dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,506 through 2,520 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Merlins close escape – Illustrious #2077680
    Bager1968
    Participant

    What happened to the tug that was on the other end of the nose-wheel towbar?

    And to its driver?

    in reply to: DC-3 for sale, nice! #1185924
    Bager1968
    Participant

    “840 remaining hours before wing attach angle replacement”

    So, how much would this item set the prospective purchaser back?

    in reply to: Engine for LCA #2459658
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The engine weights are very similar for the F404-F414 family.

    F404-400 (F/A-18A): 2,180 lb
    F404-402 EPE (F/A-18C): 2,315 lb
    F414-400 (F/A-18E): 2,445 lb

    However, the aircraft structure into which the engine is mounted needs to be able to absorb the force of the thrust and transfer it to the rest of the airframe, and from what was said earlier, it looks like they were planning for a 90kn engine, and the F414 is rated at 97.5kn (and the F404 at 85kn).

    Thus, the mounting structure might be sufficient for 90kn, but not 97.5. If this is the case, then they would still have to make those changes for any “100kn” engine, regardless of which one.

    in reply to: Sexiest Warbirds #1187164
    Bager1968
    Participant

    One I wish was flying, instead of stuck on a pole:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/display%20aircraft/IMG_0380.jpg

    F11F-1 Tiger (Grumman Iron Works, of course)

    in reply to: Engine for LCA #2460050
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The reason for the need for airframe redesign to fit the F414 instead of the F404 is not the size of the engine, which fits in the same basic hole, but in the need for larger intakes and ducting due to the higher air-flow requirement.

    F404: Airflow: 142-146 lb/sec

    F414: Airflow: 169 lb/sec

    This means that the intakes & ducting need to be of larger cross-sectional area, which requires changing the structures around them.

    in reply to: JSF, Cloggies and Gripens. Oh My! #2460809
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The numbers I have seen for the F414-GE-400 in the Super Hornet are:
    14,756 lb.s.t. dry
    22,000 lb.s.t. afterburning.

    The RM12 [12,140 lb (18,100 lb)] was developed from the F404-GE-400 [10,800 lb (16,000 lb)], so I expect a similar ratio of increase for the F404G in the Gripen-N.

    That would put it at ~ 16,590 lb (24,890 lb).

    in reply to: Soviet Union Aces of the Korean War? #1189796
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Among those who “claimed the former Soviet Union fought along side the North Koreans against the United Nations”is the former Soviet Union itself!

    Hardly a controversy anymore… since the Soviet’s documents were released into the public domain.

    in reply to: Amazing pics of Pearl Harbour WWII #2078036
    Bager1968
    Participant

    And this has just WHAT place in a thread about Pearl Harbour?

    in reply to: Bell MV-22 Osprey in Iraq. #2462520
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Exactly… 6-month rotation, standard procedure.

    in reply to: Handley Page Victor #1193168
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The one in front is a Valiant, in back is a Victor:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/ValianttankingVictor.jpg

    All 3… Handley-Page Victor, Avro Vulcan, Vickers Valiant (left to right in the first shot):

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/VVV.jpg

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/VVV2.jpg

    And just for fun, the Shorts Sperrin:

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/ShortsSperrin.jpg

    in reply to: Amazing pics of Pearl Harbour WWII #2078212
    Bager1968
    Participant

    JA, I have no doubt that the person who sent them to you believed the back-story, but it is also true that this is a story that has been around a bit… and is a put-up job.

    Now here are some nice photos of PH… with the US archive numbers intact at the top:

    http://s22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/misc%20ships/bases/

    in reply to: Typhoon Wheels up landing in US #2464737
    Bager1968
    Participant

    es, so what we (the common public) know:

    1. Typhoon
    2. at China Lake
    3. landing accident
    4. pilot OK
    5. fleet not grounded
    6. investigation started
    7. 2nd Typhoon landing accident for RAF (the other of which was a nose-gear failure to deploy)

    What we have not been told (except through the rumor-mill): what kind of accident (hard landing, wheels-up, gear collapse, blown tire causing damage, wing-tip drag,… etc).

    Awaiting more details.

    in reply to: Typhoon Wheels up landing in US #2465268
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Some people seem to be saying that: “If there’s no link on the internet saying that it happened, then it didn’t happen.” or “until it’s confirmed on the internet I don’t believe it.”

    Actually, I’m saying “If there is nothing but a bunch of blokes gabbing on the internet, with nothing to support their statements, then I question whether it happened”; and “if it is confirmed by a reliable source (and Joe Blow who is a journo or claims to be at the airbase and makes unsubstantiated claims is NOT “reliable” in my book), then I will believe it!

    The source [internet, magazine, newspaper, TV News report…] doesn’t matter, just the existence of something more than “I have heard” or “guess what I saw” is all I was asking for.

    in reply to: Typhoon Wheels up landing in US #2465773
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Yes, and not one citing an actual source that others can access, right?

    Until something more than “I have heard” comes out, like a link to a news release, then it is still just a rumor!

    The China Lake-area newspaper I linked earlier still has nothing… and they do have articles about happenings on base.

    http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/news/

    in reply to: Typhoon Wheels up landing in US #2466360
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Well, the Daily Independent (civvie newspaper covering the surrounding area) has nothing on its website:
    http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/

Viewing 15 posts - 2,506 through 2,520 (of 3,360 total)