dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,286 through 3,300 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Updates on the Royal Navy's CVF project #2069338
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Since the ‘Delta Design” for CVF includes preservation of the spaces in which catapults and arresting gear could be later fitted, the French say no problems using it… they will just install their choice of catapults and arresting gear during construction. They will also outfit it with Gallic radars, computers, communications gear, and other specialized sub-systems installed in the “standard” hull instead of the Anglo equipment of the 2 UK versions.

    The 2 UK ships will be built in UK shipyards, and the PA 2 in a French facility.

    in reply to: INS Vikramaditya (ex-Gorshkov) #2069340
    Bager1968
    Participant

    So the only carrier pilots in the world NOT training in the US are the French & Russians?

    Of course that is all another great American conspiracy also… deny the French & Russians the benefit of our experience because they opposed us on the Iraq war?

    Some people… :rolleyes:

    in reply to: royal navy 1970s #2069580
    Bager1968
    Participant

    “The Ikara took up a lot of space, meaning that ships really had to be built around the system – just look at the modified Leander class!”

    Just look at the Ikara in the Aussie “Roths-anders” & Brizilian Nitiero (sp?)… much smaller installation for the same number of UAVs… even in the “Perth” class DDGs they had 2 launchers & lots of “missiles”. The Aussie frigates were an upgrade, but they didn’t over-build the launcher area like the Brits did.

    in reply to: Dambuster's re-make ? Discuss #1374330
    Bager1968
    Participant

    What I don’t want to see in any such remake: “woman disguises herself as man & joins RAF bomber crew to avenge dead brother/father/fiance”?????

    Who then falls desperately in love with the dashing chief pilot, who only finds out about it all when she lies mortally wounded in his arms on the way back to “Jolly Old Britain”!

    GGGAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

    in reply to: Canadian,American F/P forumites I need your help #1374333
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Not on this case, sorry.

    In April 1984 My USMC A-6E squadron (VMV[AW]-242) deployed from MCAS El Toro (southern California) to MCAS Iwakuni Japan. On the way over, the chartered Arrow Airlines DC-8 we maintenence personnel were in ran low on fuel on the El Toro-Anchorage Alaska leg due to heavy headwinds. We landed at a CAF airbase in BC to refuel, and I had a great view out of my window of a line of CF-101s.

    in reply to: Would the B-36 really have bombed Germany? #1382758
    Bager1968
    Participant

    from: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b36_1.html

    “The origin of the B-36 can be traced back to the early days of 1941, at a time when it seemed that Britain might fall to a German invasion, depriving the USA of any European allies in case of war, and, in particular, leaving the Army Air Corps without any bases outside the Western Hemisphere. Consequently, the Air Corps felt that it would need a truly intercontinental bomber with unprecedented range, one that could bomb targets in Europe from bases inside the continental USA. In search of such an aircraft, on April 11, 1941, the USAAC, in an atmosphere of high secrecy, opened up a design competition for a bomber with a 450 mph top speed, a 275 mph cruising speed, a service ceiling of 45,000 feet, and a maximum range of 12,000 miles at 25,000 feet. It had to be able to carry a 10,000 pound bombload a distance of 5000 miles away and return, and had to be able to carry 72,000 pounds of bombs over a reduced range. It had to be able to take off and land on a 5000-foot runway. These requirements were far beyond the state of the art at the time.

    Invitations for preliminary design studies were sent to the Consolidated Aircraft Corporation and to the Boeing Airplane Company. A month later, Northrop Aircraft, Inc was asked for further design studies on its “flying wing” bomber proposal. On April 19, the Douglas Aircraft Company was given a contract to determine if the Allison V-3420 W-type liquid-cooled engine could be adapted as a bomber powerplant. Much later, the Glenn L. Martin Company was also solicited, but declined the invitation due to a shortage of engineering personnel.

    On May 3, 1941, a preliminary proposal was submitted by Consolidated. The company designation for the project was Model 35, although at this time it was still uncertain whether a 6-engine or a 4-engine format would be used. Twin fins and rudders were employed by the Model 35.

    In order to accelerate the intercontinental bomber project, a conference of high-ranking USAAF officers met on August 19, 1941 and decided to scale down their requirements. The maximum range requirement was reduced to 10,000 miles and the effective combat radius requirement was cut to 4000 miles with a 10,000 pound bombload. The cruising speed should be somewhere between 240 and 300 mph, and the service ceiling should be 40,000 feet.

    On October 3, 1941, a review of preliminary data from Boeing, Consolidated, and Douglas was held. At that time, the Materiel Division of the USAAF decided that the Consolidated study was the most promising. At this stage, the Consolidated proposal still covered several different designs, both 4- and 6-engine pusher and pusher-tractor combinations. On October 16, Major General Henry H. Arnold, Chief of the USAAF directed that the Consolidated proposal should be proceeded with. On November 15, 1941, a contract for two experimental aircraft was issued under the designation XB-36. The contract was designated W535-AC-2232. On November 22, the Engineering Division at Wright Field concluded that the 6-engine design rather than the 4-engine design should be adopted, but the twin fin-and-rudder format was retained. On December 10, Consolidated redesignated the Model 35 the Model 36 so that it would not be confused with the Northrop flying wing, which was then known as the B-35.

    The two XB-36s were to be built in San Diego, with the first one to be delivered by May of 1944. At the head of the chain of command at Consolidated was I. M. Laddon, the executive vice president. Key members of the Model 36 team were Harry A. Sutton, head of the Engineering Department, Ted P. Hall, head of the preliminary design group, Ralph L. Bayless, head of the Aerodynamics Group, Ken Ward, in charge of finalizing the external shape, and Robert H. Widmer, in charge of wind tunnel testing. By this time, the wing span had grown to 230 feet with an area of 4772 square feet. The wing had a slight sweepback, and sat high on a circular-section fuselage. The aircraft was to be powered by a set of six 28-cylinder Pratt & Whitney “X” air-cooled radials. This engine was based on a pair 14-cylinder R-1830 Twin Wasp engine connected together, and in 1941 existed only on paper. These six engines were each to drive a 19-foot three-bladed Curtiss propeller in pusher configuration. The engines were to be accessible for maintenance in flight via passageways in the 7.5-foot thick wing root. Six fuel tanks with a capacity of 21,116 US gallons were incorporated into the wing. The 163-foot fuselage had four separate bomb bays with a maximum capacity of 42,000 pounds. Like in the B-29, only the forward crew compartment and the gunner’s weapons sighting station compartment behind the bomb bay were to be pressurized. A 25-inch diameter, 80-foot long pressurized tube ran alongside the bomb bays to connect the forward crew compartment to the rear gunners’ compartment. Crewmen could use a wheeled trolley to slide back and forth. The crew consisted of 15 (pilot, copilot, radar/bombardier, navigator, flight engineer, two radiomen, three forward gunners, and five rear gunners). Four rest bunks were provided for relief. An extremely heavy defensive armament was to be provided, consisting of five 37-mm cannon and ten 0.50-inch machine guns. These guns were to be distributed among four retractable turrets and a radar-directed tail turret. The guns were to be remotely directed by gunners situated at sighting stations distributed throughout the fuselage.

    The B-36 mockup was inspected on July 20, 1942. The Mockup Committee felt that the aircraft carried too many guns and crew members to meet the 10,000 mile range requirement, and recommended that drastic reductions be made in the defensive firepower. However, some people on the committee felt that such changes would render the B-36 tactically useless, making it little more than a “flying laboratory” like the Douglas XB-19. If such reductions were actually necessary, the USAAF threatened to recommend the cancellation of the entire B-36 project and the diversion of funds to more productive bomber programs. The Mockup Committee compromised and eventually agreed to delete only the “less necessary” items of equipment from the aircraft. This reduced weight and saved the B-36 project from cancellation at that time. “

    in reply to: Brazilian Skyhawks in action! :) #2071227
    Bager1968
    Participant

    What about fitting the Skyhawks with a modern multi-mode radar like the Kiwis did with theirs (APG-66 as in the F-16)? I am sure the APG 65 would fit… it did in the AV-8B+!

    in reply to: Strangest RAF aircraft of World War 2. #1399927
    Bager1968
    Participant

    I love the conspiracy-theory lunatic fringe!

    The Goodyear inflate-a-plane was first developed at the request of the USAF for use by SAR to allow a pilot who was stranded in remote areas to fly himself out if a rescue aircraft couldn’t reach him (it would be air-dropped from a bomber or transport). The project was started in the early 1950s (when helicopters were unreliable and very short-ranged). A two-seat version was later developed for bomber crews. It had a belly skid that allowed for take-off from clearings or roads. The project was downgraded in priority after the CH-34 (Wessex) and similar longer-ranged and more reliable helicopters entered service in the late 1950s.

    The design was then considered for the recovery of aircrew downed behind enemy lines, but that idea proved unworkable, as most uncaptured downed pilots would be hiding in hilly or forested areas that would prevent its use. It was tested on snow, and proved capable of take-off & landing on water, in an effort to attract USN interest (thus the Office of Naval Research markings).

    Any considered use by Special Ops or the CIA was after the project was already under development, as the original RFP & contract were from the Air Rescue Command.

    in reply to: HMS Nottingham #2071424
    Bager1968
    Participant

    While most might view a reprimand in such circumstances to be a minor penalty, in practice it means that he will never receive another promotion, or command of another ship. In fact, he won’t even be given command of a shore establishment, but will be nothing more than an assistant to more senior officers, unless some minor, isolated, unpleasant post command can be found to “bury” him in. He will be looked down on by his fellow officers, even those junior to him. He has a better chance of a tolerable life by retiring as soon as practicable.

    in reply to: Cruise ship uses sonic weapon on pirates #2071827
    Bager1968
    Participant

    No, other reports describe the system as one designed for the USN after the USS Cole was attacked by an inflatable boat packed with explosives in 2000. The system has been made available to the international commercial market and is reported as being on most cruise ships and many cargo ships in the more troubled parts of the oceans.

    “The sonic device, known as a Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, is a so-called “non-lethal weapon” developed for the military after the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen as a way to keep operators of small boats from approaching U.S. warships.

    Makers of the device compare its shrill tone to that of smoke detectors, only much louder. The device blasts earsplitting noise in a directed beam.”

    in reply to: Algerian war helicopters #1417380
    Bager1968
    Participant

    S-55=Whirlwind in the RAF & CH-16 in USAF, S-58=Wessex in RAF & CH-34 in USAF

    in reply to: I just purchased….(video)….Black Sheep Squadron #1419511
    Bager1968
    Participant

    That was the name for the first season, when it was renewed they changed the name for some PC or marketing reason to “Black Sheep Squadron”, maybe because they had to pay royalties for the use of the name to the Publishing company that put out Boyington’s Autobiography (titled “Baa Baa Black Sheep”) around that time.

    in reply to: CG Model: USS Pennsylvania in all its glory #2072411
    Bager1968
    Participant

    These two sites have a lot of very knowledgeable folks, including some who have published reference works, some who teach University-level military courses, and at least one (Bill Jurens) who is a consultant for Marine Archeaology projects for warships:
    http://p216.ezboard.com/bwarships1discussionboards

    http://p069.ezboard.com/balltheworldsbattlecruisers

    in reply to: World-Wide Aircraft Carriers #2072750
    Bager1968
    Participant

    That 3D is interesting… especially the US Army Blackhawk (or maybe USAF) on the port side!

    I know it is an Army UH-60 because: 1. You can see the tail wheel at the end of the tail boom, and the USN’s UH-60 Seahawks have the wheel much closer to the main fuselage; 2. the USMC has no UH-60s, and are buying 100 new UH-1Ys to replace their current UH-1N Hueys!

    in reply to: Time Team A26 dig 6.15 on more four today #1428814
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The advantage of such programs are that they add to public awareness of the existance of historic sites and events (which adds support for examination and preservation of historic finds), and they bring more financing to such efforts.

    The problem with such programs are that they add to public awareness of the existance of historic sites and events (increasing the number of illegal digs and to the frequency of looting of such sites), and that they are, at heart, publicity stunts…. with little real research, examination, and study involved in their “speed-digs”!

    Yin & Yang…. light & darkness…. good & evil! That is what our world is made of, might as well do our best to influence the producers of such programs in as positive direction as possible.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,286 through 3,300 (of 3,360 total)