dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,161 through 2,175 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: B17 `Zenobia` Deenethorpe #1214243
    Bager1968
    Participant

    its first mission?I have both camera doors from this aircraft,one is painted grey the other natural finish (bare).I assumed this was because one door had been replaced due to battle damaged!! will try and route out the bits for a photo.

    Ummm… from the link UDF posted (the 401st Bombardment Group [Heavy] Association website), we get this info:

    Serial Number: 42-39825
    Model: B-17G
    Manufacturer: Lockheed/Vega Aircraft Corp., Burbank, California
    Production Block: B-17G-1-VE
    Delivered by Manufacturer: 12 Sep 1943 at Long Beach

    Date Assigned to 401st BG: 26 Oct 1943
    Date Arrived at Station 128: 19 Nov 1943 (one of the original 401st aircraft that landed at Deenethorpe)
    Date Lost: 5 Dec 1943
    Nature of Loss: Crashed on Take-off
    Other Details: Crashed on take-off and blew up.

    Documented Missions:
    1) 5 Dec 1943; Paris (3); 1st Lt W.B. Keith and crew; Crashed

    Thus, it was a new aircraft, recently arrived in England, and crashed on its first operational mission, 16 days after arrival at its operational base.

    If the door had been replaced due to damage, it was non-combat in nature.

    in reply to: Future AEW platform #2032070
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Wow… quoting the entire 87-line, 3-pic post so as to post a 1-line 10-word answer.

    http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/images/smilies/biggthumpup.gif

    in reply to: B17 `Zenobia` Deenethorpe #1214994
    Bager1968
    Participant

    So, 5 Dec 1943… and on its first mission. Tragic.

    in reply to: Breaking VH-71 Story? #2444519
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Typical eastern viewpoint… individual lives are meaningless, only the state is important.

    And somehow, the thousands of victims of terrorist activity throughout the world every year might think your assessment of terrorist action as “the most remote dangers” rather laughable… except they are no longer capable of laughing.

    in reply to: Sentor Inoye wants to sell export F-22 to Japan #2450687
    Bager1968
    Participant

    F119-PW-100: 39,000 lb (173.5 kN) thrust

    F135: 43,000 lb thrust

    Why do you want to install a weaker engine for your proposed “air superiority” version?

    in reply to: Canberra B(I).8 vs. B-57B Canberra #1220072
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The B-57B did indeed have J65 engines (License-built Sapphire 100s)… mostly from Wright, who owned the license, but a number were built by Buick, as Wright was having trouble meeting the demand for engines for the B-57, F4J3/4 Fury, and F-84F Thunderstreak.

    The Buick engines were especially troublesome (being the main smoke culprits), but both production lines produced engines with excessive oil consumption (especially in the Fury installation).

    After the mid-1950s, Buick no longer made any jet engines, in part due to their quality problems.

    In the late 1950s, the J65 was also installed in the A-4A/B/C Skyhawk and F11F Tiger. It did well in both these aircraft, but was replaced in 1956 in the proposed F11F-1F Super Tiger by the J79, and in 1962 in the A-4E by the J52.

    Here is a good site for info on the B-57:

    http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b57.html

    This is a comprehensive overview of the Canberra, including the B-57:

    http://www.vectorsite.net/avcanbra.html

    in reply to: Japan to allow military exports! #2493934
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Yes,the YS-11 and MU-2 were exported but for all intensive purposes, they are airliners,not military aircraft.The Japanese constitution prohibits the export of military aircraft or weapons. It also placed restrictions on the Japanese military itself,namely, no aircraft carrier type ships and no inflight refueling tankers. These restrictions have recently been relaxed with the purchase of LHD type ships and KC-767 tankers.

    No, the Japanese constitution has NO such restrictions!

    As cited in this article: http://www.nni.nikkei.co.jp/e/fr/tnks/Nni20090523D23JFF05.htm

    Japan currently bans almost all weapons exports. Exceptions include those for the missile defense system being jointly developed with the U.S.

    In 1967, then Prime Minister Eisaku Sato introduced a policy prohibiting arms exports to communist nations; nations singled out by U.N. resolutions; and nations engaged in international conflicts.

    In 1976, then Prime Minister Takeo Miki changed the policy and declared a de facto total ban on arms exports, a policy that still stands today.

    The government will end the total ban and replace the “communist nations” in the 1967 policy with terrorist-supporting nations, nations that abuse human rights, and nations that lack sufficient control over imports and exports.

    When studying the proposal for final approval, the government plans to take into consideration the possibility of exports being transferred to other nations as well as the impact on regional security.

    Because the 1967 policy is not defined by law, the revision will be made in the form of a statement by the prime minister.

    Also, links to the constitution, laws, and policies in question here: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1411767&postcount=9

    in reply to: HMS Victory found! #1161493
    Bager1968
    Participant

    45m = 147.6′
    120m = 393.7′

    Bager1968
    Participant

    Found this on a website and it was the miles company who invented it in 1943
    …..
    The Miles M.52 had many advanced features such as the ultra-thin BI-convex wings , an annular air intake, an all-moving tailplane (which was built and tested on the Miles “Gillette Falcon” in 1943) and a complete escape capsule for the pilot.

    Aside from all the examples of earlier aircraft with “all-moving tailplanes”, the Curtis XP-42 also flew with a one-piece, “all-flying” horizontal stabilizer well before the Miles M52 data ever went to the US.

    The XP-42 was the 4th production P-36A, delivered in March 1939 with a number of modifications for better streamlining.

    It was fitted with the “all-flying” horizontal stabilizer in 1942, and used to gather data on the aerodynamics of that configuration.

    It was later cannibalized for parts, and scrapped in 1947.

    The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)* was the governmental agency tasked with undertaking, promoting, and institutionalizing aeronautical research. Founded in 1915, NACA was involved in all experimental aerodynamics research by not only the government, but the private companies… so NACA would have been involved in the XP-42 testing.

    NACA was also a major part of the X-1 program… so they already had the basics of the idea well before the Miles data was transferred.

    Whether the Curtis data, or the Miles data, was more important… or whether either played any part at all, is nearly impossible to tell without someone digging into the X-1 program records.

    * became NASA in 1958

    in reply to: Pentagon defies Congress over V-22 data #2497652
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Willys, not Willis… and it was actually a combination of the designs from the American Bantam Car Company, Willys, and Ford that Willys used won the competition.

    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeep_man/bantam.htm

    As early as 1938 Bantam had spotted the potential of a light reconnaissance vehicle for military use and lent the National Guard three of its Austin based Roadsters to evaluate. The company continued to press the case for such a vehicle until a meeting with the Military was finally arranged at the Bantam factory on June 19th 1940. Worried by the mobility and ease with which the German Army had taken France and intelligence reports that the Germans were about to convert the Volkswagen for military use, they at last showed a real interest in Bantam’s proposal.

    A series of meetings developed Bantam’s original car based proposal into a military specification for a 4 x 4 hybrid car / truck type vehicle weighing not more than 590kg. Aware of Bantam’s limited design and production facilities and the fact that the company was not financially sound it was decided to offer other manufacturers the opportunity to tender as well. The overall task was to design and submit 70 finished vehicles for evaluation (including 8 with 4 x 4 ). A prototype had to be delivered within 49 days, the rest within 75 days. The rather unrealistic weight limit resulted in no interest being shown by traditional truck manufacturers like Dodge or GMC and initially only Bantam and Willys responded to be joined later by Ford in submitting designs and prototype vehicles for evaluation.

    Bantam persuaded Karl Probst, a freelance engineer, to head their project and when the drawings for the tenders were examined by the Military on July 22, Probst’s vehicle came closest to matching the specification though Bantam did conceal the fact that their vehicle was likely to be a little over the weight limit. An order was placed and by the end of September Probst had completed the drawings, sourced the parts and the Bantam prototype was delivered. Having tested it to destruction and being satisfied with its performance, the army commissioned 70 more to be built. Despite Willys failing to submit a prototype by the deadline and Ford showing little interest in the project at all at this time, both manufacturers were allowed access to the trials of the Bantam prototype and subsequently to Probst’s drawings. Willys and Ford prototype models, the Quad and the Pygmy, were to follow in that order but clearly outside both the time and weight limits.

    Trials continued into the Winter of 1940 and should have resulted in an outright winner. The Bantam GPV (General Purpose Vehicle) had been delivered on time and met the specification in most respects. It performed well bearing in mind the nature of prototypes and minor defects were soon corrected. It also had many recognisable features of the later standardised jeep. However, the Military identified strengths and weaknesses in each vehicle. The Bantam was considered too high off the ground and under powered. The Willys Quad had a more powerful engine but was far too heavy. The Ford Pygmy had the best steering (though linkages were easily damaged) but its tractor engine had insufficient power.

    There was also concern about Bantam’s limited production capability and that even Willys Overland might not cope given the imminent need for a very large number of these vehicles. All of this resulted in a political decision in March 1941 that all three companies would receive an initial order for 1500 vehicles each, provided that they met the original specification though the permitted weight had now been increased.

    Vehicles that looked remarkably similar during the trials became even more alike as each company adapted their design and copied the better ideas from each other or from Probst’s plans ready for the first production runs. However, in July 1941 the military decided that standardisation was needed, it being impractical to operate and maintain three different designs. All three vehicles now performed well but it was decided that the Willys design represented the best overall value for money at $739 (compared with $1166 for a Bantam) and it was adopted as the standard army vehicle.Willys secured the contract to provide the next 16,000 vehicles.

    In awarding Willys the contract, the army produced a list of improvements and alterations that were required. Apart from general improvements to the battery, generator, air filter and fuel tank, the standard jeep was now to have blackout lights, sealed beam headlights, pioneer tools (axe and shovel), double bow canvas tilt, trailer socket, centre dash handbrake control and radio suppression. The classic standard jeep design was about to emerge.

    By the end of October 1941 the army were keen to find a second source of supply for two reasons;Willys could no longer keep up with the growing demand for jeeps and there was the need to safeguard the supply of jeeps against the Willys plant being bombed or sabotaged.

    In early November Ford were awarded their first contract to build 15,000 jeeps to the Willys design specification from Willys drawings. The Willys MB and Ford GPW varied in minor detail only as the Military insisted that the parts be interchangeable. With the increased supply it was now possible to supply the standard MB/GPW vehicles under Lend-Lease arrangements and production of the Bantam 40 BRC was phased out. Interestingly, it was Ford who designed the pressed radiator grille to replace the heavier and more costly slat grille of the early Willys MA design. Willys then incorporated this into their definitive MB model.

    in reply to: Pentagon defies Congress over V-22 data #2500078
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Well, since the USAF has 3 squadrons currently flying CV-22s (Special-ops variant of the Osprey)… one for training and 2 operational spec-ops squadrons, I don’t doubt the USMC can’t account for the whereabouts of every Osprey ever delivered.

    And since the USAF 8th Special Operations Squadron deployed to Mali late last year with 4 of its 9 Ospreys, It hardly seems the USAF dislikes them.

    For the DOD to tell Congress exactly where every Osprey is in a televised hearing would likely mean disclosing classified ops… something DOD will fight vigorously… and Congress should only ask for that info in a closed-door committee meeting of the appropriate security-cleared oversight committee. That committee can then vouch to the Oversight and Reform Committee for those aircraft.

    Bager1968
    Participant

    So let’s say the legislators program additional money for X number of Raptors in excess of the 187, is the Executive Branch obligated to actually purchase the aircraft or could they just find some excuse not to do so? Sorry, this is probably a 5th grade level question.

    If Congress places a requirement for more to be built,and also appropriates the money to do so, the presidesn then has 3 choices:
    1) veto the entire bill the F-22 clauses are in
    2) sign the bill into law
    3) let it sit on his desk. Depending on whether Congress is in session or not, it either becomes law without his signature or lapses and becomes void*.

    If Congress passes the provisions with at least 2/3 of both houses voting for it, it becomes law with or without a signature, and veto is not possible.

    In any case, once it is law, there is nothing the president can do… he is required to fulfill the provisions of the law.

    *the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7 states:

    “… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. “

    If the President does not sign the bill within the required time period, the bill becomes law by default. However, the exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill, it becomes law. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden.

    in reply to: Could/Would GE/RR self-fund the F136? #2500115
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Yes… integration of the F136 into the F-35 should be an easy, cheap thing… since the specification required that the two designs be 100% interchangeable in the airframe, with only engine-control software updates being required for operational compatibility.

    Either engine was to be able to be installed in any airframe, with the only difference being in which variant of the airframe was receiving the engine.

    There are three variants of each engine… one with the shaft take-off for the F-35B, one with specific navalization features for the F-35C, and a “vanilla” one for the F-35A.

    in reply to: RAF F-111 #2500146
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The TF30 had severe compression stall problems in early F-111s. Changes in the intakes reduced this to moderate/tolerable in the F-111D/Es (and F-14s throughout), and only really got into the acceptable range in the F-111Fs.

    F-111D: TF30-P-9 – 12,000 lb.s.t. dry (19,600 lb.s.t. reheat); Weights: 46,172 pounds empty, 63,051 pounds combat, 82,819 pounds gross, 98,850 pounds maximum takeoff.
    F-111F: TF30-P-100 – 15,000 lb.s.t. dry (25,100 lb.s.t. reheat);

    F-14A: TF30-P-412/414 – 12,350 lb.s.t. dry (20,900 lb.s.t. reheat)

    TSR.2: Olympus BOl.22R (Mk320) 19,610 lb.s.t. dry (30.610 lb.s.t. reheat); Weights: 54,750 pounds empty, 79,573 pounds combat, 102,200 pounds maximum takeoff.

    in reply to: C-9B Skytrain II status??? #2500189
    Bager1968
    Participant

    29 C-9Bs in DON (Department Of the Navy) service. (90 passengers, 30,000 pound limit, 3,000 mile range)

    Yes, it is being replaced by the C-40A (B737-700C)… but only 9 have been delivered to date (a contract for 2 more to be delivered Feb 2011 was signed Dec 08).

    A June 2006 release from Boeing has said that the US Navy plans to expand its C-40 fleet size over time, and may buy up to 32 aircraft; but 2008 NAVAIR releases place the planned total at 18.

    To create a C-40, the 737-700C airframe is modified with a large cargo door, and the strengthened wings and landing gear of the 737-800. The resulting aircraft has a range of 3,400 nautical miles with 5,000 pounds of cargo, and can carry up to 40,000 pounds. It is certified to operate in one of 3 configurations: an all-passenger (121) configuration; an all-cargo configuration of up to 8 pallets; or a combination, or “combi” configuration that will accommodate up to 3 cargo pallets and 70 passengers.

    A fully digital “glass” cockpit allows for future growth and is also fitted with a head-up display. Another major improvement is the GPS in its navigation system, which aids in airport approaches within Third World countries who possess older, less reliable ground systems.

    The Navy’s C-40A replacements were initially ordered and delivered with standard wings, but airline usage has shown significant fuel-savings benefits from adding turned-up “winglets” on the end. New-build C-40As from aircraft #9 onward will now have those winglets, C-40As #5-8 have been retrofitted, and a decision concerning retrofits for aircraft #1-4 is expected in spring 2009.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,161 through 2,175 (of 3,360 total)