Reminds me of the “upgrade” the USMC/Italy/Spain performed with their AV-8Bs to get the AV-8B+…

Note the extent of the “modifications”… “No, Congressman, this is not a new aircraft”

“Perverting the course of Justice”… sounds to me like he looted something… either from the contents of the house, or the aircraft… which would bear on ongoing investigations.

Or perhaps was hiding/altering records of the aircraft or pilot.

Note they specifically stated “not related to the cause of the crash”, though.

It turned out to be cheaper (and easier) to just install the same landing gear (no design changes, no production line changes) than to install a different gear that might save 50-75 pounds.

Having the entire aircraft lightened would have made a significant difference, but the cost was prohibitive… and considering the problems the heavy-duty version has had (earlier-than-planned/designed fuselage center barrel replacement due to fatigue issues), it is a good thing they canceled the “less robust” version.

Or tell the software in the radar to ignore the reflections from the rotors.

It’s called a “range gate”.

Blocks reflections that arrive back sooner than a certain time (which matches the minimum range you desire).

Has been part of airborne radar systems since the 1950s.

The main problem with “rotor interference” would be that an unusually high percentage of the pulses would be ignored by the radar… leading to a reduction in resolution.

However, modern radars have such high resolution that a 15% reduction (for example) would still leave you with better resolution than a 1990s radar would have with no such reduction.

On this thread:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/5921?page=3

I wonder why modern engines have axial compressors and not centrifugal

Actually, modern engines have either axial or centrifugal compressors, or both, largely dependent on engine size. During the early era of the aviation gas turbine (gas turbines actually date from the early 20th century; iirc the first were built in 1904, aviation gas turbines were more-or-less simultaneously “invented” in the UK and Germany in the late 1930’s), there was more experience with centrifugal compressors, which were used for supercharging practically all aircraft engines. Axial compressors were not well-understood.

On the other hand, axial compressors can be more easily staged (staging centrifugal compressors requires turning the flow from the first stage through 270 degrees to get it to the second), so they can be used for higher pressure ratios. They also tend to have a smaller diameter for a given mass flow. Centrifugal compressors scale downwards in size better, both aerodynamically (their efficiencies drop off more slowly as size decreases) and mechanically (very small axial compressors are quite difficult to make and quite fragile).

Depends what you mean by “modern” engines. The sort with axial compressors have a much higher thrust and much higher mass flow rates. The sort with centrifugal and mixed flow compressors have a much lower thrust and lower mass flow rates.

For applications below 2000-3000lbf the the centrifugal compressor is superior. Above this, the axial compressor is superior, and if higher pressure ratios are needed. A way of compring both types is the use the specific speed, which takes into account rotational speed, volume flow rate and pressure ratio to give a number that can be compared with other pumps.

It is already striking that the issue has crossed party lines, with senators and congressmen from states like Alabama that stand to profit from the contract in favor of it, whether they are liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, while Republicans and Democrats alike from states that stand to lose from the deal because of their reliance on Boeing and its industry partners fiercely oppose it.

To quote/paraphrase the line from the movie & song…
“Its all about the Benjamins*… err votes… same thing!!!”

* for those outside the US, the US $1 bill carries the portrait of Benjamin Franklin… hence the nickname for money.

The USMC/Boeing/Royal Navy team has already been exploring this concept.

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2008/03/vertical-upgrade-for-airborne-early.html

TOSS is a Bell/Boeing V-22 equipped with a palletized version of the Royal Navy/Thales Cerberus airborne radar system. In RN service, the Cerberus – which comprises the Searchwater radar and operator stations – is fitted to the Sea King ASaC7 helicopter. Although it resembles the original Sea King AEW system, developed in a panic reaction after the loss of two ships to Exocet missiles in the 1982 Falklands war, the Cerberus system is new, the last of 13 aircraft having been delivered early this year, and has AEW and overland modes and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and inverse SAR capability.

TOSS stands for Tactical Organic Sensing System (TOSS) and the project apparently has some quiet momentum.

Boeing is proposing a three year joint capability technology demonstration (JCTD) with extensive support from the RN – which needs a replacement platform for the Sea King and could adapt the rear-ramp configuration to the Merlin helicopter. The kit requires very minor modifications to the V-22 – the addition of CV-22-type sponson tanks, power connectors, intercom and a Link 16 antenna – and the radar needs a rigid radome (the Sea King radome is inflatable.)

Nevermind that this would be a huge capability increase over the Sea Kings AEWs, the value on the export market after the Royal Navy would be enormous. Nothing deployed from sea is in the class of the Hawkeye, nothing, but the Hawkeye can only take off and land on US and French carriers. This version of the MV-22 however could take off and land on aviation ships from Australia to South Korea to Japan to India to Italy to Spain to Brazil and potentially even Turkey and South Africa in the future. This would be a game changing capability for Navy’s that leveraged the Joint Strike Fighter from naval aviation ships.

The USMC is interested in this as a “battlefield control” system, to coordinate air movements in & around the beach/insertion landing zone of amphibious operations. They would fly from the LHD/LHA(R) ships, along with AH-1Z/AV-8B/F-35B/UH-1Y/CH-53/MV-22.

Numerous articles over the last 3 or 4 years have brought out that the radar in the F-35 has a considerable ECM/DECM capability… added to the defensive ECM suite on the F-35 and its inherent stealthiness, this means that each USMC F-35B strike package could protect itself nearly as well as a F/A-18E/F package would be protected by an EA-18G.

This also applies to USN all-F-35C strike packages.

The Growler is mainly to protect the F/A-18E/F strike/air superiority packages and mixed Super Hornet/Lightning II groups.

The USMC will keep the EA-6B until all its F/A-18C/Ds and AV-8Bs are replaced by F-35Bs, then retire them.