dark light

Arthur

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,031 through 3,045 (of 6,424 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: SU30MKI v/s SU-35 #2645142
    Arthur
    Participant

    So are we to understand that 86, 87 and 88 were built BEYOND the 12 ??? in one year? 1996 or are they the same yardstick a/c. Thats why I had earlier stated that there are only 11 Su-35 left.

    And as explained before, you are wrong.

    Prototype construction numbers:
    bort 703: c/n 79871010102
    bort 708: c/n 79871011103
    bort 711: c/n 79871011104
    For the production aircraft, the 01/11 series has been abandoned:
    bort 88r: c/n 79871012304

    in reply to: KC-135E troubles #2645149
    Arthur
    Participant

    The fuel flow for refuelling booms is about twice as fast as for hose/drogue refuelling, but not all fighters can handle the maximum pumping speed of a boom-equipped tanker. If your tanker is equipped with multiple hoses and refuels two small aircraft at the same time, a hose/drogue tanker actually has a faster fuel transfer rate than a single boom-equipped tanker. If you also count in the time needed for connecting and disconnecting the recievers to the tanker aircraft, you’ll find that a section/gaggle/flight of fighters is refuelled faster by a multi-point hose tanker like the RAF’s Tristar, than it would be by a single-boom tanker like the KC-135.

    in reply to: Portugal to buy 5 P-3 from Norway #2645459
    Arthur
    Participant

    Yep… it’s also the last of the ring of airfields Den Haag once had. Ypenburg is built up with housing, Valkenburg will be part of Leiden in a number of years, Ockenburg is still a camping ground, Waalhaven is a port, Ruigenhoek has been built up long ago, and Zestienhoven never was a military airbase and didn’t exist in 1940 yet anyway… The camping at Ockenburg still has some relics of the airfield (well, it had when i camped there somewhere in the 1980s) and i think the old tower of Ypenburg has been preserved as well, but it’s definately a part of history which is going to be lost. Especially the events during the German invasion in 1940 were very worthwile – of the almost 400 Ju-52s the Germans lost over the Netherlands in May 1940, the bulk was lost on or around those airfields.

    Valkenburg was a perfect base for diplomatic/political flights too, far better than a crowded airport like Schiphol will ever be. Munir, do you know if Zestienhoven has some ramp space they could use to roll out the red carpet and play the Wilhelmus?

    in reply to: Portugal to buy 5 P-3 from Norway #2645463
    Arthur
    Participant

    Eight were sold to Germany, so there were five remaining.

    in reply to: Portugal to buy 5 P-3 from Norway #2645519
    Arthur
    Participant

    That would be the Netherlands, not Norway.

    The probable cause for the confusion, Noordwijk is a town on the Dutch coast where there is an occasional conference (like the EU defence summit). It’s also got a massive European Space Agency facility, and isn’t too far from NAS Valkenburg.

    in reply to: SU30MKI v/s SU-35 #2645534
    Arthur
    Participant

    Here it is at MAKS2001 (where i checked it as well). It’s now appearantly one of the Russkie Vityazi, our resident Flanker expert Ken will probably know which one it is now.

    in reply to: SU30MKI v/s SU-35 #2645583
    Arthur
    Participant

    They are now with the Russkiye Vityazi, prior to that they flew from Akhtubinsk, and the construction number of one of them was checked by yours truely: 79871012304/88r. You don’t need to read every bit of info in books…

    in reply to: What's the "western" equivelent to the An-24 #637315
    Arthur
    Participant

    The F27 is definately the closest equivalent, both are high-wing twin turboprops ment for small airline ops from relatively austere airfields, more or less as DC3/Li-2 replacements. That’s exactly the role the An-24 fulfilled with Aeroflot, and still does with a bunch of Babyflots and other airlines.

    The An-26 is an uprated (extra engine power plus a separate APU) variant of the -24 with a rear loading ramp, and compares more to small transports like the G222 or CN235. Definately not yet in the C-130 class, for that you’d be looking at the An-12.

    Helicopter-wise, the Soviets always had far more capable heavy lift helos with the Mi-6 and Mi-26 (the latter having the same payload as the aforementioned Hercules).

    in reply to: Hurricane Ivan #1962168
    Arthur
    Participant

    …and Australia is rapidly running out of water (we haven’t had a good rain fall in 3 and a half years).

    You guys are running out of water because some moronic farmers there thought it might be a good idea to construct rice paddies in the desert :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Landlocked navies #2071899
    Arthur
    Participant

    Large commercial types perhaps, but not military as far as I recall. I think all ex-USSR states that border the Caspian, bar the Ukraine, operate small patrol forces.

    That’s because the Ukraine hasn’t got a shore on the Caspian Sea 🙂 It’s some 300km from the Caspian to the Ukrainian border (closest would be the Mariupol-Taganrog border crossing).

    in reply to: Operational Evaluation Comparison: C-130 V C-160 #2645599
    Arthur
    Participant

    The Transall was ment for pure inter-theatre transport, in case of an all-out war on the European continent. The payload of the Tral isn’t that much less than that of the Herk, but it has far shorter range. Of course, if you look at the distance between Wünstorf and the former Inner German Border… range was nowhere near as important as for the Herk, which was more or less designed as an intercontinental para dropper.

    in reply to: Venezuela to Buy 50 Russian Mig-29 Fighters #2645612
    Arthur
    Participant

    They have problems for pay about 6/8 AMX-T…..and now 50 brand new Mig-29?

    Check the oil prices…

    in reply to: soviet-russian engines #2645634
    Arthur
    Participant

    The AL21F doesn’t have the J79’s distinctive whine though. For that haunting howling noise, you’d want an R27 engine. On the other hand, AL-21F equipped Fitters have an awesome burner lag…

    in reply to: KC-135E troubles #2645638
    Arthur
    Participant

    It wasn’t until the early 1960s that the boom refuelling method became the standard USAF way of filling up flying aircraft. Prior to that, TAC (Tactical Air Command) had it’s fighters fitted with probes for hose’n’probe refuelling, while SAC (Strategical yada yada) used flying booms to refuel it’s bombers. Of course, being oh so scared of the non-existing Soviet bomber fleet, SAC was given massive priority within the USAF and the boom method became standard. Much to the dislike of the tactical guys, obviously.

    The last boom-refuelled aircraft within the USAF were the Cessna A-37 Dragonflies, the last ones (OA-37B’s) leaving the service from the 24th CW at Howard AFB, Panama in the early 1990s.

    in reply to: SU30MKI v/s SU-35 #2645652
    Arthur
    Participant

    There are at least two production Su-35s apart from the prototypes.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,031 through 3,045 (of 6,424 total)