Bager1968The Pentagon will buy 10 Russian amphibious aircraft Be-200.
The Pentagon will buy 10 Russian amphibious aircraft
U.S. Department of Defense intends to purchase from Russia 10 amphibian aircraft Be-200 in the version for night flights. On Tuesday, June 19, according to ITAR-TASS news agency quoted a source in the military-industrial complex.
According to the agency, the final decision on the signing of the contract will be made on the basis of the participation of Russian aircraft in 2013 in the naval exercises of Special Forces in Florida. The official told ITAR-TASS news agency, specifically the teachings of Russian engineers prepare the Be-200 for use with night vision systems.
Currently, the U.S. tested the Be-200ES for fire fighting. During the first test flights, American experts said about the need to refine the system in the aircraft dumping water. Upon successful completion of testing service of the U.S. Forest plans to buy 10 Russian aircraft.
In Russia, the Be-200 aircraft in the amount of six units are in service with MOE. In the future, the Office plans to replenish the fleet of amphibians. It is also the intention to buy the Be-200 stated the Ministry of Defence. In addition, an amphibious aircraft is in service with Azerbaijan. The interest in buying Russian aircraft expressed in France, Portugal, Italy, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Be-200 aircraft capable of speeds up to 610 kilometers per hour and overcome to 3.1 thousand kilometers. Cargo compartment in the amphibian version of the Be-200ES can accommodate up to 12 cubic meters of water, a fence that can be done either on the water (in the planing mode) and on the land the airport.
Forest fires in the U.S. will put out the Russian amphibious aircraft – Lenta.ru, 09.02.2004
Seaplane Be-200 will be certified in the U.S. – Lenta.ru, 04.06.2012
The Americans have found flaws in the Russian amphibious aircraft – Lenta.ru, 15.06.2012
This un-named official inside the Russian military-industrial complex is so far the only source claiming US DOD interest in the aircraft.
While not impossible, the scarcity of talk from other sources, I suspect that the fire-fighting version under test is the only current US interest.
More discussion here: http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/200-us-12006/
Bager1968Mystery propeller blade…. In the family for more than 40 years….
Dear Fellow Aviation enthusiasts,
As long as I life there is a propeller blade standing in the entrance hall of my grandmother’s house. This blade was owned by my grandfather who got it during his working career as an airplane mechanic in the period from 1945 to the 1970’s. At that time he was working for the KLM and was stationed in Indonesia, Rome and the Far East. If I remember correctly he got the blade while working in Rome where it was in storage for a long period before he got it in his possession. If I remember correctly he once told me it belonged to a “De Havilland Twin Otter” , “Piper Cub” and according to my grandmother it was from a Spitfire that was buried / crashed in the dessert… The last I highly doubt since it is in rather good condition and more important I cannot believe such a high powered plane would have prop blades of approx. 40 inch (1020 mm) length.
As mentioned earlier the blade have a length of approx. 40 inch (1020 mm) and an maximum with of approx. 6 inch (152 mm).***
On the blade the following info was found..
6’ No 2 CT2502/NA DRG NO P511 56/B/1R (Could also be 56/8/1R) RD 15687***
The prop is of the cntroled pitch typoe and the pitch mechanism has 36 teith. There are two rings mounted around the center of the prop. One of the rings has the following info stamped in it:
12 C2 OJMR R8 Made in England
The other ring has some burned in numbers that cannot be read.***
While going through a pile papers I also found an original G.A. drawing of an “Twin Pioneer” plane…. So this can also have something to do with the prop blade.
Below you can find some pictures of the prop blade. Hope you can be of help identifying the blade and the plane type it was used on.Best regards,
Martijn
On all of these I get a “cannot be displayed because the image contains errors” message.
Bager1968Ju88…..The water around there must have poor visibility:diablo:
Possibly, but the report is that only one engine and part of one wing were above the mud… with the fuselage, other wing, and other engine buried.
Bager1968We’ve been discussing her passing here: forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread Maureen Dunlop
Bager1968Swerve, take another look at the specs… the A400M is almost exactly the same length, wingspan, and cargo capacity (both cargo box dimensions and payload weight)… the only real differences are that modern wing design allows for more fuel to be carried (longer range with payload), and much more powerful modern engines (and propellers) give higher speeds and (in combination with wing design) allows for shorter take-off/landing runs.
Simply put, the A400M is a modern Belfast!
Short Belfast:
Empty weight: 127,000 lb (57,600 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 230,000 lb (104,300 kg)
Payload: 78,000 lb (35,400 kg)
Cargo box: A box 12ft square by 63ft 4in can be fitted in above the flat and level floor, and further loads may be placed on the rear ramp door: total interior length being about 85ft.
Length: 136 ft 5 in (41.69 m)
Wingspan: 158 ft 9½ in (48.42 m)
Height: 47 ft 0 in (14.30 m)
Wing area: 2,466 ft² (229 m²)
Powerplant: 4 × Rolls-Royce Tyne R.Ty.12, Mk. 101 turboprops, 5,730 ehp (4,270 kW) each
Maximum speed: 352 mph (306 knots, 566 km/h)
Cruise speed: 336 mph (292 knots, 540 km/h) at 24,000 ft (7,300 m) (econ cruise)
Stall speed: 112 mph (97 knots, 180 km/h)
Range: 5,300 miles (4,609 nmi, 8,530 km) with maximum fuel
Range with maximum payload: 1000 mi (870 nmi, 1,610 km)
Service ceiling: 30,000 ft (9,145 m)
Rate of climb: 1,060 ft/min (5.4 m/s)
Airbus A400M:
Empty weight: 76,500 kg (168,654 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 141,000 kg (310,852 lb)
Payload: 37,000 kg (81,600 lb)
Cargo box: 58′ (17.71 m) long excluding ramp, 13′ (4.00 m) wide, and 12′ 7″ (3.85 m) high (or 13′ (4.00 m) aft of the wing) and the ramp is 17′ 8″ (5.40 m) long: total interior length being about 75′ 8″
Length: 45.1 m (148 ft 0 in)
Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
Height: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
Powerplant: 4 × Europrop TP400-D6[84] turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,060 hp) each
Cruising speed: 780 km/h (485 mph; 421 kn) (Mach 0.68-0.72)
Initial cruise altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft)
Ferry range: 8,710 km (5,412 mi; 4,703 nmi)
Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,540 km (2,450 nmi)
Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,390 km (3,450 nmi)
Service ceiling: 11,300 m (37,073 ft)
Bager1968“Let’s do the shuffle… the helicopter shuffle.”
Chinook replaces Merlin which replaces Sea King. How fun.
Bager1968Actually, this pic of the aft lift shows that the hangar is directly below the flight deck. Yes, there is some space between, but that appears to not even be the height of one man, let alone enough for the messrooms and such you suggested.
Look at the two men standing on the hangar deck on the far side of the elevator well, and compare them to the space between the hangar ceiling ant the flight deck directly above them… it certainly looks like there is room for a full deck beneath the flight deck and above the hangar.
Bager1968No, what he’s posted is a direct quotation from a report 18 months ago.
Source: 12 June 2012 – defenseindustrydaily News
to me it seems to b some confusions in the dating..
Raptor2019 has a habit of posting old news articles.
Lately he has been removing dates and links on purpose to hide how ancient those articles are.
Actually, he put the link in the picture of the Gripen & S340… just click on the picture.
The article is not an old one, since it relates in the past tense events from 2011…
Thailand’s Phase 1 system was originally supposed to become fully operational around September 2011, but it reached that milestone 2 months early, in July 2011. A lot of activity goes into an achievement like that, and the timeline was as follows:
2009: 4 Thai pilots and 20 technicians enter training by the Swedish Armed forces.
June 2010: A 2nd set of 10 more techbnicians head to Sweden for training.
Dec. 2010: 1 S340 ERIEYE AEW and 1 Saab 340 rtransport are delivered, on time.
Feb. 2011: All 6 JAS-39 C/D fighters arrive in Thailand. 6 RTAF F-16 pilots go to Sweden for a 4-month conversion course.
Mar. 2011: One Command and Control C2 system, including equipment for 3 ground based Radio sites is delivered.
June 2011: 10 technicians return from a year of training in Sweden. 6 pilots return from conversion course.
July 2011: Phase 1 system declared operational.In Phase 2, the RTAF intends to procure an additional 6 Gripen fighters together with associated equipment, spare parts and training, and a 2nd Saab S340 Erieye AEW system aircraft, for about $500 million over a 5-year budgetary commitment from 2013-2017. A budget squeeze ended up delaying this option, but it’s moving forward with a contract. All Phase 2 aircraft deliveries are scheduled to finish in 2013.
Sweden has offered the Gripen fighters with a 2-year maintenance and spare parts support package. As is frequently the case, Saab’s deal includes industrial offsets and benefits involving Saab investment, and Thai-Swedish industrial, science & technology co-operation, technology transfer, and investment co-operation.
Source: 12 June 2012 – defenseindustrydaily News
So this article IS a new one, and specifically says that the contract negotiations for the second batch of aircraft “are moving forward”!
Bager1968Exactly.
The A-4A/B/C series had only 3 weapons pylons (belly and 1 under each wing), and the 7,700-8,400 lb thrust Wright J65 engine (weight 2,750 lb; length 130”; diameter 37.7”). These were modernized into the A-4L, A-4PTM, A-4P, and A-4Q.
The A-4E/F/G/H/K/Ku/M/N series had 5 weapons pylons (belly and 2 under each wing) and the 8,500-9,300 lb thrust Pratt & Whitney J52* (weight 2,118 lb; length 117”; diameter 30.2”). Some A-4M were modernized as A-4AR & the A-4Ku as AF-1.
The Singapore A-4S & A-4Su were A-4Bs & Cs with the J65 that were modified with the wing improvements of the A-4F (wing spoilers and 2 pylons per wing), and it was these that received the 11,000 lb thrust General Electric F404-100D (weight 1,830 lb; length 94”; diameter 35”).
* The A-4M/N/Ku had a 11,200 lb thrust J52-408 (weight 2,318 lb; length 117”; diameter 32.1”), and some A-4Fs were also retro-fitted with this engine.
The Aussie A-4Gs and Kiwi A-4Ks were modifications of the A-4F, so the New Zealand A-4Ks could have been modified for the J52-408… but they didn’t feel the benefit was worth the cost, apparently.
Bager1968The community and the council should be made to pay 100% of the costs to build a new airport elsewhere, and 100% of the costs to move all equipment… including the hangars and equipment of everyone on the airport.
They should also be made to pay for any lost business during the move.
And make sure the new airport is far enough from Essendon for it to be difficult for the whingers to use the new airport (or even work there or at any support businesses like restaurants & gas stations)… and for all the tax revenue to go elsewhere!
If they don’t want the airfield there they should get no benefit of its presence whatsoever.
Bager1968For information on Clark after its closure, see Clark Freeport Zone and Diosdado Macapagal International Airport.
In 1995, during the administration of former President Fidel V. Ramos, Clark International Airport was designated to be the future primary international gateway of the Philippines and the major international airport of Metro Manila and its neighboring provinces when Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Metro Manila has reached full capacity and can no longer be expanded.
Note that in February 2012 the airport was been renamed back as Clark International Airport, however, the passenger terminal will continue to bear Diosdado Macapagal’s name.
At present Naval Air Station Cubi Point has been converted into a civil airport, and is known as Subic Bay International Airport. It operates mainly as the main diversionary airport in case of difficulties with Ninoy Aquino International Airport, and for regional airline activities.
Bager1968No.
A fighter/trainer sounds more like a light-attack/trainer to me,
i.e not the highest performance obtainable known to man.
Any future fighter by SAAB for SwAF would be a stealth fighter and
a step in the wrong direction with regard to operational cost,
and totally wrong for a trainer.
That is not to say that SAAB wouldn’t be interested in work with other countries
with other performance goal, and they would be suitable to work on this project,
with their experience on reducing cost.
1960s example: T-38/F-5. OK, the F-5A was a ground-attack bird, but the 1972 F-5E was a true air-air fighter (if a bit on the low end of the scale).
For a 1980s example picture the F-16B configured like the F-16/79 (with reduced avionics) as a high-end T-38 replacement trainer… or a 2-seat version of the F-20 with a non-afterburning F404 and reduced avionics.
Given that a modern fighter sees over half (more like 2/3) of its cost in its avionics and mission systems, using the same airframe but stuffing different innards is still a viable cost-reduction method… especially if the airframe is designed so that a high-performance fighter engine can go in the “F” models and a cheaper, lower-performance engine go in the “T” models.
A modern version could be the Tejas in a 2-seat version with the F404 engine of the prototypes and reduced avionics instead of the F414 and top-line avionics of the production versions.
Bager1968Looking aside from the normal critics I think the Atlas C1 will start an interesting new capability in RAF transport.
Its a faster, shorter take-off/landing Belfast! 😀
Bager1968Kawasaki C-2 cargo box 4 meters x 4 meters x 16 meters.
About the same cargo box length, but wider and higher.
That drawing shows the C-130H-30… the lengthened version. The standard C-130H has a cargo box length of 12 meters, with the same width and height.
Bager1968However, there is a distinct difference between skirmish and a battle.
Yes, the LW was sending a few aircraft over in late 1939 & early 1940… mainly on recon and/or harassment missions, or on specific raids on specific targets, but they had yet to commit a dedicated force to an aerial offensive intended to cripple Britain.
It was only after the Fall of France that that aerial offensive began in earnest, and it is that escalation of effort which marks the end of the skirmishes and the beginning of the Battle!
Sign In
