The book actually mentions the H-5 has a different gun barbette than the Il-28, and some of the H-5 pics even show this (although not particularly clearly, there are no detail shots of it or anything). Yet all drawings of H-5s show the round barbette as on the IL-28, not the more egg-shaped barbette with a flat bottom as they should. The H-5’s barbette being identical to that of the Tu-16/H-6, so it shouldn’t have been too hard for the artist to make correct drawings/colour profiles.

The book also lacks in mentioning Il-28 survivors in the Soviet Union itself. Beagle survivors which have been ‘found’ and published in the more common Western publications are included in the small aircraft listings in the book, but there is no mentioning of other aircraft known (and often enough seen) to have survived in the fUSSR.

Has anyone got this one? If so, what is it like?

To bring this up – i finally gave it a good read this week, and one error is particularly annoying. All drawings of H-5s (so the Chinese version of the IL-28) are incorrect on the tail cannon barbette.

The CFE treaty has little to do with NATO/WarPac, it’s a CSCE treaty although member states are all (former) treaty states. Sweden and Finland are not bound by CFE limitations.

Finland was, however, bound by the FMCA treaty with the Soviet Uniona after WW2, which (amongst others) forced it to neutrality and limited the size of it’s military, including a restriction to operate no more than 80 combat jets. This treaty was nullified in 1992.

That’s better – at least now there is something to discuss, rather than just some unsubstantiated remark. You want to lift this to a new thread? We can just copy-paste these posts and put up a new one.

I think you’re referring to the panels on the fuselage, above the wing being similar between the Lavi and the J-10? Fair enough, they look similar. This is not something unique to the J-10 or the Lavi, nor was the Lavi the first aircraft to have such an upper fuselage structure.

Also, if you look at the panels on the Lavi, you’ll see that they are only to the fuselage sides, with the top of the fuselage looking like a solid surface. On the J-10 the panels are much higher. Neither is the number or configuration of the panels the same: the J-10 seems to have three ‘lower’ panels and 7 upper panels, with the Lavi looks to have six of both.

Then there are the wings. The Lavi just has one flaperon on it’s trailing edge, while the J-10 has two surfaces, most likely separate flaps and ailerons. The position of the canards of the two aircraft are significantly different too: above the wing for the Lavi, well forward for the J-10. The leading-edge surfaces are different too: the Lavi has full-span slats, while the J-10 seems to have shorter ones (as can be seen at http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=16602&stc=1 ).

This IMHO rules out the J-10 being a structural or aerodynamic copy of the Lavi, as you seem to suggest. While there are definately some similarities in design and i wouldn’t rule out some Israeli consultancy towards Chengdu (much like General Dynamics and other provided plenty consultancy towards IAI during Lavi development), the J-10 is definately not a “Lavi-san”.

This picture (snip) that HK dragon posted here is shouting:
Erez – 01, J-10-Lavi connection deniers – 00 🙁
Anyway, technically, nice picture of “Lavi-San” 🙁

Yeah, sure. Anything to back that up, or could you actually read some Hebrew stencilling on that J-10 pic? If not, thanks for this perfectly worthless post.

Erez: 0 – J-10/Lavi connection deniers: 0

Well, considering somebody actually spent money for me to fall asleep during Dances with Wolves (don’t know if i had a nap in a cinema or in front of a TV&video-combo), it might be a success.

On the other hand, it seems that the people who managed to stay awake AND maintained their attention during Dances with Wolves did spot the occasional mistake. I don’t know when the first nuclear reactors were built in the US though: In one of many ‘show the majestic view as they ride’ scenes, you can see the cooling tower of a nuclear reactor.

From http://www.moviemistakes.com/film319

Since i was doing some crash statistics on another thread, why not have a look here.

Here is to compare the Netherlands’ last three jet fighters: the F-104, NF-5 and F-16 with the NF-5 being twin-engined and the other two single engined. Calculations are such to compare the percentage of crashed aircraft with the number of years in service, to give an indication of statistical annual loss rate. An annual loss rate of 1% meaning obviously that you’re likely to lose one aircraft per year out of an original fleet of 100 aircraft throughout the entire career of that aircraft.

First the F-5.
In service: 105, from 1970-1991, so 21 service years.
w/o: 21
Total crash ratio: 20%
Annual loss rate: 20/21 = 0,95% per year.

Then the Netherlands F-104
In service: 138, from 1962-1984, so 22 service years.
w/o: 38
Total crash ratio: 36%
Annual loss rate: 36/22 = 1,63% per year.

And now the Dutch F-16
In service: 213, from 1979 to 2004, so 25 service years.
w/o: 37
Total crash ratio: 17%
Annual loss rate: 17/25 = 0,68% per year.

Obviously, the F-16 has so far been a far safer aircraft than the other two, but for aircraft from a more or less comparable generation the twin-engined NF-5’s safety record is far better than that of the single-engined F-104. Also, you shouldn’t forget there is no armour or anything between the NF-5’s two engines, so a destructive failure of one engine will likely cause the other engine to fail too.

Perhaps an interesting comparison is between the Dutch NF-5s and Belgium’s Mirage Vs, as they were both used in the light ground attack role (and in the Mirage’s case, recce but that’s operations-wise close enough to attack missions IMHO) and can be considered to be of the same generation as well.

Mirage V, BLu.
In service: 116, from 1970 to 1994
w/o: 45
Crash ratio: 39%
Annual loss rate: 39/24 = 1,63%

Woops! But since i’m on a roll, let’s get the Norwegian F-5s and Danish Drakens into the equation too. Again: similar mission and a similar generation in a similair airforce in a pretty similair environment.

F-5, RnoAF.
In service: 108, from 1965 to 1995 (although still nominally operational, the few airworthy ones hardly fly so shouldn’t count. Until 1995 it actually saw active operational squadron service).
w/o: 16
Crash ratio: 15%
Annual loss rate: 30/15 = 0,5%

SAAB 35 Draken, RDanAF
In service: 51, 1970-1993
w/o: 9
Crash ratio: 18%
Annual loss rate: 23/18 = 0,78%

From this pretty stupid bit of number-crunching, one might conclude that the twin-engined F-5 was marginally safer than single-engined aircraft from the same generation operated by a comparable airforce in a comparable role. I will readily admit these figures are hardly significant in the whole debate, but if someone who really likes boring calculations likes to make a few more perhaps it might eventually start making sense.

Oh, and it seems the Belgians are really crappy pilots 😀

As the site says, using Bf-110s as daytime fighters against USAAF formations was “suicide like”: fast selbstmörderischen Tageseinsätzen. Drewes was a particularly skilled Bf110 pilot, and his air-to-air victories against single-engined fighters isn’t all that impressive. A Gloster Gladiator?

By the time the P-51 appeared in the European theatre, the Bf-110 was rightly removed from the fighter role since long, and did reasonably well as a night fighter. Apart from a few dual-role units on the Eastern Front, there were no real fighter units with Bf-110s anymore by 1942.