i.e.it will be interesting to see how the US will build their E-3 replacement on the 767 airframe.. perhaps unlike the Japanese, they’ll use conformal attachments instead of a rice bowl on top!
last time I heard the superdupper E-3/E-8/RC-135 replacement knwon as MC2A is still an conformal design….
before permenately got shelved.
…
my personal view is that…
buy cheap, but be modular.
rely on proven systems.
based on proven commercial cargo jet type of aircraft that can swap out mission radars and c&c modules with minimum system and external changes.
i.e.why did PLAAF choose to mount their AWACS on the Il-76 then?
because they wanted israeli’s radar.
and israelis came with a nice powerpoint presentation.
…
and they didn’t have yours truely in charge of the program, ha
j/k. :D!
i.e.just enough to balance its own weight at cruise velocity, no more or it would stress the connecting structure.
the balance beam also generates lift to counter-balance its own weight.
having lift is less of a benefit because you will correspondingly having more drag… it will not be as efficient (as high of an L/D) as your main wing,,, ever.
the downwash is usually turbulent anyways and it would usually distort your empennage flow. which means more finlets/vertical surfaces which means drag.
conformal is definitely the way of the future, it is cheaper and easier to integrate too.
i.e.yes. The US was also going to use the 767 as the basis for their E-3 replacement, called the E-10. It would’ve replaced the E-3, E-8, and RC-135, but due to budget cuts, halted it and considering putting it on the same airframe as the next gen tanker…. which is dun dun dun.. the 767
Just buy cargo jets and do the conversion yourself.
may be a good learning experience too.
have OEM do it is over priced.
if you have trouble with radar get israeii’s to help .
… PLA converted couple of 737ER into airborne C&C posts and couple of Tu-154M as a Jstar/elint with a SAR canoe, all at their own workshop, no problem!.
i.e.here is what I said in another unrelated thread:
There is an interesting discussion I follow somewhereelse that compares the array size for a Phalcon and E-2.
essentially E-2 traded scanning rate with array size (range and power), triangular arangement for phalcon are penalized with smaller array size vs a back to back array arrangement, fixed random size.turns out not much time is spent scanning 360, if you are your airwar planning has alot of issues.
so may be best uses is on a fixed “dogtrack” circuit looking at one threat direction. in those case a large fixed array that is parallel to length of your body is the best option. that’s where the discussion of used cargo jets come in.
original phalcon radar on that Chilean 707 doesn’t penetrate the structure skin, it is mounted onto the structure with a external fairing…so… in theory, an MRO facility with experience converting passenger 737s into cargos with their big pressure doors should have ample capabilities to do those work. system wise (power cooling its another story)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1820413&postcount=791
i.e.Good question … here’s a reply for the same question on CDF:
Deino
my mistake too.
I lost track of all these 80X units long time ago.
i.e.can J-10 carry those?
weapons integration hasn’t been done yet. it’s on going.
but the system should have no trouble integrating it.
it already has a pretty good bombing computer.
all J-10 examples has been going towards interceptor units. so the priority was a2a with 2nd a2g role.
i.e.Yes there is the DRDO-CABS AWACS on ERJ 45 platform. But these are much smaller birds which would supplement rather than take over from the Phalcons.
As for the C-17 I was saying as they augment the airlift fleet, India may be able to use one of their IL-76 (send them to Israel) for conversion.
right, almost forgot that one.
There is an interesting discussion I follow somewhereelse that compares the array size for a Phalcon and E-2.
essentially E-2 traded scanning rate with array size (range and power), triangular arangement for phalcon are penalized with smaller array size vs a back to back array arrangement, fixed random size.
turns out not much time is spent scanning 360, if you are your airwar planning has alot of issues.
so may be best uses is on a fixed “dogtrack” circuit looking at one threat direction. in those case a large fixed array that is parallel to length of your body is the best option. that’s where the discussion of used cargo jets come in.
original phalcon radar on that Chilean 707 doesn’t penetrate the structure skin, it is mounted onto the structure with a external fairing…so… in theory, an MRO facility with experience converting passenger 737s into cargos with their big pressure doors should have ample capabilities to do those work. system wise (power cooling its another story)
as for sending IL-76 to israel, I believe phalcon’s radome work is done in russia, with Israelis doing the installatin of the electronics. Israeli’s as far as I know hasn’t done that before (not saying they can’t do that, but it would be something extra).
does IAF or HAL has conversion facilities that can handle the work?
i.e.Or end the Phalcon orders at five and buy Wedgetails in future.
I would take Phalcon over wedgetail any day of the week.
btw, Is there an Indian Domestic program for AWACS/Elint platforms? or it is all Russian/Israeli/ buy-American? ?
i.e.In that case I am wondering why not order more C 17s and mod the existing IL 76s.
C-17 is not cut out for this,
operating cost of these airlifter are just too high.
you want something smaller and lasts longer in air with less maintain hour.
i.e.Some have suggested that IAF is interested in larger platforms for the Phalcon like the IL-76 compared the Gulfstreams etc on offer by Israel.
So in case of us running out of IL-76 what platform would be ideal ?
2nd hand low hour cargo 737s , A320s. etc etc
provided some willingness to go mod yourself.
prob save a bundle on operation cost to make back the mod cost.
if one really wants to save $$$, go for a Burt Rutan’s Proteus and hang a radar on it.
i.e.entirely relevent.
“A much larger engine is under development by Avic’s 606 Institute at Shenyang as the powerplant for the 200-metric-ton (440,000-lb.) airlifter whose development was acknowledged in late 2009, says another industry official, who is not affiliated with the Gas Turbine Establishment. It was previously assumed that the airlifter would use Russian engines.
The engine is internally stated to be a high-bypass derivative of the WS-10 Taihang combat-aircraft engine, says the official, who has not seen it. The 606 Institute was involved in development of the Taihang. While the project for a military high-bypass engine has not been officially mentioned, it is apparently not a highly secret one, since the official says there is some peripheral Western involvement with it.
“
i.e.from pages of advances of cryogenic engineering, American Institute of Physics, Volume 39, Part 2 page 66.
this is an old list too.
Tsagi one gone down,
Nasa tore one of its down.
i.e.Pulling cool sounding technical terms ad hoc (and I fear, in some cases making them up, like ‘cryo-tunnel’, though I have heard of cryotubes for CFD simulations) is pretty pathetic and amateurish. If you can provide me a link for a “Cryo-tunnel”, I’ll be more than happy to admit my error (unlike some), after all that is the learning process. .
good,
now, Please Admit that you are a *** removed by moderator*** and never heard of cryogenic windtunnels (THE reliable tool to correct for Re-effects in transonics) but seems have all the confidence in the world to challenge some one who actually has designed and put airplanes into sky.
and please do us all a favor and cut down the length of your posts. it would make this world a better place. (sorry confused you with Teer, never the less the message is the same)
===
DNW, Deutch-German Windtunnel.
http://www.dnw.aero/windtunnels.aspx?id=266&menuid=34&subid=266
Nasa langley 0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/windtunnels.html
Mitsubishi Heavy Industry Cryogenic Wind Tunnel
http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/products/detail/cryogenic_wind_tunnel_quiet_nozzle_overview.html
and this one (everyone in the western hemisphere who try to do any real airplane almost invariablly goes to this one. l)
ETW; European Transonic Windtunnel.
“Temperature from 313 K (= + 40°C) down to 110 K (= – 163°C)”
“Fundamentally, if the temperature of the flow is decreased, the viscosity of the gas and the velocity of sound decrease and the density increases. The overall effect of cooling is that the Reynolds number increases rapidly. Thus a pressurized tunnel at very low “cryogenic” temperatures can provide real-flight Reynolds numbers by virtue of both increased pressure and decreased temperature.”
http://www.etw.de/cms/index.php?site=performance
…
and I dont even want to put the one in CARDC down because that would just hit too many buttons.
i.e.La Blue
You’re absolutely right!! I’ve never seen a CFD CL/CM prediction curve- that would be most interesting!
I take it you’re talking about pressure difference variations on the leading edge approaching M1 and their associated aeroelastic deformation effects.
No, basic compressibility effects. we are talking rigids first.
I wouldn’t even drag static flexibility effects (that’s the proper term) into this because it would be bit more complicated, for you,.so, what is the basic compressibilty effects on a typical CL and CM curve.
simple enough if you have done any bit of aerodynamics works on a real vehicle.I have, however, seen a Lift Coefficient (CL) vs angle of attack (degrees) – which is an inclined line from L-R (approaching M1);
Also, a pitching Moment Coefficient (CM) vs angle of attack (degrees)- which is a declined line from L-R (approaching M1).
:rolleyes:, typically when people in industry say CL & CM curves what they mean is CL vs Alpha and CM vs Alpha. get the terms right. comeon get with the program.
and so, what would the behavior typical vs Alpha, as you approaches M=1 for a typical fighter vehicle. ?
Did you just pull CL vs CM out of your “cryo-tunnel”?! (Not for the 1st time).
Come on i.e. give us an e.g. (For the 1st time…..but I won’t hold my breath).
pretty typical behiavor, more cheap shots devoid of substance.
you prob donno what a cryo tunnel is until I just informed you there is a thing called cryo tunnel.
Sign In
