dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Military Aviation News-2014 #2221631
    Bager1968
    Participant

    As the article expounds in length, they are referring to the possibility that instead of both conducting catapult launches and arrested landings, that one might just sit on-deck “for logistics testing” due to not being “operational”:

    “We have some work to do as we lead up to that point in November,” he says. “That work we’re doing now will decide whether both airplanes that go to the ship will be capable of doing arrestments and catapult launches or only one of them will be and the other airplane we will leave on the deck to do logistics testing.”

    “The November deployment will happen. It will most likely happen with two airplanes. Whether both airplanes will be fully capable of doing all the work remains to be seen,” he says.

    in reply to: Cosford Do-17 thread #866254
    Bager1968
    Participant

    They have a Boulton Paul Defiant Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    Have you been Touched by His Noodly Appendage?

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

    Seriously, I believe it stands for “Full Scale Model”.

    On the grounds that:

    ‘Best described as a ‘new build’ – If Boulton Paul built them from wood and skinned them in aluminium well yes !! But they didn’t

    ‘When this Defiant was built by the Boulton Paul Association it doubled the worlds population and is the only one in day-fighting colours.’ -no it didn’t !

    There is still one genuine machine and this machine which I guess constitutes a narrow line between a FSM and a reproduction!

    I wish they wouldn’t get so carried away and just stick with the facts instead !

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?132026-Kent-Battle-of-Britain-Museum-acquire-the-BPA-Defiant

    in reply to: US led coalition against IS #2221932
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Bill Sweetman asks my kinda question:

    http://aviationweek.com/blog/so-what-took-f-22-target-photo

    If the target was hot enough to warrant a strike by an F22, then what was flying around filming it before and after?

    Alternatively, the target wasn’t that hot and they just found something for an F22 to bomb….

    Analysis of strike:

    I would say a drone conducted pre and post strike assessment.

    No, the “pre” photo shows a truck & trailer parked at the back of the compound, which is not there in the “after” photo, indicating a decent passage of time – perhaps even a full day.

    I’d put my money on a recon satellite or high-altitude recon aircraft (manned or unmanned) on a set regular schedule so as to seem “normal”.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2014 #2222255
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Report: Japan Wants Its Own Early-Warning Planes

    The Kawasaki P-1 should be a good base airframe to replace Japan’s 4 E-767 and 13 E-2C.

    in reply to: U2 over UK? #2223181
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Perhaps it looks more like a Reaper that way?

    in reply to: Bad decisions by the Pentagon #2224117
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Same with the Navy, one should have asked what the LCS would be good for?

    The USN knows what LCS is good for – exactly what they designed it to be good for.
    And one thing that is NOT is being a conventional frigate.

    Of course, some people (like the one I am replying to) refuse to accept the USN’s intended use/missions for LCS and incorrectly claim that it has no mission, etc.

    in reply to: Bad decisions by the Pentagon #2224763
    Bager1968
    Participant

    U-2 max speed less than M1
    SR-71 max cruising speed M3 (or a little more)

    A “slight” difference in speed, thus a much easier calculation for the proximity warhead.

    in reply to: Frankenplane Prototypes #2224767
    Bager1968
    Participant

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]231676[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Bad decisions by the Pentagon #2225082
    Bager1968
    Participant
    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2014 #2225289
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Spare parts, training and support equipment are included in the sale. So no, the unit cost of a UH-60M isnt $50m… Its flyaway cost is closer to $18m.

    Brazil have operated Blackhawks and most of the required infrastructure and/or support equipment is already at hand.

    And your point is ?

    A UH-60M just doesnt cost “$50m” or even half that price.

    The UH-60M has different avionics (including “glass cockpit” and computer to run all systems, “fly-by-wire” systems, etc) from the models Brazil operates, different model engines & a different gearbox, thus requiring a certain amount of different parts, support equipment, and training for the operators/maintainers.

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -V #2027921
    Bager1968
    Participant

    USN awards contract to Textron for second Ship-to-Shore Connector

    Fancy name for what is just a new LCAC design.

    Needed, but nothing special.

    in reply to: PLAN News Thread #4 #2027949
    Bager1968
    Participant

    … also from ‘yexu’:

    The accidents actually happened in the 1990’s.

    From former test pilot Xu Yongling, the two test pilots died three years ago, had nothing to do with the carrier. Probably test flying the J11BS?

    Deino

    So the two pilots died in 2011.

    Or in the 1990s.

    Pretty specific there >sarcasm<.

    Looks like just more rumors.

    in reply to: BT-13 lands in field – Australia #885795
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Just like it was designed to (the land on an unpaved/graveled field part).

    I note the pilot understood the first rule of landing in a plowed field – land WITH the furrows!

    in reply to: Duke of Kent Sunderland crash 1942. A mystery? #885800
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Possibly because that early in the flight a heavy aircraft would not have the performance (rate of climb) to out climb terrain. I’m assuming a maximum fuel load plus passengers giving a low RoC and the pilot not being sure of the exact location of terrain so trying to remain visual with the ground rather than fly into the cloud with a low RoC.

    Other variations are that the pilot might have been trying to remain clear of the cloud by maintaining a set altitude above ground, resulting in aircraft climbing gradually into cloud OR he could fly a set altitude and the base of the cloud could have lowered and they flew into it.

    Same result- sharing a cloud with the ground.

    I can only guess that the pilot was trying to stay visual with the terrain.

    Which would almost certainly eventually result in having to try to out-climb terrain – and with much shorter notice than they had earlier.

    in reply to: P-61 opinions #886526
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor WAS the declaration of war by Japan – the first shot fired constituted the first act of the US-Japan part of the war.

    In addition, the US Declaration of War was back-dated to the day and time of that first shot.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 3,360 total)