dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,761 through 2,775 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: australia long quest for a bomber (1958-1974) #2507063
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Specific Fuel Consumption (kg fuel/kg thrust/hour)
    engine: military/afterburner; thrust

    ATAR 9K50: .97/1.97; 11,023 lb (15,870 lb)

    Spey-25 (mk201): .63/1.95; 12,550 lb (20,515 lb)

    in reply to: LCS-2 USS independence? #2059317
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Fair enough, I’ve done the same thing from time to time.

    Personally, I think that the LCS-2 design shows far more promise than LCS-1, and just might be exactly what the USN is looking for.

    in reply to: LCS-2 USS independence? #2059362
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Other way around, isn’t it? It was LCS-3 (the sister to LCS-1 Freedom) that had a “stop work” order issued in Jan 2007, and was cancelled in April 2007… no such order has been given on LCS-4.

    The contract to build LCS-4 (USS Liberty according to http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/littoral/ ) was signed in Dec 2006, and work is still going forward (unless you have heard otherwise?) for completion in 2009.

    BTB, LCS-2 is on schedule for launch in Dec 2007, and commissioning in 2008, according to the Austal May 2007 newsletter.

    in reply to: Indian navy – news & discussion #2059364
    Bager1968
    Participant

    If I am reading correctly, Vikramaditya will be “delivered to the Indian Navy” in late 2008… with only the basic ship-work done (including boilers, turbines, wiring, internal systems, & essential structural work).

    She will then belong to India (Indian Navy), and only then will her flight deck will be finished (including building the bow “ski ramp), aircraft equipment installed, and the weapons, radar, etc. installed.

    So both dates might be correct… 2008 for “joining the Indian Navy”, and 2010 for “completion and commissioning”.

    in reply to: Saudi F-15 Crashes Into Air Base #2510150
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Foxbat Fan1…

    Note that Don Chan ressurected a thread from 3 1/2 years ago to make his notification of the site he linked. 🙁

    Why didn’t he start a new thread? :confused:

    It would have been much less misleading… people would not think this crash was a new one, and they could actually see what he is posting about! :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Glacier Girl #1287323
    Bager1968
    Participant
    in reply to: Westland Wasp mishap in Calif. #1296484
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Upper and lower seat rows for Hobbits, I would guess.

    in reply to: SUPERHORNET IN TROUBLE! #2060896
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Well, Program Unit Cost : $ 95.3 million [I am not sure about what is included].

    Unit Procurement Cost: $ 78.4 million [the cost if you buy only one].

    $53.8 million [for each one of a large number (100+?) purchased on a multi-year procurement contract].

    in reply to: SUPERHORNET IN TROUBLE! #2061028
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I suspect the $6.6 bn AUS figure came from someone adding together everything in the budget proposals with the F/A-18 designation… including the F/A-18A/B center-barrel replacements, etc?

    in reply to: JMSDF 16DDH #2061032
    Bager1968
    Participant

    More importantly, it can reach a greater cruise altitude than any AEW helo, thus giving its radar a longer effective range (the current AEW radar in the RN’s Sea Kings can see out to the horizon… which is closer if you are at a lower altitude).

    in reply to: When did aeroplanes first get wet? #1301810
    Bager1968
    Participant

    In other words, it was a boat with wing-like attitude controls.

    As for the Langley/Wright/Curtis lawsuits, Langley and Curtis used seperate ailerons, while the Wrights used wing-warping… and part of the lawsuit claimed Curtis was using Wright-type controls.

    The Wrights also claimed their patents covered ALL forms of heavier-than-air craft, whether they used any of the Wright-designed features or none! No one could build [B]any[B] heavier-than-air craft without paying the Wrights for the privilege.

    So the lawsuit was dubious at best.

    in reply to: SUPERHORNET IN TROUBLE! #2061174
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The article is basically hysterical rantings from ignorant media types, regular rent-a-quotes, and someone who has been on an anti-fighter crusade for years. 😡

    Found 4 years ago and confirmed with testing 2 years ago. New production aircraft have the fix already incorporated, and all existing ones are scheduled for modification during scheduled overhaul.

    Navy, Boeing Downplay Alleged Super Hornet Problems

    U.S. Navy and Boeing officials were quick to respond to a Boston Globe story May 17 that alleged “costly flaws” in Super Hornet strike fighters could cut their lifetime flight hours in half.

    “The Boston Globe article has many misstatements,” said Patricia Frost, a spokeswoman for Boeing Naval Systems in St. Louis. “Boeing and the U.S. Navy expect the Super Hornet and the EA-18G to meet or exceed their 6,000-hour design life.”

    The Globe story reported that “a mechanism inside the wings of the F/A-18 [E and F] Super Hornet … is wearing out prematurely” — a problem that, if uncorrected, “would drastically shorten the $50 million aircraft’s life span from 6,000 hours to 3,000 hours.”

    Boeing and the Navy acknowledged that problems have been found with the aircraft, but said the situation described in the Globe story dates from four years ago. Fixes already have been incorporated into new aircraft and will be retrofitted into older planes, Boeing and the Navy said.

    “The U.S. Navy has identified a pylon fitting in the wing of the F/A-18 E and F model Super Hornet where fatigue could potentially shorten the wing’s expected service life and is implementing a corrective measure,” said Chuck Wagner, a spokesman with Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md. “The fitting is part of the lower wing spar and is used to reinforce the area where stores attach to the wing. The potential problem was identified through an engineering analysis in 2003 and subsequent testing in 2005, which are part of our routine risk-mitigation processes for the aircraft’s development. The Navy and Boeing worked together, a fully-funded project is underway, and today every aircraft coming off the production line is being delivered with the solution that corrects for the potential future fatigue. A retrofit solution on those aircraft already in the fleet is planned for 2009 and will correct the identified wing area prior to those aircraft reaching the flight-hour threshold in which fatigue could potentially be experienced. The Navy is confident it has selected the optimal proactive response which in no way compromises the readiness or performance of the aircraft’s mission.”

    Asked whether the situation affected new EA-18G Growler electronic countermeasures aircraft — which are all converted on the production line from two-seat F models — Wagner said the problem did “not influence them at all, because the solution is already incorporated into aircraft coming off the production line. The solutions were incorporated before the first G was delivered.”

    Fixes and modifications to aircraft in series production are not unusual, Frost said. “They’re part of the normal life of an aircraft,” she said. “If something comes up you go out and fix it in a timely fashion before it becomes a serious issue.”

    in reply to: Time to get banned #1314390
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Possibly because posts do sometimes disappear without explanation (and I have seen comments from the authors of those threads that not even they were told why), and if we ask why there is usually a mod or admin who comes on and tells us “that is private, and you should not pry into other’s affairs”, or some such thing.

    If the mods/admins of this board were a little more open with us we might be less suspicious of them.

    Of course, a simple “XYZ thread removed at originator’s request” on a title line would go a long way too.

    I do admit to having been a bit over the edge with my thread, though… which is why I intend to delete it in 20 or so more hours.

    in reply to: Time to get banned #1314410
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Right-O… then I guess I’ll crawl back under my rock for a while 😮 😮 😮

    This thread will self-destruct in 24 hours.

    in reply to: Has VG wings gone out of style? #2534557
    Bager1968
    Participant

    “The swing wing was always used – as previous posters already pointed out – for aircraft with low-level penetration capability and short landing distances.”
    “Also, the aircrafts in question were not desired to be fighters (F-111, Tornado, etc).”

    So, the F-14 Tomcat was a low-level penetrator?
    And NOT desired to be a fighter?

Viewing 15 posts - 2,761 through 2,775 (of 3,360 total)