Aircraft Vs Thread 5

[David Hingtgen]

Heck no, they weren't even supposed to HAVE any, much less build them.

[edwin3060]

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]

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]

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]

Wasn't that calculated risk? I mean it's still a generation behind the F119 and F135/136.

[miles316]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.holloman.af.mil/news/story_media.asp?id=123148046

Go pick your own wallpaper, many good ones.

[edwin3060]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

To be fair, the actual text of the article is more accurate...

[Bowen]

Sloppy...

[David Hingtgen]

First 787 in airline colors: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-sk...ana-livery.html

[Cruel Angel's Thesis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[edwin3060]

Ouch.. thanks for the info!

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

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?