After, say M1.5, the compression is not done by the compression blades any more, it’s done by the compression from the air hitting the inlet, as a matter of fact using the compressor the inlet has to slow down the air to subsonic before accelerating to to supersonic again, this is the geniality of ramjet, complete simplicity.

@Al: you read right.
@Meteor swarm: My hunch is the MiG-31 are closer to 20 min A/B at high altitude, it will burn less fuel up there.

Not quite right.
In a gasturbine the compressor compresses the air until such times that it chokes (or stalls which amounts to the same thing in the end). That is dependant mainly upon rpm, although there are other factors that affect it. With increasing airspeed there is a need to reduce the air velocity in the intake to avoid airflow reversal problems associated with supersonic flow. As the airflow is slowed down by the intake, the pressure of the air rises. Above airspeeds of around 300 knots there is then some form of ram-effect or ram-recovery, a good pressure rise. This rise comes on top of the pressure rise of the compressor. The pressure rise of a compressor is typically expressed as a pressure ratio, ie, 10:1 (Olympus 593) all it means is that the pressure at the end of the compressor 10 times higher is than the ambient pressure, so atmospheric conditions (including altitude) have a great affect on the end pressure when measuring in psi or kilo Pascals. To go further with the example. The intake used on Concorde was capable of slowing down the airflow at mach no 2.0 to around mach no 0.5. In doing so there was a pressure rise of 6.0:1 over ambient. The air then passed through the compressor and was compressed another 10 times before entering the combustion chamber thus the intake engine combination had a pressure ratio of 60:1 at it’s cruise speed.
Reheat on the other hand increases the speed of sound of the gasstream. If the gasstream is faster at the thrust nozzle then the resultant thrust is higher.

A number of factors.
Cycles (take off and landing), touch and go’s, weight, pressurisations, ‘G” loading, flying hours and any number of things I can’t think of off the top of my head.

Yes I have. Was well worth the visit. Unfortunately a bit cloudy during Vulcan display. But what a sight, this mighty delta……
Will post a couple of pictures on the airshow photography forum tomorrow.

Unfortunately I had other commitments, shame really.
The Vulcan was my first experience of rapid start. Certainly makes you jump first time around.

Wonder if it’s the same Sgt Marsden I knew?

I went through Swinderby Aug-Oct 1977 and the Sgt Marsden I knew whacked me on my head with his pace stick when I misheard one of his commands in the hanger during drill……git!

That’ll be the one. I was there Jul-Sep ’76.

Don’t you mean ‘marching hup and down the square’?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLJ8ILIE780&feature=fvw

(Swinderby: Been there, done that, got the ‘nohalfsize’ Bata plimsoles you had to fill by wearing thick socks)

Nice, true, but also the hangar.
Watching Sgt Marsden throw his cap and pace stick through the hangar was always a good laugh.
He was a very frustrated man, so it happened alot.

The KC-30 is too much plane for the stated requirement (in fact an argument can be made that the KC-767AT is as well, it did after all exceed the key fuel offload requirements by 25,000+ lbs/500+nm, but at least it is not bigger & heavier than the KC-10 and fits existing infrastucture) so obviously the still larger/heavier KC-777 would be as well.

***

That is what CRAF is for…

***

There is lies the problem…

There has to be a competition but the only ‘competitor’ [KC-30] is too much (big/heavy) for KC-X [KC-767] and too little (although quite large/heavy lacks competative capacity/capability) for KC-Y [KC-777].

***

Your logic is flawed. The F-35 does not require twice as much fuel to perform the same misison as the F-16…

***

Quite the opposite, the 330 compares poorly vs the 767 in the “KC” role and compares poorly vs the 777 in the “CK” role…

With that being said, if you are not the USAF (i.e. not operating hundreds of tankers) & can only realistically operate one tanker type (as opposed to the US’s medium/large mix) the KC-330 might have value. 🙂

There has to be a competition…

When you finally catch your tail, what are you going to do with it?

The 777 solves the technology and additional cargo capability questions, but it increases cost and it might be too much plane for the requirement”

Calling PFCEM.:diablo: