the bow of a carrier aligned with the catapults? Most carriers used to have 2, then 1, and now usually none. They were there soley for bridle-launching--to recover the bridle cables. As it became less common, they were removed. And the newest carriers weren't built with any. At one point, the number of bridles remaining in inventory exceeded the number of possible/planned launches of the few remaining bridle-launched planes, so they stopped catching them! (this also allowed carriers that no longer had the "prongs" to still launch the occasional plane via bridle, as it didn't matter if they could be retrieved) Here, this shows a bridle pretty well:
miles316 Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) Ok, now that you mention the A-4 and I re-read the description, I think I know what you're talking about. Those aren't metal bars, they're simply cables under tension. That's called a "bridle" style of catapult launching attachment. They were standard for many years. It's the ONLY way to launch the F-8, F-4, A-4, A-3, F-3, F-2, F-7, F-6, F-9, and just about anything else that's older than the A-6/A-7/F-14. Hooking them up via the nose gear is the "new" way to do it. Also, it's not a waste, as the bridle isn't discarded (usually)----they stay with the shuttle and the whole assembly is "caught" at the end of the run. Ever noticed the "prongs" on the bow of a carrier aligned with the catapults? Most carriers used to have 2, then 1, and now usually none. They were there soley for bridle-launching--to recover the bridle cables. As it became less common, they were removed. And the newest carriers weren't built with any. At one point, the number of bridles remaining in inventory exceeded the number of possible/planned launches of the few remaining bridle-launched planes, so they stopped catching them! (this also allowed carriers that no longer had the "prongs" to still launch the occasional plane via bridle, as it didn't matter if they could be retrieved) Here, this shows a bridle pretty well: Thanks for filling me in, and for that close up picture of the F-4. Edited May 9, 2009 by miles316
edwin3060 Posted May 9, 2009 Posted May 9, 2009 Ok, now that you mention the A-4 and I re-read the description, I think I know what you're talking about. Those aren't metal bars, they're simply cables under tension. That's called a "bridle" style of catapult launching attachment. They were standard for many years. It's the ONLY way to launch the F-8, F-4, A-4, A-3, F-3, F-2, F-7, F-6, F-9, and just about anything else that's older than the A-6/A-7/F-14. Hooking them up via the nose gear is the "new" way to do it. Also, it's not a waste, as the bridle isn't discarded (usually)----they stay with the shuttle and the whole assembly is "caught" at the end of the run. Ever noticed the "prongs" on the bow of a carrier aligned with the catapults? Most carriers used to have 2, then 1, and now usually none. They were there soley for bridle-launching--to recover the bridle cables. As it became less common, they were removed. And the newest carriers weren't built with any. At one point, the number of bridles remaining in inventory exceeded the number of possible/planned launches of the few remaining bridle-launched planes, so they stopped catching them! (this also allowed carriers that no longer had the "prongs" to still launch the occasional plane via bridle, as it didn't matter if they could be retrieved) Here, this shows a bridle pretty well: Hmm.. so the prongs on the Asuka II in Mac0 are an anachronism? Interesting!
David Hingtgen Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 That's what happens when you try to modernize/futurize something without knowing what certain design features are. (so many movies do this with planes and ships----can't tell you how many times I've seen a "22nd century" version of something that stopped being used half-way through WWII)
Vifam7 Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 That's what happens when you try to modernize/futurize something without knowing what certain design features are. (so many movies do this with planes and ships----can't tell you how many times I've seen a "22nd century" version of something that stopped being used half-way through WWII) I'd love to know some examples!
David Hingtgen Posted May 11, 2009 Posted May 11, 2009 http://www.holloman.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?id=123148046 Go pick your own wallpaper, many good ones.
edwin3060 Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 http://www.holloman.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?id=123148046 Go pick your own wallpaper, many good ones. This is still my favourite.
Shadow Posted May 12, 2009 Posted May 12, 2009 Interesting video of an instructor in a T-38 getting a kill on his student who's flying an F-22. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ
edwin3060 Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 Interesting video of an instructor in a T-38 getting a kill on his student who's flying an F-22. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ Haha there's been much angst on the aviation message boards about this video. I think the general conclusion is that it was a courtesy kill and the F-22 wasn't trying to maneuver too hard.
Bri Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 That video doesn't say anything about the F22 really. I mean it's close range, and we don't know who are flying. Suppose it's an instructor in the T38 versus a rookie then the outcome can't be a surprise. The good thing this video shows is that the USAF is still training close range air to air combat and do not solely rely on BVR.
Phyrox Posted May 13, 2009 Posted May 13, 2009 Haha there's been much angst on the aviation message boards about this video. I think the general conclusion is that it was a courtesy kill and the F-22 wasn't trying to maneuver too hard. Air combat isn't anime...any one good pilot can beat any other good pilot, regardless of aircraft. Any number of tactical factors go into deciding an air combat that cannot be manufactured. Of course, the F-22 gives its pilot some huge advantages, but it's obviously not unimaginable that one would get shot down by a "lesser" aircraft.
edwin3060 Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Air combat isn't anime...any one good pilot can beat any other good pilot, regardless of aircraft. Any number of tactical factors go into deciding an air combat that cannot be manufactured. Of course, the F-22 gives its pilot some huge advantages, but it's obviously not unimaginable that one would get shot down by a "lesser" aircraft. I agree-- my point is that the consensus (from actual combat pilots on other message boards like F-16.net), is that the F-22 is basically being used as target practice by the T-38 (i.e. courtesy kill), and not truly engaged in ACM. Anyway, here's a nice picture of Prandtl-Glauert singularity on the B-2 bomber http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...nd-barrier.html
F-ZeroOne Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Clearly the subspace distortion caused as it engages the warp engines... Apparently the UK will be buying Tranche 3 of the Eurofighter Typhoon, though its still a little unclear how many will actually remain in the UK. Apparently we now also have "Tranche 3a" and "Tranche 3b"... Edited May 14, 2009 by F-ZeroOne
David Hingtgen Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 Jeez. "Stealth bomber photographed breaking sound barrier" "A stealth bomber is frozen in time as it breaks the sound barrier during a test flight above the Californian desert" Bad enough for the headline to be wrong, even worse for the byline to repeat it!
F-ZeroOne Posted May 14, 2009 Posted May 14, 2009 To be fair, the actual text of the article is more accurate...
David Hingtgen Posted May 15, 2009 Posted May 15, 2009 First 787 in airline colors: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-sk...ana-livery.html
Cruel Angel's Thesis Posted May 15, 2009 Posted May 15, 2009 Well I'm back, long story short router shut me out from coming here. After problem was solved been lazy about showing up. Hope to start showing up again on a regular basis. Well to kick it off, was looking up stuff and came across this. http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...maneuverab.html Cruel Angel's Thesis
edwin3060 Posted May 15, 2009 Posted May 15, 2009 Jeez. "Stealth bomber photographed breaking sound barrier" "A stealth bomber is frozen in time as it breaks the sound barrier during a test flight above the Californian desert" Bad enough for the headline to be wrong, even worse for the byline to repeat it! Yea-- editors aren't what they used to be I guess-- or whoever comes up with the headlines/bylines. The actual article is alot more accurate though. Re 787: Is ANA the launch customer for the Dreamliner? Re F-35: Meh-- I think that is advertising hype. HOBS capability can help level the playing field, but launching missiles at high angles will still decrease the probability of hit, etc. Maneuverability will still be useful and very relevant.
F-ZeroOne Posted May 15, 2009 Posted May 15, 2009 Granted, modern missiles are much better than they used to be ("Theres a reason they're not called hittiles... ") but I seem to recall hearing that line before...
David Hingtgen Posted May 15, 2009 Posted May 15, 2009 ANA is the 787 launch customer. That particular one won't go to them though, they (along with most other airlines) have refused to accept any delivery from the first half-dozen built. (they won't be up to par)
edwin3060 Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 ANA is the 787 launch customer. That particular one won't go to them though, they (along with most other airlines) have refused to accept any delivery from the first half-dozen built. (they won't be up to par) O_O Really? What is the reason for that (not being up to par)? Why build them in the first place then?
Knight26 Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 the first 6 are invariably test assets, and as such will experience a lot problems as the bugs are worked out and all the orange wire systems are used
David Hingtgen Posted May 16, 2009 Posted May 16, 2009 Here's the latest on early 787 deliveries: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightbl...ke-most-of.html The short version: the first ones built are going to be overweight.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 ANA is the 787 launch customer. That particular one won't go to them though, they (along with most other airlines) have refused to accept any delivery from the first half-dozen built. (they won't be up to par) So there are like 6 A380s sitting around as test mules somewhere? I suppose Concorde was an exception to this rule?
Recommended Posts