MOTF – Sea Harriers have (had!) Pegasus Mk104 or Mk106. The GR7/9 use Pegasus Mk105, and GR7A/9A use Mk107. The 104s and 106s are not compatable with the Harrier II airframe.

[QUOTE=Gollevainen]Conway is perfect, or at least the very nearest thing of perfection. Is it right about the needed TTW ratio for kuznetsovs ski-jump? Thats what we are trying to find out here.

No, I’m afraid that it is not correct. The lower your thrust to weight ratio, the longer deck run you will require to achieve a given airspeed at ramp exit, that is all. You will need a certain IAS to a) provide sufficient lift to enable the aircraft to support its own weight and b) to give sufficient control surface authority to remain controllable. All a ski jump does is add a ballistic phase to a launch, be it using a VSTOL aircraft like a Harrier, or a conventional aircraft like the SU-33. This, as has been alluded to, allows the engines to provide a downward velocity vector, which is engine derived lift, rather than wing derived lift. This applies to all ski jumps, including the Kuznetzhovs

Now, the higher the thrust to weight ratio, the quicker you will be able to accelerate down whatever deck run you have available, and hence have a higher IAS at ramp exit. This means greater lift, and hence the ability to lift a larger mass off the ship, be this in terms of fuel or weapons. It doesn’t mean that you can’t launch at a TTW ratio of less than 1! The same effect can be achieved by having a large wind over deck, which effectively increases your IAS at ramp exit.

As an aside, the last set of trials we did with the Harrier, we launched from a land based ramp at a TTW of significantly less than 1.

Hope this clarifies

regards

Dees

I was thinking of ZA195, although I suppose it was redesignated.

ZA195 was indeed redesignated an FA2. I’ve still got her flight clearance paperwork in the office 🙂

Megalith

Which mainline engine? Not Duke of Gloucester, is it?

It certainly sounds like an interesting idea. I’ve worked on both Mid Hants and East Lanc Railways at various times, so have an idea of the costs and problems involved with restoring steam engines, and wonder whether the part ownership principle could be made to work for aircraft. As already stated though, there are a number of problems particular to the aviaiton industry that may preclude it:-

1) As you have correctly stated, design authority is likely to be a problem

2) Need for AOC license to carry fair paying passengers (may not be required for ‘part-owners’ though)

3) Tooling – I would say that aircraft requires significantly more tooling than steam locos. By that I mean that each aircraft will need specialist tools, even down to locks, blanks, etc, whereas the special tolling for a steam loco can be transferred between type, eg cylinder borers

4) Specialist parts – there is far greater scope for a bit of DIY in steam engine restoration than in aircraft restoration. Eg, if your Barry scrapyard wreck is missing a cylinder drain valve, it would be relatively straightforward to get a replacement turned up. Replacing a sequencing valve on an undercarriage leg on an Argosy may be slightly more problematic.

5) Insurance – becoming more and more prohibitive all the time

6) Appeal – I think that steam locos possibly have more appeal than aircraft. For example, I’m sure it would be easier to get the public interested in restoring Mallard to mainline status than getting the Britannia at Kemble airworthy

However, all that said, if you can generate the interest in a particluar airframe, there is no reason why not. Now, how many forum members want to part own a Hawker Hunter?

Cheers

Dees

That looks more like a tyre size than a part number. Bournemouth may be able to help…

Ewan,

Not any more. Do a search on airliners.net for G-FRCE and you’ll find a pic of her in a new Reds scheme…

Cheers

Dees

Septic, the reason Delta did not join the static with the reds was that we were told to park on the other side of the runway. You may have noticed that as soon as the reds had vacated, we moved across!
Cheers
Dees

So if it has cutaway sections that must make it a museum piece, I guess… So, first stab, Cosford (seeing as we’ve already ruled out Duxford and Hendon)?