Bager1968From Sukhoi:
http://www.sukhoi.org/news/company/?id=3945
Most of us don’t speak Russian, and on-line translators mangle more than they translate.
http://persona.rin.ru/eng/view/f/0/11451/simonov,-mikhail-petrovich
Born in 1929 in Mr.. Rostov-na-Donu.
. He worked as an instructor and towing aviasportkluba.
. In 1954 he graduated with honors from the Kazan Aviation Institute.
. In 1959 founded one of the first Soviet OKB sport aviation, where he was chief designer.
. In 1969 – 76 – deputy chief designer at factories Minaviaproma USSR, then – chief designer and the first deputy general designer of Experimental Design Bureau (OKB) then – P. O. Sukhoi.
In 1979 – 83 – Deputy Minister of Aviation Industry of the USSR.
From 1983 to 1999 – CEO of EDO. Sukhoi.
From 1989 to 1991 – deputy of the USSR.
Lenin Prize laureate. Awarded the Order of Red Banner of Labor, the gold medal of. V. G. Shukhov. Hero of Russia.
One of the leaders of the association “Duma-96”. In 1995 he ran for the State Duma on the federal list of the Duma-96.
29 May 1999 was elected a member of the Board of Directors of EDO. Sukhoi, and continued to serve as general designer of the OKB.
Academician of International Engineering Academies and Russia.
Married. Has a daughter, son and four grandchildren.
Bager1968Duke said one word
And they couldn’t print it, now could they?
Bager1968Died 19 December 2010, and the Telegraph didn’t report it until March 03 2011.
Sigh.
A very lucky man, though… both with the botched take-off and the morphine incident.
Bager1968Hmmm… the “B-1R” reminds me of the B-17’s “fighter mod”, the YB-40.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_12.html
As well as the similar mod to the B-24… the XB-41.
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b24_12.html
Bager1968Has this wreck been identified yet?
Bager1968The Super Tiger was an F-11 Tiger fitted with a J-79. As I recall the airframe was not able to support the weight of the engine so a complete re-engineering of the airframe would have been required.
Hmmm… I really doubt you meant “weight”.
J65-W-7: thrust 7,400 lb (10,500 lb); weight 3,485 lb; length 130”/181”; diameter 37.7”
J79-GE-3A: thrust 9,600 lb (14,800 lb); weight 3,255 lb; length 110”/207.5”; diameter 30.4” (38.3)
J79 is smaller & lighter (except at the afterburner), so there is more room to beef up the structure around the engine to take the extra stress from the higher thrust.
Bager1968T-38 is gettin OLD! I heard the USAF may be starting up competition to replace it soon. Any thoughts?
This has been in the works for many months… here is an article from last summer on it:
Bager1968que?
People kept saying that Boeing should be putting the P&W1100 “Pure Power” engine on the KC-46A, not the “20-25 year-old” PW4062… despite the fact that the PW1100 will produce much less thrust than the older engine.
The PW1100G Pure Power engines for it will range in thrust from 24,000 lb to 33,000 lbs. of thrust. Even Pratt is only talking about scaling the PW1100 series up to 40,000 lbs. some time in the future. The PW4062, on the other hand has 52,000-62,000 lbs.* thrust.
I was using Madrat’s comparison to show how sometimes the older item is better.
* I used 57,000 lb thrust for my comparison.
Bager1968It’s like going to the car lot to buy a 2012 car only to find out it uses an engine and a set of tires manufactured in 1998. And, oh by the way, your new car warranty expires at the end of the month. It looks good and shiny on the surface, but somehow you know it’s going to cost you more in the short, middle, and long run if you had simply spent that extra 4% now.
Well, if I am buying a truck with which I intend to haul heavy loads in the back and pull loaded trailers, and the 2012 model gives me the option of a nice, fuel-efficient, clean-burning high-tech engine that was first produced in 2010 or a slightly dirtier, slightly less-efficient 1998 engine that produces 40% more power, I sure know which one I am going to order… and it won’t be the new one!
Bager1968Meaningful numbers = enough to fulfil operating requirements. Of course the US Air Force (like the rest of the American military-industrial complex) is grossly oversized and could weather a 50% cut in tactical aircraft numbers with minimal national security implications, but when most folks talk about defence cuts they’re usually looking to save money in the process.
Fewer aircraft = fewer squadrons = fewer maintenance & supply personnel, and fewer aircrew. Also fewer support personnel for those personnel, fewer bases (and assorted military & civilian personnel to operate & maintain the base infrastructure), etc.
And since personnel costs are one of the biggest parts of the military budget (don’t forget personnel who make it to retirement, they keep on costing), that counts for a lot both now and later.
See… lots of money saved!
Bager1968Seems to me that what “made” the F-104G was 1) the superb J79 engine and 2) the advanced avionics (especially INS & terrain following for all-weather low-level strike). The Crusader didn’t have either.
The only contemporary engine that could compete with the J79 was the Avon RB.146 Mk 300 series fitted to the EE Lightning and Saab Draken. Wonder which was the better choice?
F-8 Crusader:
-A/B: J57-P-12: thrust 10,000 lb (16,200 lb); weight 4,750 lb; length 167”/235.2”; diameter 40.02”; SFC .90/2.35; Airflow: 181 lb/sec
-D & later: J57-P-12: thrust 10,700 lb (18,000 lb); weight 4,750 lb; length 167”/235.2”; diameter 40.02”; SFC .83/2.35; Airflow: 200 lb/sec
F-104 Starfighter:
J79-GE-11A: thrust 10,000 lb (15,800 lb); weight 3,350 lb; length 110”/207.5”; diameter 0.4” (38.3”)”; SFC .85/1.97; Airflow: 170 lb/sec
Lightning F.3/6:
Avon 300 [RA.29 (mk301)]: thrust 12,690 lb (16,360 lb); weight 2,890 lb; length 138”; diameter 41.5”/44”; SFC .85/1.85, Airflow: 170 lb/sec
Draken:
Avon RM6C (RA.29) [#66 reheat module]: thrust 12,690 lb (17,260 lb); weight 2,890 lb; length 138”; diameter 41.5”/44”; SFC .85/1.85; Airflow: 170 lb/sec
Avon RM6C (RA.29) [#67 reheat module]: thrust 12,690 lb (17,640 lb); weight 2,890 lb; length 138”; diameter 41.5”/44”; SFC .85/1.85; Airflow: 170 lb/sec
The Crusader had an engine every bit as powerful as the J79 or Avon… but considerably longer, heavier, and more thirsty in reheat. The higher airflow also meant that more internal volume was used by the larger-cross-section intake ducting.
Bager1968I have no association with any engine manufacturer, but it appears to me that the USAF blatantly favors PW, for what reason I cannot figure, since they have practically been run out of the civil market the last 25 or so years. The continue getting sole source tactical fighter contracts, and are going to use the profits to develop the GTF for the civil market in a desperate attempt to regain life.
One wonders who is running the show?
The industry lobbyists and their “bought-N-paid-for” Congresscritters, of course. 😉
Actually, its called “preservation of the industrial base”, and it has been an official US government procurement policy since before WW2.
Many aircraft programs over the decades have been decided not on the basis of the best airplane, but on the basis of “which important manufacturer needs the work the most”.
There are also numerous examples of the better airplane (tank, car, etc) design being chosen, but the production contract being awarded to the designer of a rejected aircraft, on the grounds that the company with the chosen design was doing fine, with lots of current production orders, but the second company needed more work if it was to stay in business.
There is no reason to believe that this is anything other than a continuation of the same policy… GE is doing great with its civil gas turbine engines, but P&W is faltering… so P&W are thrown a bone on this contract.
If the engine proves unsatisfactory, you will see the same thing that happened with the F100-P-100/200 and F110-GE … the F100 had continued problems that P&W seemed unable to solve over more than a decade, so the USAF ordered the higher-thrust-rated F110 for its F-16C/Ds… which resulted in P&W coming out with the improved, higher-thrust & more reliable F100-P-229.
Bager1968Awesome. 😎
Does anyone know if it was an intentional/routine filming or simply a brilliant coincidence ?
Pity it’s Discovery’s last mission.
Listening to the audio, it was a scheduled commercial airline flight… you can hear the pilot on the intercom telling the passengers that now they shouldn’t complain about their flight being behind schedule.
Also:
Those on the right side of the plane can see the space shuttle launching… those on the left side of the plane can see those on the right side watching the space shuttle launching
Bager1968If the USAF, USN, and USMC can only buy half of the planned numbers, there will still be more F-35 in US service than all Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen in the entire world combined.
This is not counting the UK, Italy, Australia, Turkey, Norway, etc who will also be operating F-35.
And the US services will still be operating F-22, F-15E, and F/A-18E/F in considerable numbers.
I don’t know what you use as a measuring stick, but that seems to me to be “meaningful numbers”.
Bager1968Industry has proposed smart “liter-sized” weapons that allows a single F-35 to kill 16 or more targets on a single sortie. But the Pentagon bureaucrats are an unimaginative lot and are still fighting WWII. They refuse to fund any weapon that cannot take out a concrete reinforced building.
I suppose that’s why the GBU-39B SDB (small diameter bomb) was deployed to Afghanistan 3 years ago? And why the GBU-53 SDB II with improved seeker and 2-way data-link to allow post-drop corrections to strike moving targets is in full development?
Total weapon weighs 285 lb (including wings [40+ nm glide range] and GPS/INS guidance unit), and target co-ordinates can be loaded into the bomb’s guidance in flight or on the ground before flight, allowing a fighter to attack as many targets in a single sortie as it can carry SDBs.
The BRU-61/A carriage allows 4 SDB per weapons station… meaning the F-15E can carry 20 of them (4 wing stations and the centerline station).
That exactly matches to your “16 or more targets in a single sortie”, now doesn’t it?
Yes, it can penetrate 3′ of reinforced concrete as well… why not buy weapons that fill more than one requirement?
After all, the GBU-53 mission requirements include killing main battle tanks… where that penetration capability comes in right handy.
Sign In
