dark light

Arthur

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,421 through 3,435 (of 6,424 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: What's wrong with this? #2666735
    Arthur
    Participant

    Only if your ejection seat doesn’t work at all – it’s not that substantial numbers of pilots who have ejected have slammed into the tail of their aircraft.

    Blow-in doors are an interesting idea, but this would make for some fancy intake duct design. With the main intake on top of the fuselage, and blow-in doors below… naah.

    in reply to: What's wrong with this? #2666761
    Arthur
    Participant

    The Blinder of course has dorsal intakes. Aerodynamically it’s fine, but you are likely to run into airflow problems during high AoA flight.

    in reply to: C-12A Request #2667594
    Arthur
    Participant

    The original C-12As are 77-1205 to 1218 (USAF), 73-21058 to 21060, 73-22250 to 22269 (all USArmy), 76-0158 to 0173 (USAF), 76-22545 to 22564 (USAr) and 77-22931 to 22950 (USAr). A lot of these have later been upgraded to C-12C with uprated engines: PT6A-41s in stead of the PT6A-38s. They should be identical with the King Air 100 series.

    There is a whole plethora of subvariants though, up to and beyond the C-12J which is a Beech 1900. And then there are the flying antenna variants of the RC-12 breed, of which i think the RC-12K has the most bumps ‘n blades coming out.

    Arthur
    Participant

    Don’t ask me why, but this thread may survive for now – if you guys are able to talk about Czech Gripens, that is.

    Flex, do NOT make such thread titles anymore. I don’t have to explain why :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Indian AF "Cope Thunder" Deployment #2667672
    Arthur
    Participant

    Not the first time that MIDAS has been in Europe. Ukrainian and Russian operated MIDAS have been in the UK. Earliest examples (Russian) in UK around 1992/1993 for public display.

    TJ

    Don’t forget the dozens of Belorussian (TransAviaExport iirc) and Ukrainian (lots of different companies) which flew on and off as cargo aircraft here in Western Europe throughout the 1990s. Most of the Uzin-based Ilyushins from the Ukraine were actually MIDAS rather than CANDID, as were a fair number of the Belorussian machines from Vitsebsk-Ruba.

    in reply to: Definition of INDIGENOUS. #2667674
    Arthur
    Participant

    Crob,
    I think you’ve got me convinced on the FC-1. I originally was of the same line of thought re this aircraft, but whent the FTC-2000 emerged, i got puzzled because i still had the S-7 in the back of my mind. The idea crawled upon me that the FTC-2000 was more of a halfway development variant between the J-7 and the FC-1 as per the original S-7 program, but as you say the FC-1’s design is definately an original (and hence indigenous) one.

    I do hope that in a few years the Datang Shan museum (by then i will promise to try and call it Changpin as it should be) will get a ‘prototype row’ with some of these aircraft, to make comparisons. It was already a huge eye-opener for me regarding the old Chinese stuff (never knew that three sorts of ventral fin configurations were tried for the Q-5, or that an actual Soviet-built MiG-21F-13 made it to the PRC and survived), it can only improve i guess.

    in reply to: Definition of INDIGENOUS. #2667939
    Arthur
    Participant

    Sorry bout the Kiran Harry, i indeed ment the Marut. And like i said, my list is debatable 😉

    About the Dhruv: the term used commonly is ‘design consultancy’ by MBB for the airframe, and the rotorhead. However (i’m not sure how familiar you are with both the BK117 and the Dhruv), having seen both helicopter types in real life, the Dhruv looks almost exactly like a slightly stretched BK117. Trust me.

    As for the J-8II, it has larger wings and tailplanes than the J-7/MiG-21. Aerodynamically they are definately similar, but that doesn’t change the fact that those are different surfaces.

    in reply to: Definition of INDIGENOUS. #2668210
    Arthur
    Participant

    Crob,
    I would have completely agreed with you if it weren’t for the original Super-7 drawings/models from the 1980s and the rollout of the FTC-2000. While i would need accurately measured drawings on the latter trainer, it looks an awful lot like the nose of an FC-1 mated to the fuselage and wings of a JJ-7/MiG-21U. And this is almost exactly what the early Super-7 pictures showed: a MiG-21 rear fuselage, with modified wings and a new nose with sidemounted intakes. While you are most likely right that at least all the detail design and engineering work on the FTC-2000 and FC-1 was done in the PRC after the post-Tienanmen withdrawal of US support, i am wondering how far the original (but undoubtedly rough) Grumman design was altered.

    Personally, i don’t consider either the Ching Kuo or the T-50 to be indigenous. The Ching Kuo design program was supported heavily by General Dynamics under the Ying Yang (with the sounds such that it should read Soaring Eagle) program for the airframe, direct input from Westinghouse for the radar and Allied Signal taking care of the engines. AIDC basically was only responsible for project management and systems integration.

    It’s probably a bit more vague for the T-50. While the project existed a bit longer, it only took shape when Lockheed began ‘assisting’ Samsung with the project as one of the offset deals for the huge Korean F-16 purchases. No wonder it looks so much like a Lawndart.

    in reply to: THESE PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS? #2668213
    Arthur
    Participant

    Are you sure it was a former USAF chief of staff, John? Philip D. Chinnerey’s “Vietnam – The Helicopter War” (Airlife, 1991/1996) tells a story about a 240th AHC pilot who rescued no less than three survivors from an OH-6 on the doors of his gun bay, back in March 1971. I guess it must have been actions like these which inspired the Special Forces guys to mount people-planks on the sides of their MH-6es.

    I like to think i don’t suffer vertigo and like to take an occasional risk, but i honestly do think that i would politely decline a ride like that…

    in reply to: Back in 90 #2668218
    Arthur
    Participant

    Nope, no news that i’m aware of. Perhaps anyone knows if SOC has shown up at ACIG? In any case, if you’re reading this Sean, your luxury seat hasn’t been taken.

    But then again, if he returned i wouldn’t be surprised if he went with the wife & cats to a nice damp and cold place for a holiday. Fairford this weekend?

    in reply to: PAF purchases 7 Erieyes #2668440
    Arthur
    Participant

    Srbin, AEW and AWACS are not the same thing. An AEW bird is a flying radar station, like the Sea King AEW2 or the E-1 Willy Fudd. An AEW&C and an AWACS also have the ability to control the airspace they are monitoring, either from aboard the airplane itself (like an E-3) or by relaying info back and forth from a ground station (like an E-2C).

    in reply to: Best European Airpower #2668458
    Arthur
    Participant

    Incognito,
    Better stick to aviation in stead of your childish country-bashing from now on, or you’ll find your posts dissapearing at an alarming rate.

    in reply to: Best European Airpower #2668640
    Arthur
    Participant

    Steve, Flex,
    The Ukrainian IL-78s have been de-tankerised in the early 1990s already when Uzin’s Candids were used as civilian contract machines. In 1997 they were reclaimed by the UkrAF, but never brought back to tanker status. I think the only IL-76 with a refuelling system you can find now in the Ukraine, is the second prototype which is now an instructional airframe at Kirovograd.

    As for the Fencers: looooots of them looked already very derelict last time i was there (in 1997 that is), the MiG-23s and -27s are all retired, and 70 different bort numbers for Ukrainian Frogfeet means that there have been re-codings going on. And don’t forget that the official Ukraine strength lists have often included the grounded and instructional airframes as well: how else do you think that a Su-7 is still listed occasionally?

    The Ukraine has a lovely inventory, but that hardly makes it a capable airforce. No tankers, no AWACs…

    in reply to: PAF purchases 7 Erieyes #2668676
    Arthur
    Participant

    There should be a bit of aerial processing aboard the Erieye as well, but not enough to cover the whole area under the system’s surveillance. However, the Erieye also serves as a relay platform to pass on the data from the ground station back up to the aircraft working in the network. Also, the fact that the control unit is on the ground makes it easier to integrate other data in the command post (like ground-based radars), which is another reason why the Swedes have chosen to keep the control crew in their nice and safe turbulence-free bunker.

    Besides, both the E-2C and A-50 (the non-Israeli ones that is) also delegate a part of their control job to the ground.

    in reply to: the black budget #2668697
    Arthur
    Participant

    Bring it on, if you do want to continue posting, please consider writing in sentences. Capital letter up front, one small little dot at the end, and no more using of etc. etc. only because of laziness. I suggest taking this advice seriously, because moderators have a perfectly good right to harass you if you don’t. This of course also goes for other won’t-write-properly types.

    Thanks in advance.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,421 through 3,435 (of 6,424 total)