dark light

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 3,360 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: P40 Without undercarridge problems #1055449
    Bager1968
    Participant

    His range would be somewhat less with undercarriage down.

    Then he could land at an airfield that has no avgas – Still all will be well, just like the hurricane wheels up that never happened………………….

    Cosby was wasnt it 😉

    mick

    Tankbarrell was responding to the sub-conversation about the WW2 incident.

    Just FYI… he took off from a carrier in the Med, and was leading the Hurris to the island of Malta.

    There WAS NO AIRFIELD between the two, just lots of deep water!

    in reply to: F105 and Sea Vixen #1055454
    Bager1968
    Participant

    That photo has to have been taken in the Far East, either between Okinawa & Thailand or between Thailand and Vietnam. i would say the latter is more likely.

    The first deployment of F-105s to Vietnam was the May-June 1964 deployment of the 36th TFS (F-105Ds) from Itazuki AFB (Japan) to RTAFB Takhli (Thailand). For the next year-plus, all F-105s in Vietnam were on rotation from various USAF bases in Japan or Okinawa*. Permanent assignments of F-105 squadrons from the US to Thailand only began in August 1965.

    Being based in Thailand, they often needed refueling when flying to/from their targets, even when operating over South Vietnam.

    Due to the distance, after Rolling Thunder (strikes against North Vietnam) began in March 1965 they were normally refueled over Laos by KC-135s on both the inbound and return legs.

    * The 44th TFS, to which that particular F-105D belonged, was deployed from Kadena AB, Okinawa to RTAFB Korat, Thailand when 62-4217 was shot down in April 1965.

    in reply to: RAAF warbird markings makes the news #1056774
    Bager1968
    Participant

    It all seems pretty clear from the article. Some people in the UK can get a bit shirty if the Union Jack is flown back to front (a distress signal, albeit a very subtle one?), so I can understand the issue, but also the reasoning behind it.

    Well, not clear to me (before your post) because I don’t open links where the poster of the link refuses to say what the link is actually about.*

    And no, the thread title is not sufficient.

    * that’s how you get to websites with malicious coding & virus issues.

    in reply to: RAAF warbird markings makes the news #1057738
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Whatever the markings are or whyever they “made the news”.

    Could you perhaps give a hint rather than just post blind unexplained links?

    in reply to: So that's how it happened! #1057742
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Whatever it is that supposedly happened.

    Could you perhaps give a hint rather than just post blind unexplained links?

    in reply to: Ark Royal to be scrapped. #2012253
    Bager1968
    Participant

    No, the only thing the MOD is promising is to “try” to preserve her.

    in reply to: Jetman flying in formation with a Spitfire #1058653
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Already discussed in this very forum: Spitfire MH434 & ‘Jetman’

    Bager1968
    Participant

    with Putin coming into power, he is Japan’s best hope in resolving border disputes and normalizing relations because of his japanophile tendencies.

    Putin has been in power since 31 December 1999 (when he became Prime Minister with Yeltsin’s resignation)!

    As President of Russia from 2000-2008 he wielded not only the powers of that office but also many of those originally placed in the office of Prime Minister.

    When he became PM in 2008 all those powers plus many of the President’s powers were transferred to the PM’s office.

    When he became President again in 2012 everything again was shifted back to the Presidency.

    He has been in control of Russia for over 12 years now… what makes you think he will suddenly be nicer to Japan than previously?

    Russia will get access to Japanese investment and Japan will buy Pak-fa to replace their F-15 and F-35 to replace their F-4s.

    A purely delusional fantasy… Japan still considers Russia to be a major potential threat. They won’t place their security in jeopardy by replacing their top air-superiority aircraft with a Russian aircraft.

    in reply to: Boeing vs Eurofighter vs Lockheed for KFX #2311219
    Bager1968
    Participant

    There are 1980s era wind tunnel models of British ASTOVL designs that look like the F22, but were nothing to do with Lockheed.

    There are no more unique designs it seems:eek:

    As was said about the F-15’s overall similarity to the MiG-15 in configuration… and the intake similarity between A-5 Vigilante, MiG-25, F-14, F-14, MiG-29, SU-27, etc… similar performance requirements + laws of physics = similar shapes.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2311225
    Bager1968
    Participant
    in reply to: Gripen for Switzerland #2311977
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Average hours per flight is a major factor as well.

    It takes the same amount of time for the ground crew to prepare a fully-functional aircraft for a 30-minute flight as it does to prepare it for a 2-hour flight… so right there is a 4x difference in that part of “cost-per-flight-hour”!

    Also important is whether you factor the ownership, operating, & maintenance cost of the support equipment and repair shops in the “operating costs” (and the salaries of the maintenance personnel)… or if they are part of a separate “maintenance budget” that is not included.

    To honestly compare operating costs, all parts of the calculation must use exactly the same measures and formulae.

    in reply to: Bad designs #1066144
    Bager1968
    Participant

    Re the earlier comment about F86 Sabre canopies.

    I photographed this rather battered (look at the wrinkling of the fuselage and the iffy paint job) USAF Manston-Based F86F of USAF 406th FIW at Biggin Hill during the 1955 Royal Observer Corps “Recognition Day”. The canopy looks fairly conventional and if opened at speed during the ejection sequence I would assume the slip-stream would lift it well clear of the pilot’s head.

    Rather puzzling is the absence of the red “Ejection Seat” triangle alongside the cockpit. Did perhaps the USAF adopt the red warning triangle later? R.A.F. Meteors I photographed at the same time (1955) quite clearly display the red triangle.

    The F-86 canopy was basically a WW2 design… it wasn’t rear-hinged like modern bubbles, it slid directly aft like the canopy on a P-51 or Sea Fury.

    Therefore, the wind did not catch hold and help it clear away, as the leading edge was inside the “wind shadow” of the front windscreen. If it wasn’t slid back far enough the pilot hit it. To make matters worse, the pilot had to manually eject the canopy before activating the ejection seat. Having two perform separate actions slowed the ejection process, further increasing the likelihood of incorrect ejection.

    There is a really good pic here that illustrates this: http://acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html but it won’t allow direct linking, so here is another:

    http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2008-2/29/11299.jpg

    http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2008-2/29/11299.jpg

    in reply to: L39 down 1st Sep 2012 #1067563
    Bager1968
    Participant

    There’s also the FAA issue with Saphire engined L39’s. Appears the guy who came up with the modification was also the FAA inspector who signed off on the mod…. without any engineering reports etc.
    That’s why the modified ones were all grounded at Reno last year. Something about the engine mounts not be up to the task of handling 50% more power? Apparently a couple have landed with the engine somewhat askew to the airframe..

    Rick, the issue was with the re-engined L-29s, AFAIK nobody has done this mod to an L-39.

    ah yes, my mistook.

    A.S. Sapphire engine (7,500 – 10,000 Ib thrust), no wonder they were grounded!
    I’m guessing the Viper engine, as in the popular L-29 conversion, is what you mean?
    However the L-39 does use a Saphir mini gas turbine engine as an auxilary power unit and starter.

    An alternate L-29 re-engine uses a Pratt & Whitney J60 (JT12):
    http://www.easternblocaircraft.com/services.html*

    Other aircraft with the JT12/J60:
    Civilian (JT12)
    Lockheed JetStar
    North American Sabreliner

    Military (J60)
    T-2B Buckeye
    T-39 Sabreliner
    Sikorsky XH-59/S-69
    XV-4 Hummingbird

    * Apparently they have a L-39 re-engine scheme going… but you have to call them to find out what.

    However:
    L-139 Albatros 2000: Revised version with western avionics and 17.99 kN (4,045 lbf) Garrett TFE731-4-1T engine**. Single prototype built.

    L-159: Further modernised advanced trainer/combat aircraft with more modern, western avionics and Honeywell F124 engine.

    ** Apparently, no airframe changes were needed, it just needed an adapter for the engine mountings.
    http://www.l39.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=414

    in reply to: Bad designs #1069745
    Bager1968
    Participant

    The downward ejecting seat on the early F104s – a really bright idea that enabled the pilot to be quickly reunited with terra firma.

    Not just the F-104…

    Here is a list of ejection seats supplied to the USAF by Stanley Aviation:

    Downward ejection seats

    B-47 Stratojet and RB-47
    XB-52 Stratofortress
    RB-66 Destroyer
    F-104 Starfighter and Lockheed XF-104

    Upward ejection seats

    YB-47 Stratojet
    FJ Fury, specifically, FJ-2
    F-106 Delta Dart, specifically F-106A
    F4H(F-4) Phantom II
    P6M SeaMaster

    Ejection capsules

    B-58 Hustler

    Note that the B-52 had upward-firing seats for the pilot/co-pilot, EW officer, and (in the B-52H) the gunner (all of whom were on the upper deck)… but downward-firing seats for the navigator & radar navigator (on the lower deck).

    The F3D Skyknight (all-weather/night 2-seast fighter of the late Korean-war era) didn’t have ejection seats…

    The pilot and radar operator sat in a side-by-side configuration. The ejection seats available at the time could not work safely with such a seating arrangement, and an unusual escape mechanism was designed involving a chute in the floor behind the flight crew. Pulling a lever would blow off the rear half of the chute exit hatch in the belly between the engines, with the front half serving as a windbreak. Each crew member would then pivot around in his seat, grab a vaulting bar behind the seat, kick open a cockpit exit door, and slide out the chute feet-first, one crew member at a time. It wasn’t a real ejection system, but it was better than nothing.

    in reply to: Black powder – really? #1070903
    Bager1968
    Participant

    A little about powder deflagration (the term for the burning of powder):
    http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/bp_burning/bp_burning.html

    Note the difference in burn rate between open-air and confined burning.

Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 3,360 total)