dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,401 through 2,415 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Shenzhou VII launched. #2467741
    Bager1968
    Participant

    So, bets on who’s next?

    India or EU.

    in reply to: F-104s in Star Trek #2467744
    Bager1968
    Participant

    What can I say… I’m a former-USMC Sgt with a large inner geek (although I did work on FLIR/Laser aircraft systems while in the Marines, so maybe a not so hidden geek side).

    😀

    in reply to: Any idea what this might be? #1193595
    Bager1968
    Participant

    According to the thread in the link, the caption for the original of the photo says:

    “View from atop the mast of the private yacht Freydis as it passes by a sunken three-seat Japanese float plane from WW2, said to have been sunk by American aircraft while anchored in the Shortland group of the Solomon Islands. This picture was taken on a six-week trip by private sailboat through the seldom-visited islands north of New Guinea, in an area of the South Pacific known as the Solomon Sea. Most of the islets here have no airport or regularly scheduled boat services, and their way of life is traditional by economic necessity.”

    in reply to: Help to identify a C82 Packet #1193601
    Bager1968
    Participant

    “Developed by Fairchild, the C-82 was designed as a heavy-lift cargo aircraft to succeed pre-war designs like the Curtiss C-46 Commando and Douglas C-47 Dakota. The aircraft was designed for a number of roles, including cargo carrier, troop transport, ambulance airplane and glider tow. The single prototype first flew on September 10, 1944. The aircraft were built at the Fairchild factory in Hagerstown, Maryland, with deliveries beginning in late 1945 and ending in September 1948.

    Problems surfaced almost immediately as the aircraft was found to be underpowered and its airframe inadequate for the heavy lifting it was designed to perform. As a result the Air Force turned to Fairchild for a solution to the C-82’s shortcomings. A redesign was quickly performed under the designation XC-82B, which would overcome all of the C-82A’s initial problems. First flown in 1947, the XC-82B would go into production as the C-119B Flying Boxcar. In the end only 223 C-82A would be built, a very small number for a production cargo aircraft. Most were used for cargo and troop transport, although a few were used for paratroop operations or towing gliders. During its brief operational life several C-82 Packets were utilized during the Berlin Airlift, primarily bringing assembled vehicles into the city.

    Though itself unsuccessful, the C-82A is best considered as an early development stage of the C-119B Flying Boxcar which saw limited production.

    Fifty three C-82A were procured by the United States Navy, though they too were quickly replaced by the Navy version of the C-119B Flying Boxcar.”

    General characteristics
    * Crew: three
    * Capacity: 42 paratroops or 34 stretchers
    * Length: 77 ft 1 in (23.50 m)
    * Wingspan: 106 ft 6 in (32.47 m)
    * Height: 26 ft 4 in (8.03 m)
    * Wing area: 1,400 ft² (130.9 m²)
    * Empty weight: 16,530 lb (12,045 kg)
    * Useful load: 42,000 lb (19,050 kg)
    * Max takeoff weight: 54,000 lb (24,545 kg)
    * Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney R-2800-85 radials, 2,100 hp (1,567 kW) each

    Performance
    * Maximum speed: 250 mph (400 km/h)
    * Range: 2,140 miles (3,424 km)
    * Service ceiling 27,000 ft (8,232 m)
    * Rate of climb: 1,600 ft/min (488 m/min)
    * Wing loading: 30 lb/ft² (146 kg/m²)
    * Power/mass: 0.10 hp/lb (0.16 kW/kg

    “The Air Force C-119 and Navy R4Q was initially a redesign of the earlier Fairchild C-82 Packet, built between 1945 and 1948. The Packet provided service to the Air Force’s Tactical Air Command and Military Air Transport Service for nearly nine years during which time its design was found to have several serious problems. All of these were addressed in the C-119.

    In contrast to the C-82, the cockpit was moved forward to fit flush with the nose rather than its previous location over the cargo compartment. This resulted in more usable cargo space and larger loads than the C-82 could accommodate. The C-119 also featured more powerful engines, and a wider and stronger airframe. The first C-119 prototype (called the XC-82B) first flew in November 1947, with deliveries of C-119Bs from Fairchild’s Hagerstown, Maryland factory beginning in December 1949.”

    General characteristics
    * Crew: 5
    * Capacity: 62 troops or 35 stretchers
    * Payload: 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) of cargo
    * Length: 86 ft 6 in (26.37 m)
    * Wingspan: 109 ft 3 in (33.30 m)
    * Height: 26 ft 6 in (8.08 m)
    * Wing area: 1,447 ft² (134.4 m²)
    * Empty weight: 40,000 lb (18,000 kg)
    * Loaded weight: 64,000 lb (29,000 kg)
    * Max takeoff weight: 74,000 lb (34,000 kg)
    * Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney R-4360-20 radial engines, 3,500 hp (2,611 kW each) each
    * ** Alternate powerplant: 2× Wright R-3350-85 “Cyclone” radials, 2,500 hp (1,900 kW) each

    Performance
    * Maximum speed: 296 mph (257 knots, 450 km/h)
    * Range: 2,280 mi (1,980 nm, 3,670 km)
    * Service ceiling 23,900 ft (7,290 m)
    * Rate of climb: 1,010 ft/min (5.1 m/s)
    * Wing loading: 44 lb/ft² (216 kg/m²)
    * Power/mass: 0.11 hp/lb (180 W/kg)

    “The last flyable C-82A had been owned and operated by Hawkins & Powers Aviation, an aerial firefighting company located in Greybull, Wyoming. This plane was purchased at auction by the Hagerstown Aviation Museum in Hagerstown, Maryland. The aircraft was flown to the Hagerstown Regional Airport on October 15, 2006.[1] This marks the last flight of a C-82. The plane will remain on display at the HRA until a dedicated space for it is made available in a future museum building to be built near the original Fairchild Manufacturing Facility. The fate of two additional incomplete C-82A (civil registration N5102B and N8009E) at the Greybull site is uncertain.”

    C-82
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/C82_Packet.jpg

    C-119
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/C-119_Flying_Boxcar.jpg

    C-119 with a 3,400 lbf Westinghouse J34 turbojet engine in a nacelle above the fuselage.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Milestones-c119-N13745-070919-01-16.jpg/800px-Milestones-c119-N13745-070919-01-16.jpg

    in reply to: Fairey Battle evaluated in the USA #1193617
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I thought the Double Mamba was two engines, each driving their own propellor in opposite directions on the same thrust line. Either engine could be shut down and re-started in flight.

    Roger Smith.

    “The Double Mamba was an Armstrong Siddeley gas turbine turboprop engine design of around 3,000–4,000 hp (2,500–3,000 kW). It was used mostly on the Fairey Gannet anti-submarine aircraft developed for the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Navy.

    The Double Mamba (also known as the Twin Mamba) was a development of the Armstrong Siddeley Mamba with two Mambas driving contra-rotating propellers through a combining gearbox.

    Engine starting was by cartridge, however, forced air restart was achieved in flight. One engine could be shut down in flight to conserve fuel.”

    Both propellers were always driven, regardless of which (if any) engine was shut down.

    in reply to: Shenzhou VII launched. #2468057
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Given the earlier goof of releasing an “eye-witness account” hours before the events occurred… can we really be sure this is not “special effects”?

    OK, I’ll quit yanking your chain… I DO believe these pics, etc ARE real… and congratulate the PRC on duplicating USSR/USA accomplishments of 40-45 years ago.

    in reply to: F-104s in Star Trek #2468059
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Seeing how the enterprise did nothing but sit in spacedock for a few days between getting shot up and blown up (remember ST III starts with the Enterprise on it’s way back from the battle with Kahn) the fact that the destruction took place in the third movie really changes nothing.

    Was Kirk stupid for not exercising “due caution” in approaching Reliant? Absolutely!

    Would Picard have even tried to take Enterprise out to deal with the issues McCoy was facing? No… he would have managed to get McCoy sent to Vulcan (on a courier ship), and had them purge Bones of Spock’s Katra, rather than take the kind of risk Kirk did.

    You decide which was better.

    Yes, it does make a difference where and in which circumstances Kirk self-destructed Enterprise… had he had even a quarter-crew, he would have easily defeated the Klingon scout ship… even with Enterprise as beat up as she was!

    in reply to: Flankers beats F-35 in highly classified simulated dogfight ? #2468067
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Well, over the decades, I have learned that Rand is often less “impartial” than they claim to be… so their severely questionable work here is nothing new… unusual for its extent of bias, but not really new.

    in reply to: F-104s in Star Trek #2468072
    Bager1968
    Participant

    djcross and Flying-A:

    ] Eh, blew up the Enterprise after Khan shot the crap out of it doesn’t sound like “got it done” to me.

    Agreed. Saavik’s right, and Spock’s careless to suppress her, when she reminds Kirk that approaching (without yellow alert) the silent USS Reliant is risky, as Kirk’s assuming the USS Reliant still has her Star Fleet crew.
    (I recently re-watched the USS Enterprise vs USS Reliant battles in (cough) Youtube (cough).)

    Ummm… If you watched the battles in question, then you would have known that Kirk did NOT “blow up the Enterprise after Khan shot the crap out of it”… it survived the mission (and the movie), to return to Earth!

    The NEXT movie is where he blew the ship… in an encounter with a fully-manned Klingon ship (although a smaller one, it is true), while he had just 5 crew (including himself) to try to operate & fight a (stolen) Enterprise designed for 430 crew… leading to the automation functions going off-line during battle!

    in reply to: Fairey Battle evaluated in the USA #1194548
    Bager1968
    Participant

    It seems this would be safer for the “shut one down in flight for better cruising fuel efficiency” procedure than the “double Mamba” was, with no coupling stage to fail and screw things up.

    in reply to: Fairey Battle evaluated in the USA #1194552
    Bager1968
    Participant

    As Steve says, it was more for the amazing P.24 engine. I have details on it somewhere, but from memory it was the forerunner of the Double Mamba coupled powerplant arrangement. Can’t remember if it was two engines driving co axial props through a common gearbox or one engine with two independant ‘halves’.

    http://www.freewebs.com/faireyaviation/aviation.htm

    “Fairey P-24. The “Monarch” engine was of 2,240 horsepower (hoped tobe developed to 3,000 hp) and was flying in prototype form in 1939 but was cancelled by the Air Ministry which thought Britain had too many aeroengine companies. Each Monarch engine actually consisted of two 12 cylinder units, each of which drove its own contra-rotating propeller.

    With the P24 design – there was no “coupling” of its two component halfs – They were two entirely separate engines – one of which drove its propeller through the hollow driveshaft of the other. Other than that there was absolutely no mechanical linkage between the two “halves” at all – So very little to go wrong.

    The P24 Monarch was a very advanced engine if the surviving details are true…Compressed Glycol /Water Cooling – As first used in Rolls Royce production engines (Merlin XII) from the end of 1940. RPM of 3,000 (same as wartime Merlins) 2 Stage, 4 Speed supercharger (Rolls Royce only ever managed a 2 speed Supercharger on the Merlin and only managed a 3-speed supercharger on post-war Griffons). With a 2-stage, 4 speed supercharger you would expect the Monarch to have had a very impressive performance at height.

    There were two designs – The 16 Cylinder H-16 “Prince” of 1.540 hp and the 24 cylinder P-24 “Monarch” of 2,240hp (perhaps more). The H-16 had only a two-speed single stage supercharger. The H-16 could well have boosted a Battle Bomber to close to 300 mph – who knows with a Monarch – 350 mph + The Fulmar and Barracuda could have had similar boosts in performance – along with “Twin-engine” reliability.

    Both the H-16 and P-24 used essentially the same cylinders as the earlier P12 Prince – Which had first flown in 1934, and it used poppet-valves, and so would have had none of the problems Bristol + Napier had with sleeve-Valves, so it is by no means unreasonable to think that with a bit of government backing the H-16 and P-24 could have been in production as early as 1938, and certainly by 1940.

    As it was CR Fairey said to have spent at least 1 million pounds (at today’s prices) out of his own pocket on the project. ‘Forsyth went ahead in October 1935 with the totally new P.24, aimed at carrier-based aircraft. Twin-engine reliability was to be gained (for the first time in any engine) by having two halves each comprising a vertically opposed 12-cyclinder unit with a side supercharger, with pressure-glycol cooling. Each crankshaft was geared to its own coaxial propeller of Fairey constant speed type. Each half engine was tested throughout 1938 (the test bed could not handle the 2,200 total horsepower), and on 30th June 1939 the P.24 was flown in a Battle (K9370). With a potential for 3,000hp, the P.24 was considered for the Hawker Tornado and then the P-47 Thunderbolt, the Battle flying some 250hrs at Wright Field in 1942, but wartime pressures forced the termination of what was a very promising engine.’

    There was nothing radical enough in the design of the Battle to warrant shipping it over to the US. There was every reason to ship out the P.24 engine though.

    Best wishes
    Steve P

    From the link in the original:

    “from ‘Aero Engines’, by Bill Gunston, 1st edition. (my italics)

    “with a potential of 3000 hp,the P.24 was considered for the hawker tornado and P-47 thunderbolt,
    the [P.24 powered] battle flying some 250 hours at Wright field in 1942.

    edit, checking in putnam’s Fairey, the aircraft was shipped to the USA on december 5th, 1941, and was still at Wright field in september 1942. when it returned to the RAE in 1943, 340 hours had been logged, including 87 in Britain, giving 253 hours of use in the USA.
    cheers,
    Robin.”

    Thus, the P.24 engine was the point of the exercise… and since it was already fitted in the Battle test-bed, it could be evaluated in flight… if the whole thing was shipped (not just the engine). That’s why the Battle went.

    in reply to: Shenzhou VII launched. #2468390
    Bager1968
    Participant

    China reports successful space flight before rocket lifts off:
    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5…Er7j9BdFRKRIpA

    “BEIJING (AFP) — China’s leading Xinhua news agency reported the successful flight of the Shenzhou VII hours before the nation’s third-ever manned space mission had even lifted off.

    On Thursday morning, Xinhua posted a story on its website saying the Shenzhou capsule had been successfully tracked flying over the Pacific Ocean even though the rocket and its three astronauts had not yet been launched.

    “There was a technical problem. We dealt with it after we had found it,” a editor at the agency told AFP when asked about the story Friday.

    The story, dated September 27, was written from one of the numerous tracking ships that China’s space programme dispatches around the world to track space flights.

    It described in a vivid, blow-by-blow account how the tracking ship was receiving signals from the space craft.

    “Changjiang Number One has acquired the target,” a tracker was quoted as saying.

    “Pressure in the cabin is normal. Oxygen pressure in the cabin is normal.”

    Late Thursday evening, the Shenzhou VII was launched from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in northwestern China on a mission that is to include the nation’s first-ever space walk.

    On Friday, all systems were operating normally, state press reported. “

    in reply to: Is the F22 a massive waste of money? #2468897
    Bager1968
    Participant

    From the “clubs F-35” link posted by Otaku

    “First, the bill would cut one aircraft each for the US Air Force and the US Navy from the FY09, reducing the overall count from 16 F-35s to 14.

    Second, Congressional appropriators added language urging the USN to request funds in FY10 for signing a third multi-year procurement deal for Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, citing concerns about a fighter shortfall until F-35Cs are delivered.”

    OOOHHH!!! They cut 2 aircraft!!! What a blow to the 1,000+ aircraft program!!! :rolleyes:

    And they “urged the USN to buy a few more F/A-18E/Fs to ‘fill in’ until F-35C production starts”… drastic, simply drastic!!! :rolleyes:

    Note the authorization of 20 more F-22s and 6 more C-17s (no actual money appropriated, though). And the provision for authorizing “up to 15 C-17s” later.

    in reply to: Hurricane Ike -Lone Star flight Museum? #1196064
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Bager,
    disagree with what? that LSFM was not responsive enough?

    No, with the statement that I quoted.

    1. There was plenty of warning that the storm would come ashore near or at Galveston… I gave data supporting this.

    2. The storm did not change direction “with very little notice”. Here is the track from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, showing no sudden direction changes, just a long, gradual sweep: http://www.noaawatch.gov/2008/ike.php

    http://www.noaawatch.gov/2008/ike_lg.gif

    In my opinion, the only thing LSFM could have done better was to have reinforced the building sides (including erecting a diversion barrier to reduce the impact force of the surge)… but this needed to have been done long before Ike ever formed, as it would take quite a while to do.

    In the situation, they used their several-days warning to evacuate all flyable aircraft, and to do what they could with the remaining exhibits… which was not all that much, considering the very large storm surge.

    My friend hasn’t gotten back to me with word of how his apartment fared (but he DID call as he was going to work the evening of the 15th), but since it was just north of the intersection of 330 & 146, I expect it got a lot of water.

    in reply to: Hurricane Ike -Lone Star flight Museum? #1197124
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Galveston, Houston had minimal notice of the hurricane coming. It changed direction northward with little notice.

    I disagree.

    A close friend lives in Baytown, and his reports to me said that they were on “evacuation alert” (be ready in case you have to evacuate) for 2 days before the evacuation order was actually given… which was over 24 hours before the storm surge hit.

    He had gone to relatives in north Houston around noon Friday, Sept. 12.

    The area had been preparing since Ike left Cuba on the 9th for at least a “graze”, and possibly a direct hit.

    Galveston City Manager Steve LeBlanc issued a mandatory evacuation order late Wednesday (10th) for the low lying west end of Galveston Island. Later, the mandatory evacuation order was extended to the entire island of Galveston, as well as low-lying areas around Houston, Texas.

    On September 11, at 8:19 p.m. (CDT), the National Weather Service in Houston/Galveston, TX issued a strongly worded bulletin, regarding storm surge along the shoreline of Galveston Bay. The bulletin advised residents living in single-family homes in some parts of coastal Texas may face “certain death” if they do not heed orders to evacuate.

    Ike made U.S. landfall at Galveston, Texas, on September 13 at 2:10am. It had maintained a nearly straight course since Sept. 10, and only turned north (then northeast) during the day of the 13th… AFTER it made landfall.

    Considerable warning, and for the exact area Ike hit. I’d say it was well expected, and Galveston was well warned.

Viewing 15 posts - 2,401 through 2,415 (of 3,360 total)