dark light

keithmac

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 259 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #406810
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Bases in Europe!!

    Hi Benjamin – I thought you lived in Belgium, not Disneyland! This “Supranational” Government of yours is a bit of EU wishful thinking. The EU parliament has some powers, but they do not have the power to base the military forces of one member state within the borders of another. All current basing of non-national military forces within the borders of member states is authorised by NATO status of forces agreements, not by the EU Parliament. There is no EU Army, Navy or Air Force, and whilever the various member states remain sovereign with their own foreign policy it will remain that way.

    I don’t want to get into a political debate, it’s not my thing, but having been a serving member of a NATO military force for nearly 40 years, and having served in Germany, with close contacts with French, Belgian, Danish, Norwegen and Dutch Forces, I do know from first hand why I was where I was, and who authorised me to be there!

    KeithMac.

    in reply to: Bases in Europe!! #1978952
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Bases in Europe!!

    Hi Benjamin – I thought you lived in Belgium, not Disneyland! This “Supranational” Government of yours is a bit of EU wishful thinking. The EU parliament has some powers, but they do not have the power to base the military forces of one member state within the borders of another. All current basing of non-national military forces within the borders of member states is authorised by NATO status of forces agreements, not by the EU Parliament. There is no EU Army, Navy or Air Force, and whilever the various member states remain sovereign with their own foreign policy it will remain that way.

    I don’t want to get into a political debate, it’s not my thing, but having been a serving member of a NATO military force for nearly 40 years, and having served in Germany, with close contacts with French, Belgian, Danish, Norwegen and Dutch Forces, I do know from first hand why I was where I was, and who authorised me to be there!

    KeithMac.

    in reply to: General Discussion #406948
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Bases in Europe!!

    Being a member of the EU which is an economic alliance gives no rights or priveleges on Military basing. All basing of military units in another country is by standing NATO agreement. The British Base in Cyprus is different again. Akrotiri is a Soverign Base Area, which like an Embassy is British Territory and is not subject to either NATO or EU agreements. Confusing is’nt it! The UK also has a base at Gibralter which is also British Territory, although the Spanish would like it to be theirs.

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Bases in Europe!! #1979013
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Bases in Europe!!

    Being a member of the EU which is an economic alliance gives no rights or priveleges on Military basing. All basing of military units in another country is by standing NATO agreement. The British Base in Cyprus is different again. Akrotiri is a Soverign Base Area, which like an Embassy is British Territory and is not subject to either NATO or EU agreements. Confusing is’nt it! The UK also has a base at Gibralter which is also British Territory, although the Spanish would like it to be theirs.

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Propellers Pt.2 #2103746
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Propellers Pt.2

    Hi Gary.
    To be honest, I haven’t the faintest idea! It was on the windowsill in the office of the Stores Warrant Officer at RAF Mount Pleasant when I saw it. On one knew what is was or what it came from. As it was not on anyone’s charge, I was given it as a leaving present when I finished my tour in the Falklands. It anyone knows what it’s off, I’ll be as interested as you in finding out!

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Avenger pic #2104077
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Avenger pic

    Hi Merlin, Not the prettiest aircraft in the world, but anything with a big 24 Cylinder, 1,700 hp radial can’t be all bad! They certainly sorted out the opposition at Midway!

    KeithMac

    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Propellers Pt.3 – Pitch, Torque and Thrust – Neilly’s question finally answered!

    Oops! Just read what I wrote on-screen. The relationship between lift and drag is the Lift/Drag RATIO, not ratioN. The N was a mistake!!

    KeithMac

    in reply to: EE P.1B XA853 #2104450
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: EE P.1B XA853

    Thanks for the replies Guy’s, this seems to be more a difficult question than I had thought!

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Propellers – Pt 1 #2104755
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Propellers – Pt 1

    The answer is very very much better. A fixed pitch prop is a compromise. The compromise they went for was to have a fairly course pitch which gave good performance in combat. This however made for very long take off runs (for the type of aircraft) and the prop was generally very inefficient. You have to remember though, that the speed ranges of the aircraft in those days was only around 200 mph. I’ll be posting Pt 2 of my post later, where I’ll deal a little more with variable pitch props and blade twist.

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Another one for Uncle Keith – Pitch & Torque? #2104967
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Another one for Uncle Keith – Pitch & Torque?

    Hi Neilly. What you’re doing with a prop is converting your engine power into thrust. Your engines power output (and torque) is dependent on it’s efficiency and how far you open it up. For a given power a coarser pitch will lower the rev’s. When your talking the number of blades, your talking about “Solidity” this is the ratio of blade to air in the disc area of the prop. The number of blades you need is dependent on how much power you have to convert. A 3 bladed prop on a course pitch can convert as much power as a 4 bladed prop on a finer pitch. Really big engines require lots of blades, or even counter rotating co axial props. But all these bit’s of info can get a bit confusing if you don’t really know the basics. The pitch you choose is more about how you want to fly your aircraft. Having a fixed pitch prop is a bit like having a car with one gear! A course pitch is like driving in top gear all the time, great on a motorway, but a bugger if your in traffic. Fine pitch is like 1st or 2nd, great for a good take off, but no good for the high speed dash!

    I’ll put a few drawings together and do a mini series on the propeller, might bore the pants off a few people, but they can ignore them if they don’t want the info.

    KeithMac.

    in reply to: Another one for Uncle Keith – Pitch & Torque? #2104985
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Another one for Uncle Keith – Pitch & Torque?

    Hi Neilly, Believe it or not there’s a SIMPLE answer to your question, propeller torque = engine torque, but in the opposite direction. It’s not the size of the prop that matters, it’s how much torque the engine is producing. Increase the blade angle (pitch) and you will slow the revs for a given power, but the torque will be the same! A bigger diameter prop with the same blade angle will have the same effect. Basically what I’m saying is that the torque effect on your aeroplane is dependent on power output of your engine – not on the propeller you fit.
    Looks like I might have to do a few posts specifically on propellers.

    KeithMac

    in reply to: ConRods! #2105127
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: ConRods!

    Hi Merlin. I suppose the biggest difference between car engines and aero engines, even inlines, is that in most cases the cylinders are separate from the crankcase and can be removed individually, or in the case of some inlines as a block. Car engines usually also house the entire oil supply within the sump in a “wet sump” while aero engines have a large oil tank to contain a large quantity of oil which also acts as an internal coolant. This is known as a “dry sump” system.

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Modular Engines #2105129
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Modular Engines

    I have to agree with Steve, I was part of the 4 man team which introduced the RB.199 into RAF service. The engine has always met with the spec to which is was designed. It has also been far more reliable than we ever expected. The amount of maintenance over-capacity is almost an embarrassment to me, as I made the initial recommendations for repair facilities, a lot of which we never needed after the first few years in service. Whichever way you look at it, the 199 has been a superb engine and has done everything we have asked of it. If we wanted to “tweek” the performance up a bit for combat, we could, but at the cost of turbine life. The new engines to which Steve refers have reverted to twin spool layouts, due to better computer designed compressor and turbines. You need to keep in mind that the original 199 series goes way back to the 1970’s, and the changes in computer technology since then have been staggering.

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Slipstream!! #2105295
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Slipstream!!

    Hi Lancman, I do try to get out, but with no flying Vulcan and only one flying Lanc, it is really worth it?

    KeithMac

    in reply to: Centaurus #2105433
    keithmac
    Participant

    RE: Centaurus

    Hello Dezz. The early engines you’re talking about are rotary engines. I have to say they were even before my time, and I was never trained on them. I’ve a basic idea how they work, but I’ve no diagrams or drawings. So for the moment I’ll have to admit defeat. I’ll try and dig out some info and when I have I’ll try and put something together.

    KeithMac.

Viewing 15 posts - 136 through 150 (of 259 total)