SchorschBoeing had made it clear that they would put together the first jet with temp fastners etc and redo them after the new ones were available . 787 date was always for PR purposes and it was common knowledge that the aircraft was just put together and nothing systems wise was installed. Airbus has their PR with the heads of states while boeing did it with the Date .
And they disassembled it:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_9PoYPYFFn4Y/Rso7DETcbWI/AAAAAAAAAIU/XseTetmAsuY/s1600-h/ln14023work.jpg
SchorschAccording to Seattle Times the first flight might be delayed to end of October or possibly November. Intensive work was necessary to dismantle the aircraft after the roll-out date and put it together using airworthy parts. Power On is still outstanding and there are increasing doubts about the production ramp up.
One quote from the newspaper:
“The 7/8/7 date was for show,” he said. “The showmen at Boeing had the upper hand” over the engineers.
Source:
Seattle Times Article
SchorschUnfortunately, the fact that this date is a good 2 years later, will overshadow the fact that it’s in service.
Two years!? Hell, I didn’t know they were scheduled for delivery in 2005 already.
SchorschRight, thats more understandable now.
Concordes delay in entering service was mostly a short sighted political one. (People will die from the sonic booms etc!).
So you think that Concorde was a completely developed aircraft at time of first flight (which the A380 was)? Delays in A380 were mostly due to production issues for cabin, so the aircraft itself was Ok for service from December 2006. The problems were – from a pure aeronautical engineering standpoint – indepenedent of the aircraft itself. Even a B320 can have delaying production issues.
SchorschQuite shocking that a major airline does simply not comply with safety regulations (fuel to alternate airport). Interesting that automation in this case saved the day, as automation is so often attacked as being dangerous.
SchorschLeaving aside the posts that are irrelevant…some good info here…
Sean, I’d challenge very strongly your assertion that Boyd’s concepts were not applicable to strategic assets….
The underlying theme of his E-M concepts was to provide a flexible, and responsive tool for the combatants, one which permitted them a wide range of options during combt (hence the focus on agility..which opens up options).
He was of the opinion that to focus the role of an airframe to a particular mission profile was a ‘dogmatic’ approach not a ‘pragmatic approach’.
Hence strategic missions needed to be considered in terms of infrastrucutre as well as airframes. For instance a high speed interceptor that demands a specific basing strategy is one solution to the strategic threat…but there are others, which perhaps rely more on a wider spread of lesser airframes but more of them.. this ‘may’ amount to a more flexible response to the threat.
He was not against single mission aircraft (as his basic research tool was one) he was questioning the application of technology as the best solution when other avenues were possible.
….
Thanks again for helpful posting.
Boyd indeed – and I guess even more so the so-called fighter mafia – focused on numbers rather than supreme technology fighters. The E-M Theory is in my opinion not really connected to this approach, but it potentially helped to show which technologies are unnecessary to build a good fighter in terms of flight performance, which is still affordable.
E-M most dominantly showed the drawbacks of weight, so reducing weight became primary mission, which in its course killed swing-wings (originally planned for F-15), adjustable inlets and lots of other unnecessary stuff (in the book the talk is about the USAF wants to add a 40lbs ladder for maintenance, Boyd and his team showing the USAF that this ladder increases overall aircraft weight by 250lbs).
I also think that Boyd’s theory and his briefings were part of the change that took place in fighter procurement, he was by no means the initiator. I guess if Vietnam hadn’t happened (with US air power showing weak spots), today there would be noone to report about him.
SchorschI must say it is bad style by some users to hijack a thread, that started quite informative and without any East vs West BS, for the usual claims which have been outlayed in these forums about a trillion times before.
SchorschHas any customer taken delivery of their first A 380 yet? I don’t seem to recall any news of it happening. The delay between first flight and in service date on them looks like being far worse than the Tri-Star.
Thanks to MS Excel one can compute days as numbers counting from 1. Jan 1900:
First Flight was 27.4.2005, that is day #38469
Delivery will take place 15.10.2007, day # 39370
Inbetween lay 901 days.
SchorschI think with a g-limit of 4 Boyd would have dismissed the MiG-25 as “useless crap”. Calling it maneuverable is kind of … falsifying.
SchorschNow SOC let us understand why the F-12 was cancelled, simply the F-12 and the F-15 are part of the same military budget of the US, for the US politicians either the YF-12 was more adaptable or multirole as the MiG-25s was or it simply needed to be eliminated because the US tax payer demanded the best and less expensive weapons that is the reason the YF-12 competed with the F-15 and it was eliminated
The YF-12 was primarily canceled for the same reason the US does not build Higgins infantry landing craft any more: there is simply no mission. If the Russian would have put their crap together and build a Mach3 bomber, I am sure there would have been an F-12.
If the Americans had canceled B-58, never attempted XB-70 and relied on normal tactical reconnaissance aircraft (which would have by the way saved the US tax payer double-digit billions of 1960-value Dollars without compromising American safety at any time), the MiG-25 would have been canceled, too.
That military projects compete for budget and the approval of project 1 will most likely affect project 2 is quite normal. In USSR the military budget competed with long term economic development and investments, and guess who won?
SchorschResults are dependent on wing sweep, but for 1g flight the more wing sweep always wins.
[ATTACH]156425[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]156426[/ATTACH]
Visible is the drastic increase in wave drag at Mach=1 for the 45° configuration.
Data is for MiG-23ML clean. SEP is in ft/sec.
SchorschIIRC, Grumman was “asked” because Grumman was the lead sub-contractor of the F111B and USN was very interested in fielding a swing-wing fighter/interceptor. Of course they’re not going back to GD right after a huge mess so Grumman was the natural source (ironically with the A-12 decades later….cancellation again for GD). It’s either that or another MD F4 derivative that couldn’t use the AWG-9 system.
And what the Navy really wants often remains their secret. One thing is for sure: it doesn’t want something from the USAF, everything else can be negotiated. Actually, Boyd did also participate in this classic USN vs USAF procurement battles. “His” F-16 was supposed to become Navy fighter. The F-15 as planned for some time was so heavy and cumbersome that the Navy proposed the F-14 for the USAF.
SchorschYeah, I wonder why Russia doesn’t trust the west… after all the west hasn’t done anything hostile like enlarge NATO eastwards, or promote western leaning governments in former Soviet Republics or plan to build ABM sites all over the place, and I mean F-22s and B-2s and F-35s are designed to attack Iran… not Russia. I mean a foreign policy of encirclement is hardly going back to cold war tactics… is it?
You forgot that we might crawl through the pipelines when they stop oil & gas delivery next time. That would be stealthy and unconventional. Then we drop out just short of the oil field and there where the Ukrainians made some holes in the line. Can the PAK-FA defend against that, too?
SchorschIn comparison the Mig-29 in the early model carried two BVR missiles in the form of two R-27Rs plus 4 R-73s and a cannon. The point interceptor it was designed to be simply flew to a particular point in the sky as directed by the GCI officer and fired his missiles at the designated targets. If that target turned on him and tried to attack him he had his R-73s and cannon to defend himself but the R-27Rs were the main strike weapon. It was only later models of Mig that added the longer range R-27ERs and the R-27T and R-27ETs and P and EP models. It only carried 6 missiles because it flew short fast missions, but with R-77 it would likely have carried 4 R-77s and two R-73s as the ability to fire and guide several R-77s at once would have increased the rate at which he could have fired these at different targets.
I found the weapons of the MiG-29A always very conclusive, especially when one considers its primary theatre of operations and the number envisioned by the air force. The weapons load of an F-15 was not well placed, as it does not have the ability to keep distance in such crowded environment expected in Europe. And visual identification would be required most of the time. Europe would work at low level, low radius, many aircraft, much AAA and SAM. Very hostile for a fighter with semi-active BVR weapons. The Germans cancelled the Sparrow on their Phantoms.
SchorschThe USAF did fly F-4s until the early eighties as a mainstay aircraft.:rolleyes:
Said Bombers dont have to fly over NATO lands, ever heard of the sea? It kind of stretches quite nicely from the North coast of Russia to the GIUK line, amongst other places.:rolleyes:
A bomber has to pass Norway, the more distance he keeps to land, the longer is the distance. From Murmansk to the Island-UK line with 500km minimum distance to Norway is 3000km, making it 6000km roundtrip, which would possibly allow the Tu-22M to perform the mission. But the multiple attack possibilities would allow allied fighters to attack several times and even attack the retreating bombers. I recommend to go to Norway and look how many air bases there are. Something like one for 100nm coast line, most of them empty most of the year but equipped well with hardenend shelters.
Sign In
