dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,431 through 2,445 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: JSF: The Latest Hotspot in the U.S. Defense Meltdown #2476472
    Bager1968
    Participant

    There is no good reason to delay the introduction of the F-35A into service after 2010, when the first prototyp of that had its first flight October 24th, 2000. 😮

    Pay attention (or learn something about the subject before posting).

    The aircraft flown in 2000 was the X-35, NOT the F-35A!!!!!!!

    You know… a demonstration aircaft, not even close to being a true prototype!

    The F-35A (and the -B & -C) is significantly redesigned from that demonstrator… which had virtually NONE of the avionics installed… just an early version of the flight-control system, and lots of test & measurement equipment.

    And no, the redesign was NOT due to any problems… the demonstrator was never intended to do more than prove the basic ability of the maker to deliver a functional product using the desired materials, techniques, and features, and to demonstrate the functionality of specific design features… like the X-35’s lift fan and the X-32’s “cold-thrust” nozzles.

    First flight of the first F-35A “low-rate initial production” (would have been designated “YF-35A” before 1980) was on 15 December 2006.

    in reply to: Any one fancy a Draken? #1216994
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Probably pulled when someone in the Danish government read the listing and their lawyers contacted the seller.

    in reply to: Any one fancy a Draken? #1217175
    Bager1968
    Participant

    It may have been made in Sweden, but it was made FOR Denmark, who operated and then sold it on.

    When you buy a used car, do you say it belonged to the previous owner… or do you refer to it by the dealership that sold it when new?

    in reply to: Any ex-RAAF flyable Sabres or Mirage III? #2480367
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Might ask this in the Historic Aviation section… it’ll make a nice change from the Spitfire/Mustang/Canberra/Lightning (EE) threads.

    In particular, ask the Aussie Stormbird262… he’s up on nearly everything in the Aussie vintage aircraft field.

    in reply to: Last Flight Of The C133 Cargomaster #1223101
    Bager1968
    Participant
    in reply to: Fairey Firefly identification #1223105
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The very first Fireflies in the RAN were transfered on 28 August 1948, and embarked in HMAS SYDNEY at King George V Docks Glasgow, Scotland on 04 April 1949.

    Thus, your 1947 firefly could only have been from the RN, not the RAN.

    One of the RAN Fireflies has a history that might help, a little:
    Aircraft Ser; Aircraft Type; Cn No.; Aircraft History
    VT504; FR5; F8388; Known to have been with 820 Squadron embarked in HMS THESEUS as 227/T and later with 812 Squadron before being sold to the RAN. Delivered to King George V Docks, Glasgow, Scotland on 04 April 1949 and was embarked in HMAS SYDNEY.

    Note that Australian serials are different from RN serials.

    in reply to: French Magister #1223109
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I, on the other hand, immediately thought “Fouga” when I saw “French” and “Magister” together.

    Here is what one looks like with engines installed… I have always marveled over its small ground clearance!!!

    http://www.fouga.dk/img_type1.jpg

    This keeps it from leaving a trail of sparks on take-off:

    http://www.fougamagister.be/walkaround/IMG_4359.jpg

    http://www.fougamagister.be/walkaround/PICT2629.jpg

    in reply to: the greates aircraft of all time (any country) ? #2481735
    Bager1968
    Participant

    What, you actually choose the first of them all (success means any other challengers for “first” are irrelevant), without which funding & resources for aviation would have been far, far slower & the entire industry much later in developing (WW2 with Boeing FB [US], Fokker D.XI [Germany], Gloster Sparrowhawk [IJN], Fairey Flycatcher [RN], Gloster Grebe [RAF], Gourdou-Leseurre GL.32 [France], etc)?

    Why on earth would you choose that aircraft?

    :D:D

    I agree with Orville & Wilbur’s baby.

    in reply to: Sikorsky S-92 Superhawk. #2481747
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Right… the equipment fit is not yet settled, but Canada wants a firm, low price (regardless of the cost of whatever equipment is finally chosen) and a fixed delivery date (despite the delay to fit & integrate whatever equipment is finally chosen)?

    Sure.:rolleyes:

    in reply to: Best Cold War Dog Fighter #2481886
    Bager1968
    Participant

    At what point in the Cold War?

    You are talking 1949-1989!

    That covers (USAF) the F-80 to the F-16C!!

    Narrow it down a bit, please… for example:
    1949-1955;
    1956-1960;
    1961-1965;
    1966-1970;
    1971-1976;
    1977-1983;
    1984-1989

    in reply to: Classical widebody first class #513564
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Shouldn’t someone move this to Commercial Aviation?

    in reply to: F-18 Hornet #2482690
    Bager1968
    Participant

    It does hinder its newly assigned role as fleet defense interceptor because some adversaries can run right past and the poor ol’ F-18 doesn’t have the speed to catch them (Hopefully AEGIS will).

    Ummm the Super Hornet will get off at least 2 AMRAAMs before the other aircraft get anywhere close, a couple Sidewinder at close range, and a couple AMRAAM for what few might actually get past it (and its friends, as a USN CVN carries a whole bunch of them).

    With the new radar, its speed (of lack thereof) is irrelevant. It is not a dogfighter, and has no need to be.

    in reply to: Guess the ship #2072398
    Bager1968
    Participant

    You need room for maintenance… pulling the rotor head, etc.

    The F-14 could have been operated from Midway due to the C-13 cats she got in 1966-70 (Coral Sea kept her C-11-1s throughout), but the Tomcat was not cleared for Midway because the low hangar height “was too low to allow required maintenance… ejection seat removal and landing gear drop checks… to be performed”.

    in reply to: Guess the ship #2072490
    Bager1968
    Participant

    No, Midway’s hangar height is 17′ 6″, while CVF’s varies from 23′ to 29′.

    Why would the RN need such tall hangers for the CVF’s?

    “Clear Hangar height” (height to the bottom of the drop tank racks, light fixtures, piping, etc) of the Nimitz class is 25′ 6″.

    in reply to: Guess the ship #2072570
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Midway:

    http://www.ipmsgreatplains.org/USSMidwayimages%5CP1010072.jpg

    CVF:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/RN%20cariers/cvf-6b-cabin.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 2,431 through 2,445 (of 3,360 total)