I would suspect that that line refers not to the measured tolerance for allowable variation (maximum/minimum) of the finished part in respect to the parts it fits into/over/against, but rather to the tolerance of the manufacturing equipment.
This would be expressed in the variation of the finished parts in relation to each other as they come off the line (all within X% of each other).
Thus, Ford-produced parts may well be “tighter” in relation to each other than the RR-produced parts, but with all parts by all manufacturers being within the drawing tolerances.
Can someone please tell me what plane was flying in and out of Lydd today (apart from the civilians). I was at the speedway training track with my son and heard, with brief glimpses, a jet flying around. To me it looked like a Strikemaster, could that be possible?
Yes, it could possibly be… as there is at least one civilian-owned Strikemaster flying airshow displays in the UK:
http://www.heritageaviation.co.uk/
Since a Strikemaster is a combat version of the Jet Provost, it could have been one of the many civilian-owned JPs flying in the UK.
I find it strange people want to send Money to Jimmy’s family, not being funny but one would think he was insured and to own and operate a Mustang as a racer one has to be wealthy in the first place, one would have thought donations would be better targeted at those not so well off in the audience that lost their lives or family…. just me, do not mean to offend anyone ok
As far as I know, no names of spectator casualties have been released to the public, so it is impossible for the common person to know how to get money to their families… much less who needs the money and who doesn’t.
Unless there has been a “victim’s assistance fund” set up, there is no way any donations could reach those who need them.
Therefore, the only person identified (and thus available to donate to) is Jimmy’s family.
Understand now?
Very early in the Pacific War, a scheme was proposed to fit Lightnings with floats to allow them to make long-range ferry flights. The floats would be removed before the aircraft went into combat. There were concerns that saltwater spray would corrode the tailplane, and so in March 1942, P-38E c/n 5204 was modified with a tailplane raised some 16-18 in (41–46 cm), booms lengthened by two feet and a rearward-facing second seat added for an observer to monitor the effectiveness of the new arrangement. A second version was crafted on the same airframe with the twin booms given greater sideplane area to augment the vertical rudders. This arrangement was removed and a final third version was fabricated that had the booms returned to normal length but the tail raised 33 in (84 cm). All three tail modifications were designed by George H. “Bert” Estabrook. The final version was used for a quick series of dive tests on 7 December 1942 in which Milo Burcham performed the test maneuvers and Kelly Johnson observed from the rear seat. Johnson concluded that the raised floatplane tail gave no advantage in solving the problem of compressibility. At no time was this P-38E testbed airframe actually fitted with floats, and the idea was quickly abandoned as the U.S. Navy proved to have enough sealift capacity to keep up with P-38 deliveries to the South Pacific.
Proposed floatplane P-38E testbed, 41-1986, c/n 222-5204, shown with second version of upswept tail designed to keep tail out of water upon takeoff
There was a P-38J fitted with experimental retractable snow ski landing gear, but this idea never reached operational service either.
P-38J-LO, “Lightning”, #213565
BAE Systems, Inc. and Northrop Grumman Partner to Pursue U.S. Air Force T-X Contract
This would produce an interesting set-up… USAF/USN/USMC primary jet trainer = Hawk, USN/USMC carrier-trainer = GosHawk, RAF/RN primary jet trainer = Hawk.
Just 2 points.
1. For TR1:
F-16C/D entered service in April 1986 (deliveries to operational squadrons, with the first squadron reaching full operational status in October 1986) with the AN/APG-68, which included AIM-7 BVR missile capability (the F-16A/B had the AN/APG-66, which had no BVR capability).
This was only 3 years after the Mig-29 initially entered service (August 1983).
2. For Quadbike:
The Soviets were far from unique in that so-called “group-success” thinking… the USAF had several fighter types and many fighter squadrons which operated in a “Semi-Automatic Ground Environment”… a ground-controlled intercept system which could fly intercepts even if the pilot was asleep.
Research the SAGE system, and the aircraft designed to operate under its control… F-101, F-102, F-106.
A properly equipped aircraft, like the F-106 Delta Dart, could feed the SAGE directions into the autopilot and fly “hands off” to the interception.
At least this time his photo appears to match the text of the post/article… unlike the picture of a B787 in the “Boeing awarded contract for satellite” thread.
Probably.
The info is gathered in pieces from several locations on the ‘net… and from discussions on other boards. I can’t readily get you the source for the catapult info, as it was something I copied several years ago and forgot to note the source.
The Discovery channel http://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier3.htm says
This totally steam-driven system can rocket a 45,000-pound plane from 0 to 165 miles per hour (a 20,000-kg plane from 0 to 266 kph) in two seconds!
.
The aircraft weights come from Wiki.
http://www.voodoo-world.cz/hornet/info.html gives the landing approach speed of the F/A-18A/B/C/D as 134 knots.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy_hr.asp?id=272, the official website of the USN, says “Super Hornet’s at-sea carrier qualifications demonstrated an impressive reduction in final landing approach speed — 10 knots slower than the F/A-18 C/D — which increases the safety margin and handling characteristics for our pilots. “. This means that the F/A-18E/F landing approach speed is ~124 knots!
The landing approach speed is with a certain amount of reserve fuel and the normal A2A missile load (but no bombs or full fuel tanks), so the aircraft could take off at that speed with the same load.
so you’re saying that the Z-8 is going to swing that cylinder down to the fuselage?
btw the merlin AEW cg and italian merlin are different, are you sure that huge dish on the bottom of the Italian Merlin is not the repositioned radar?
Since Wanshan answered the second part (in regards to the Italian Merlin AEW version, anyway), I’ll answer both the first part and remind you of the British Sea King AEW configuration and their Merlin AEW proposal.
Look closely at the lower aft fuselage of that Z-8. There is a slot just forward of the radome… this will be where the stalk the antenna is mounted on swings downward in flight. I have drawn a crude illo of this. Note that this is similar to how the radome on the British Sea King and Merlin AEW helicopters works.

Here is the Sea King antenna in stowed and deployed positions:

And here is the proposed installation in Merlin in stowed and deployed position:


The F/A-18E/F has a maximum take-off weight of 66,000 pounds.
Its take-off weight in Air-to-Air configuration is 47,000 pounds.
Its landing approach speed is 140 knots at around 45,000 pounds (empty airframe weight is 32,081 pounds).
The 250′-stroke C-13 catapult has an end-speed of 140 knots with a 78,000 pound weight and 150 knots at 41,000 pounds.
The C-13-1 and C-13-2 catapults have a 310′ stroke, and have an end-speed of at least 150 knots.
So I would say that any of the USN C-13 catapults could launch a Super Hornet in A2A configuration while anchored, while the C-13-1/2 could launch it fully loaded while anchored.
The C-13-3 in CdG has a stroke length of 246′, and a launch speed of 140 knots at 70,000 pounds.
RafaleM has a maximum take-off weight of 54,000 pounds, with an empty weight of 22,431 pounds.
Therefore, I would say that Rafale could also likely be launched with CdG anchored.
Exactly!!
Boeing uses the “without GFE” price in its ads as well, and critics of the F-35 blindly quote that price, claiming that that is “complete aircraft cost”, while blathering that LM’s F-35 cost is “without radar or engine”.
Reality check, folks… BOTH are “without radar or engine”… and the two costs are pretty close to each other!
So why not pay just a small amount more for a more survivable aircraft, eh?
And, like the dome on the Sea Thing and proposed Merlin AEW versions, it swings down below the fuselage for use.
As someone with no experience in aircraft engineering, I realise this might just be an impractical suggestion, but just how difficult would it be to just rip out the F-22 oxygen system and put in one from another type?
Surely after 4 months they must be getting closer to some workable solution?
Considering that the basic system is the only one in current-production US fighters, both USAF and USN, there IS no “one from another type”!
However, because the same base system is in so many other US aircraft, and the problem has not appeared in their pilots, the USAF believes it is more an issue of how the F-22s are being operated on the ground. While this does not completely explain all incidents, they believe that the problem can be “handled”.
See this story from 10 days ago:
defensenews.com F-22s to Return to Flight
And this one from yesterday:
defensenews.com USAF Chief to Get F-22 Options This Week
QEC
Just what does that stand for?
I understand the QE part… “Queen Elizabeth”… but you are the only person I have ever seen that adds that unexplained “C” on the end.
Everyone else simply uses “QE”.