Bager19681. “Have a Nice Day”… Yes Sir, I will have a nice day as ordered, Sir!
I prefer the more neutral and flexible: “Have a Day”, and leave what kind to the individual!
2. Well, to avoid re-posting the entire post to which you are replying, either start your answer with the name of the person to whom you are typing, or type “In reply to post #___, My response is:
3. I prefer the phrase “Contrary Old Cuss” to “Grumpy Old Fart/Ba$tard”.
Bager1968In the text on Entropy’s site: http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/26mustan.htm
“Nicaragua
In 1953 Nicaragua signed a contract for 26 of the Mustangs, and they were delivered in Oct 1954.
The last ones were retired from Fuerza Aerea Nicaragua in 1953, and ten were sold to USA. “
Talk about a short service life…retired the same year they were bought, and at least 10 months before being delivered!!
Bager1968Turbo-Tracker programs:
Military:
# Grumman updated 32 Taiwanese S-2Es and S-2Fs to the “S-2T” Turbo Tracker configuration following a contract award in 1986. The S-2Ts featured TPE331 engines, four-bladed propellers, and a new avionics and electronic systems fit.
# In 1988, there was a project undertaken between the Canadian Forces and IMP Aerospace of Halifax to re-engine the Trackers with Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-67 turboprop engines. However, just as the first Tracker was converted, the project was cancelled and the Trackers retired from service.
# IMP performed an update for 12 Brazilian Air Force Trackers, fitting them with PT6A turboprops, five-bladed Hartzell propellers, and other updates. The first of these updates was performed by IMP in Canada and flew in 1990, the others were provided to Brazil as upgrade kits.
# Israel Aircraft Industries’ (IAI) Bedek division updated six Trackers for the Argentine Navy to the “S-2E(UP)” Turbo Tracker configuration, using Garrett engine kits provided by Marsh and also implementing environmental and electronics systems updates.
Civilian:
# Marsh Aviation of Mesa, Arizona, has been selling Turbo Tracker updates using TPE331 engines and Hartzell five-bladed fully reversible propellers. They offer a “TS-2F1” (previously “S-2AT”) conversion for firefighting, and a “TS-2F3” (previously “S-2ET”) conversion for maritime patrol.
The first Marsh water-bomber conversion flew in 1986 and was certified in 1990. A number have been supplied to the CDF. The first maritime patrol conversion flew in 1991, was carrier-qualified in 1992, and several have been sold. The maritime patrol conversions also include electronic system updates and other refinements.
# Conair of Abbotsford, Canada, following up their “Firecat” water-bomber Tracker conversions, with a “Turbo Firecat” conversion featuring PT6A engines and the five-bladed Hartzell propellers as used on the Marsh conversions. The first Conair Turbo Firecat conversion flew in 1988 and a number have been sold.
My proposal would have used GE T58 [RR Gnome], which was in widespread service at the time, and which is of similar dimensions & weight to the ones fitted in the RW conversions.
Tiddles, as anyone who has served aboard a carrier will tell you, which aircraft are “spotted” where on the flight and hangar decks is a function of how many of which type need repair, which missions are being prepared for, personal preference of the chief aircraft handler, and which part of the hangar is closest to which repair shops.
Thus, each USN CV puts its planes in different places, even if they have the same numbers of the same types. During my time aboard CV-61 Ranger in 1985-87, there were several changes in where each squadron wanted its planes spotted in the hangar, for example.
Bager19681. Full electro-static/electro-magnetic/electro-chemical pilot-brain>flight-computer interface (no pesky hand controls).
2. Fully elastic/reshapable wing surfaces (no separate control surfaces, the entire wing does that… The Wright Brother’s wing-warping control system reborn?).
3. Full spherical radar & optical/infrared coverage (“Gods’ Eye” viewpoint).
4. Electronically controllable color-variable paint with thermally variable undersurface (visual & thermal stealth).
5. High efficiency engine exhaust cooling (reduced vulnerability to IR-guided weapons).
Bager1968Pioneer…
Since by that time the RAN had in service 3 “RAN variant – USN C.F. Adams” DDGs [Perth class Destroyers] with a mk. 13 SM1-MR launcher and 2 USN 5″/54 mk.42 guns, and had in 1974 decided on (order placed 1976) the “RAN variant – USN O.H. Perry” FFGs [Adelaide class Frigates] also with a mk. 13 SM1-MR launcher, then it is far more likely that this ship would have had 2 of the mk. 11 twin SM1-MR launchers (they look too small to be the mk. 26 twin SM2-ER launcher) and the USN 5″/54 mk. 45 mount.
One of the main objections raised to purchase of Invincible by the RAN was that the Sea Dart missile and associated radars would have imposed an excessive burden on the repair & logistics system by introducing a completely new system, instead of the “preferred” (and already in-service) USN SM1-MR!
Bager1968As I recall, the disaster was economic only… they performed well as airplanes, but few people wanted a propellor-driven (and therefore speed-limited) plane that cost nearly what a jet did!
Bager1968“But, it was not an airplane to undergo numerous reincarnations and ultimately be both primary air-defense and tactical strike mainstay for the 70s and 80s.”
No, tac-strike was the job of the Bucc in both the RAF & FAA, or you could get some A-7Es (the TF-41 was a US-built & up-powered Spey)… F-8Rs (Royal), A-7s, & Bucc S.2s all Spey-powered… 😀
The only CVL that the “Speyed Two-sader” (or any single-seat one) could have operated from without major mods was Hermes.
Centaur would have needed the longer, more powerful catapult that Hermes got, and a larger angle (Hermes’ was 6.5° or 8°, while Centaur’s was 5.5°).
The Majestic/Colossus were just too small!
Bager1968Cessna O-2A Skymaster:
“VH-OII Military S/N: 67-21407
History: The Cessna O-2A in the Temora Aviation Collection is one of only two O-2A’s flown in Australia.
In 1966, the United States Air Force (USAF) realised it needed a replacement for its O-1 Bird Dogs in Vietnam. The Cessna 337 was selected and, with relatively minor modifications to incorporate under wing weapons mounts and weapon release systems, was sent to war in Vietnam designated O-2A. The Cessna O-2A is an all metal, high wing, retractable gear aircraft incorporating twin tail booms and an engine mounted at the front and rear of its fuselage pod. A total of 501 Cessna O-2A’s were delivered to the USAF.
The Temora Aviation Museum’s O-2A was manufactured in 1967 and assigned Serial Number 67-21407. In August of that year it was flown across the Pacific to Vietnam. The aircraft was based at Pleiku and served in a combat environment until April 1971. During that service, the aircraft was struck by enemy fire on many occasions and was retired from the USAF in January 1980. After being stored at Davis-Monthan Air force Base in Arizona for 14 years, the aircraft was restored and placed on the US civil register in 1994.
Upon being purchased by David Lowy in August 2000 the aircraft was transported to Temora and donated to the Temora Aviation Museum in December 2000.
The Museum’s Cessna O-2A has been remarked to resemble the one flown by Australian FAC pilot David Robson. As Jade 07, Flying Officer David Robson flew over 240 missions in the O-2A and controlled over 80 air strikes in support of the Australian troops.
The Museum uses the Cessna O-2A to ferry pilots, engineers and equipment around the country as well as displaying it’s capabilities at their flying days.”
Bager1968Note the E-1[T] Tracers… no Gannets allowed!
The RAN had already replaced its ASW Gannets (they had never operated AEW Gannets) with S-2 Trackers in 1967, so there would be no reason to return an obsolete type to service when the E-1 would share parts (engines, most of the airframe, & base avionics) with the modernizd S-2s.
Bager1968Don’t you just love how, since Photoshop was created, every pic of any unusual aviation event is automatically assumed to be PS’ed?
Bager1968As for the aircraft issue… If used A-4B & C models are purchased and fitted with 1 – F404 and a small-antenna APG-65, then it will have the same radar and engine as the F-18, and probably most of the rest of avionics would be the same, but simplified. This would mean that most of the supply and maintenance load would be shared with the F-18 anyway.
Bager1968Yes, I have that link. My ideas are more a starting point for discussion and refinement, than a finalized item.
Here is some more info on the reasons for replacing the boilers rather than re-building them.
Well, the main reason I proposed replacement was to get an increase in total steam pressure & volume. I fully realize that bloody great holes would need to be opened in either the hull or hangar deck to do this.
These CVLs had already seen their max. speed drop from 26 knots to 24.5 due to their increased hull depth from earlier mods… I would expect this one to drop it to 24. The second cat could further exacerbate this issue (drawing off even more steam from the turbines), thus the desire to install a more compact (per cubic meter/Kilo-Newton of steam produced), efficient, modern boiler suite that could provide more steam in the same ship volume.
The turbine replacement is because turbines are what place an absolute limit on speed (power to the propellors). They are built for a certain maximum output, and cannot do more.
In order to increase speed (back to the original), or even keep it the same, there will need to be an increase in shaft horsepower… which requires both more steam and stronger turbines.
The elevator move is to clear the landing path. As it was, they had to unhook the forward arresting cable to use the aft el, as it stretched across the elevator. This made use of the elevator nearly impossible while landing ops were underway.
*Boiler options:
Originally installed are 4 RN-WW2 standard 400 psi 700° Admiralty 3-drum. This was used to produce 10,000 shp per boiler (4 boilers = 40,000 shp).
1. The USN 600 psi 950° Combustion Engineering boilers used on all its post-WW2 amphibs (including the LSDs, LPDs, Iwo Jima LPHs, Tarawa LHAs, and the first 7 Wasp LHDs) (normally ~12,000 shp per boiler.) for 48,000 shp total if they can be exchanged 1-for-1.
2. All-UK alternative would be the 650 psi 850° Admiralty 3-drum boilers used in the Daring class DDs (of which the RAN had 3 in 1964-78). They put out 26,000 shp per boiler, so this would mean replacing the 4 old (40,000 shp) with 2 new (52,000 shp)… unless 1 original is also kept for back-up use if space allows.
This has the advantage of not introducing a new type, but this boiler had the reputation of being “touchy” and maintenance-heavy.
**Elevator:
Since the hull width was 80′, and the hangar deck was 52′, this meant a 14′ (including two bulkheads) space on either side of the hangar. It is this space that I propose for the overlap of the elevator.
This would allow 12′ (plus 2′ for the weather door) of the 34′ elevator width to overlap the hull, thus the elevator would only extend 22′ past the hull. This significantly reduces both spray and possible wave effects on both the elevator and aircraft on it.
Bager1968The fact that there was corruption involved with the C-17 has NOTHING to do with whether it is effective and needed or is “pork-barrel” (an unnecessary project that exists solely to benefit the politicians whose constituents benefit from the project).
That he was citing bribery as one of the reasons he felt it should not have been purchased shows that he was discounting the need for the aircraft as being less important than an opposition to corruption.
Standing for a principle is fine, just as long as your stance does not become so extreme that you “cut off your nose to spite your face”!
As for “he didn’t seem like a Lib”… isolationism and non-interference with other nations has long been a hall-mark of extreme conservatism.. an example of this is during and after WW 1.
Democrat (and very liberal for his time) President Wilson ordered troops into Haiti to overthrow the recently-elected president there with the statement “We must teach the Central American Republics to elect good men”, while the Republican party opposed the League of Nations on the grounds that it would force the US into international affairs that it should stay out of.
Likewise, before WW 2 it was the Republicans who were isolationist.
Even today, if you look at the numbers, Bill Clinton involved the US in more different international military ventures than GW Bush has… mostly as part of UN actions, where Bush’s are for US reasons.
Just before the 2000 election a liberal magazine sounded a warning that if Al Gore were to become president that he would be even more interventionist than Clinton had been, and more than GW was likely to be!
This is common with the form of Liberalism that wants to “do good” by stepping in any time a nation, people, tribe, town, or individual makes a decision or takes an action they don’t like. They rush in to “protect you from yourself” and teach you to “make the right choices” because “we are a global society”.
One can be patriotic and still wish for less military expenditure and less military usage.
Bager1968I never claimed bribes were either patriotic or positive… that is YOUR distortion and falsification of what I said!
I merely stated the unfortunate truth that bribes have been a part of every military procurement program of every nation since at least WW2… something I personally do NOT find positive in any way!
Bager1968While the C-17 has proved more expensive than originally bid out as, and while some performance criteria were just slightly missed, and there were surely bribes involved, these are part of EVERY military contract in the last 50+ years!
These alone are not sufficient to condemn the entire project.
There are two inescapable facts about the C-17: It is far more capable in all respects than the C-141 that it replaces; and the airframes are new, rather than 30 year-old patched together relics of the Vietnam war era!!!
Hardly what an unbiased observer would label “just a pork-barrel project”!!
Maybe you should ask him the real reason he opposes it… does he dislike all (or most) military spending… believing (as do some) that we have too large an armed force and that we should downsize it, thus freeing money for “more important things”?
Does he disagree with the foreign policies of the US and think that a significantly smaller military would prevent “foreign adventures” (as do others)?
There are many “practical reasons” I have heard raised over the years as objections to military projects, most of which were actually socially acceptable camouflage for deeper-held political, philosophical, or religious beliefs.
I have no problem with those beliefs, or with those who hold them… but I do have a problem with giving “cover stories” to avoid admitting what their real objections are.
Sign In
