You should pm Gums and Snake-1, both pilots that have flown the A-7, over at F-16.net for that kind of information. They have detailed memories and love to share them.

The technology behind the TFR has been relegated to a mode selection in more modern planes. With the newer, steerable radars there is no need to install a separate fixed-angle antenna to do this.

THANK YOU, OPIT.

I don’t mean to shout, but that was excellent!

I wonder why they didn’t mount the y-racks from the F-8 on the Corsairs.

You can’t get too small on your escorts or you’ll lose your big escortee come the first tropical depression you enter with the fleet.

Thanks Mad Rat. I’m learning something here. So, your opinion is that a diesel engine cannot make an efficient solution for a low flying airplane. What do you think would be the best option for a low flying, slow flying STOL plane with one engine and with the nose clear for equipment?

Any time you need extreme efficiency you go with the most efficient motor. It’s difficult to beat a turbine, no matter if you are low flying / high flying or slow flying / fast flying. Moving the air directly is your best option, again, because you’re moving the mass closest to the work being done. You’re probably talking some kind of turbine (the most efficient motor) moving some kind of screw (the most efficient tool) through the air, using the simplest and least restrictive transmission in between. A propeller just happens to be a type of screw. Since its difficult to move the propeller at a 1:1 ratio, you’re probably talking something with a reduction gear driving the propeller.

Your optimal cruise speed is basically a combination of three factors; induced drag, parasitic drag, and propulsion efficiency. You might not want the penalty of an open propeller if you are flying purposely slow, so you’re probably talking something ducted. As your propeller spins around its pushing the air against your airframe and that actually adds to your overall drag, they call it induced drag. A ducted turbofan or turboshaft would fit your criteria well if you want to eliminate induced drag. Your parasitic drag is a product of your overall shape and lift surfaces, the drag associated with flight at any given speed. Its difficult to explain propulsion efficiency because so many factors go into it, but your motor efficiency is one of the biggest factors involved.

For ideas what works you probably want to explore the development of UAV’s this past three decades as they push the envelope of efficiency with each successive generation. Low performance UAV’s tend to use i.c.e. driving open propellers. High performance UAV’s tend to use turbofans. Fuel cell technology is the pie in the sky for what you want. Perhaps one day its efficiency will make electric motors feasible where the power generation and propellers can be separated by much more distance by carrying the power over simple wires.

2 yes & 3 perhaps, but not for the reasons you probably think.

2. The mechanical friction drives down your efficiency. Each step you add between the motor and the prop drives down your ultimate efficiency. You are trying to perform a certain degree of work across a unit of time. Each conversion of work (transmission, gears, etc.) from one form to another decreases the power that actually reaches the propeller. No conversion is perfect 1:1 ratio and in most cases with mechanical drives less than 50% of the work is left after the conversion. To increase the power that reaches the propeller you either increase the efficiency of the motor or the conversion process.

3. Your motor spins a mass around as it converts fuel potential energy into kinetic energy. The more the mass and the faster it moves the more power (energy/time) it takes to make it move. This is why turbine engines typically are more efficient than an internal combustion engine, the latter requires moving much more mass proportionately to the power produced. If you can reduce the amount of mass required to run at any given period you are better off. It is not unusual for planes to fly on fewer engines than they actually have, because the fewer engines running the less fuel consumed.

You probably wonder why the extra engines then. Because in order to meet performance requirements you need capacity to do work over an acceptable amount of time. You might take off from the airport on all four engines, reach your operating height, then cruise in the most economical mode possible which may or may not include turning off motors. If you cannot feather your propeller then it may not help – it might actually hinder – by turning it completely off.

Should a customer want it they can integrate it.

I’m pretty sure there were articles in the past about how customers were denied the ability to use other kit on their Mirage. The excuse was that MICA in its two forms was everything a customer would need. I agree that the MICA IR acting as makeshift-IRST was pretty handy, but it wasn’t cheap. It would have been exceptional to carry missiles already used within various air forces.

The United Arab Emirates probably would have liked to use MICA and AIM-120B interchangeably. Supposedly they are going to be able to use ASRAAM on the 2000-9 model, but I’ll believe it when its the standard. And the integration of Maverick D/G, Harpoon, and AGM-88 isn’t going to happen anytime soon as they compete with still more French kit; AS-30, Armat, and Exocet. And forget adding other weapons that the EU countries have developed internally. Makes you wonder if France is even on the same team.

I’m not so sure the French weapons wouldn’t do nicely on the F-15’s, F-16’s, F-18’s, Gripens, MiG’s, and Flankers of the world; but France is in no hurry to make them happen either. Greece, Eqypt, Taiwan, Brazil, and Qatar all probably shared similar sentiments when it came to having to be tied down by multiple weapon suppliers. France sure has some good weapons but the damn things just won’t work on the rest of my planes…