Page 75 – Key Publishing

Bager1968

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,111 through 1,125 (of 3,360 total)

← 1 2 3 … 74 75 76 … 222 223 224 →

Author

Posts
September 7, 2011 at 8:50 pm in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2317605

Bager1968
Participant

have the USMC already sacrificed the MV-22 or is it still in their need list? Maybe they can sacrifice that for hte F-35B which may have more customers.

The USMC now has 1 training and 8 operational squadrons equipped with the MV-22 Osprey, with 2 more in transition ([T]).
The current plan is for 9 more active, 4 reserve, and 1 “White House Military Office” MV-22 squadrons .

Squadron number and date operational with MV-22:

west coast:
VMM-161: October 2009
VMM-166: 23 June 2010
VMM-561: 2 December 2010 [T]
VMM-165: 1 March 2011 [T]

east coast:
VMM-263: 3 March 2006
VMM-162: 21 August 2006
VMM-266: 23 March 2007
VMM-261: 10 April 2008
VMM-365: 15 January 2009
VMM-264: October 2009

This was the transition plan as expressed in the FY11 USMC Aviation Plan (issued last year):
FY11 Marine Aviation Plan pdf

September 1, 2011 at 3:21 am in reply to: Rebuilding UK Carrier Strike after a decade's gap #2035233

Bager1968
Participant

I’ve seen similar photos of other aircraft during high-stress/high-G maneuvering conditions.

Most aircraft flex far further and more often than most people realize, and in places most would think unlikely.

But that does illustrate how a carrier aircraft can run out of authorized cat/trap cycles well before running out of airframe flight hours, and why carrier aircraft need stronger airframes than land-based aircraft… the whole airframe, not just the landing gear and the structure where it mounts to the aircraft.

Remember, that E-2 is landing at about twice the sink-rate it would on land… the forces experienced are proportionately greater.

September 1, 2011 at 3:14 am in reply to: Navies news from around the world -IV #2035235

Bager1968
Participant

For the first time at sea under its own power, the objectives would be to verify correct operation of primary propulsion & ship-handling equipment, and do a basic performance test.

Later trials will include detailed systems checks, high speed/sustained speed runs, verifying power vs speed estimations and calibrating instruments… all the basic builder’s trials.

Any attempts at aircraft operations outside of a few helicopter flights will be after everything else passes.

September 1, 2011 at 3:01 am in reply to: What? No F35 grounded thread??? #2321227

Bager1968
Participant

While he did have to deal with a bunch of posters whose silly feuds and insult-throwing need suppressing, it also seemed he was doing a lot more unnecessary moderating of things no other moderator had bothered with.

Perhaps if he had let the small stuff go and concentrated on the big problems he wold not have burned out.

September 1, 2011 at 2:54 am in reply to: Military Aviation News 2011 June – #2321231

Bager1968
Participant

The original design was for 8,000 hours (double what the USAF asked for), and it was rated for 9G turns with full internal fuel.

The increased payloads carried have led to several airframe strengthening overhauls of early models, and later models have been built with stronger airframes.

August 31, 2011 at 10:24 am in reply to: CVF Construction #2035257

Bager1968
Participant

To be honest the RN got their first, a Prince of Wales has been in service with them long before the Vietnam war.

Changing to PofW as an acronym is only going to lead to confusion in the forum, calling it PoW here is not meant to mean nany offense to this American organisation or the Royal Family…actually I doubt it has crossed anybodies minds up to this point.

* HMS Prince of Wales (1765) was a 74-gun third-rate launched in 1765. She had been originally planned as HMS Hibernia, but the name was changed prior to launch. She was broken up in 1783.

* HMS Prince of Wales (1794) was a 90-gun second-rate launched in 1794 and broken up in 1822.

* HMS Prince of Wales (1795) was a 38-gun transport purchased in 1795, and still on the records in 1801.

* HMS Prince of Wales (1805) was a 14-gun sloop launched in 1805. Her fate is unknown.

* HMS Prince of Wales (1860) was a 121-gun screw-propelled first-rate launched in 1860. She was converted to a training ship and renamed HMS Britannia in 1869, hulked in 1909 and sold in 1914. She was finally broken up in 1916.

* HMS Prince of Wales (1902) was a Formidable class battleship launched in 1902 and sold for scrap in 1920.

* HMS Prince of Wales (53) was a King George V class battleship launched in 1939 and sunk in a Japanese airstrike in 1941.

* HMS Prince of Wales (R09) will be the second of two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and is scheduled to enter service in 2018.

The acronym PoW has been used since early WW2 for the battleship launched in 1939 (if not for any of the earlier ships, which it may well have been), and has been used in innumerable books, newspaper stories, and other media since then.

It is also used in that context throughout the internet, in addition to mention of the new carrier.

As a “Royal Navy-savvy” American, I have always just dealt with it, determining the meaning from context.

It has never occurred to me that anyone might get upset… if anyone should, it would be the RN, considering how many British sailors still lie in the hull of the 1939 PoW on the ocean floor.

August 31, 2011 at 10:10 am in reply to: Rebuilding UK Carrier Strike after a decade's gap #2035262

Bager1968
Participant

As for an E2C purchase by taking on ex USN airframes as they introduce E2D, that is an interesting concept. I had already suggested that E2 should be purchased to operate alongside the French. This idea makes it more solid in my mind:

As long as Grumman could bring them up to the standard as the ones in French and somehow zero time their trap cycles it could be cost effective. As I have said before the French have wanted an extra Hawkeye for quite a while.

The French E-2Cs, like many of the USN’s E-2Cs, have been upgraded to the Hawkeye 2000 standard. Just be sure to get get those and not the non-upgraded ones. The question of airframe hours is a whole other matter…

Description DN-SD-07-00030.jpg
English: Ripples appear along the fuselage of a US Navy (USN) E-2C Hawkeye aircraft assigned to the “Seahawks” of Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron 126 (VAW-126), due to the tremendous amount of torque and pressure exerted on the aircraft while landing on the flight deck of the USN Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier, USS HARRY S. TRUMAN (CVN 75). The TRUMAN and embarked Carrier Air Wing 3 (CVW-3) are currently underway in the Persian Gulf providing close air support and conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. (Released to Public)

DoD photo by: PHAN KRISTOPHER WILSON, USN Date Shot: 11 Jan 2005

Larger image here

August 31, 2011 at 9:56 am in reply to: What? No F35 grounded thread??? #2321694

Bager1968
Participant

Didnt even know it had happened and totally surpised it wasnt posted here… but then im guessing the usual slanging match wouldve ensued??

As SpudmanWP said, its in the gigantic “moderator-mandated, all-in-one, only F-35 thread allowed” encyclopedia he linked to.

I’m surprised this thread has lasted a full day without being locked by Grey Area.

I suppose he is on vacation, and took his “only one F-35 thread ever” policy with him.

August 30, 2011 at 4:48 am in reply to: Grumman F11F Tiger #1025286

Bager1968
Participant

That was proposed for the Super Tiger… the original Tiger didn’t have that.

August 30, 2011 at 4:48 am in reply to: Grumman F11F Tiger #1033372

Bager1968
Participant

That was proposed for the Super Tiger… the original Tiger didn’t have that.

August 29, 2011 at 8:45 am in reply to: Kawasaki C-2 vs Il-76 capacity question #2322632

Bager1968
Participant

i dont think Aircraft with fat x-section will be efficient.

Which is, of course, why the C-5, B747, A380, DC-10, An-124, and other such aircraft were never a success, I suppose.

:rolleyes:

August 29, 2011 at 8:42 am in reply to: Would you want to be a passenger? #1026291

Bager1968
Participant

Maybe I’m not in on the joke (“…I’ll get me coat…”) but of course you can barrel roll anything. Done properly, it’s a 1G maneuver.

The search function seems to be broken, or I would post a link to the 10+ page thread we had here in the last year or so about whether a DC-3 could or had rolled at an airshow in Italy.

The search function says that this is the only thread on the board containing “barrel roll” and “DC-3” in the same post. :rolleyes:

August 29, 2011 at 8:42 am in reply to: Would you want to be a passenger? #1034487

Bager1968
Participant

Maybe I’m not in on the joke (“…I’ll get me coat…”) but of course you can barrel roll anything. Done properly, it’s a 1G maneuver.

The search function seems to be broken, or I would post a link to the 10+ page thread we had here in the last year or so about whether a DC-3 could or had rolled at an airshow in Italy.

The search function says that this is the only thread on the board containing “barrel roll” and “DC-3” in the same post. :rolleyes:

August 29, 2011 at 8:26 am in reply to: Grumman F11F Tiger #1026294

Bager1968
Participant

As long as they dropped the extending-launcher on top of the fuselage for 2 AIM-9…. that was a really strange idea, and would cause issues for ejection… especially in the proposed 2-seat version.

Many more drawings here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=455.0

August 29, 2011 at 8:26 am in reply to: Grumman F11F Tiger #1034491

Bager1968
Participant

As long as they dropped the extending-launcher on top of the fuselage for 2 AIM-9…. that was a really strange idea, and would cause issues for ejection… especially in the proposed 2-seat version.

Many more drawings here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=455.0
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 1,111 through 1,125 (of 3,360 total)

← 1 2 3 … 74 75 76 … 222 223 224 →