SchorschSpeaking of which, I wonder what the marginal cost of more MRA4s would be? The whole project has been horrendously expensive, but as I understand it, much of that is sunk cost. The development money’s been spent, & the problems inherent in fitting new-built CAD-designed parts to old bodged together airframes are now understood & can be allowed for. There are quite a few old airframes available for rebuilding. If the whole sensor capability isn’t wanted, an austere version could be built even cheaper. Sling a bunch of Storm Shadows on ’em & you have a fine stand-off bomber. If you dare to go in a bit closer with ’em, there are cheaper weapons, e.g. JDAM with a Diamondback kit. We could get back the long range bomber force we lost when the Vulcan retired.
Another pointless dream, of course. 🙁
The MRA4 is a good example for very bad invested money. Nothing to say against its capabilities, but the investemtn has no possiblity of paying off. I don’t know if the driver was politics or if there are any sane arguments for rebuilding a 50 year old airframe. A MPA on the base of an A320 would have been equally efficient, less expensive and – most important for British industry – exportable.
For the bomber: we have the strange situation that today’s conflict do not necessitate to penetrate a defended air space. Therefore no real need for specialised airframes. However, the usage of a civil airliner would be odd. I think only the engines would be usable.
When it comes to bomb per buck a big bomber is unbeatable. But I don’t think that the mission of throwing bombs on underdeveloped countries for [reason?] will become the focus of any air force in the world. Sometimes it is more efficient to take the money for bomber, bomb, crew and fuel, drive to the target and ask the local people to burn down their “target with insurgent activity”. I think one can get some real estate for the estimatet price of several 10.000 Euros to deliver a bomb.
SchorschNo, the 720 km is from take-off to target. No fighter climbs out at Mach 2,35 and reach such speed within a minute. The MiG-31 climbs out into the direction of the intended target. To reach that ~ 5 min of flight-time had passed and a distance of ~ 100 km covered by that, which left true 620 km distance to the target at real Mach 2,35, the similar when returning. All small reserve for landing back attempts and a diversion still at hand.
That gives a true distance of ~ 1240 km at
true Mach 2,35 at best.
Mach 2,35 = 2500 km/h = ~30 minutes for ~ 1240 km.
To the 1240 km at Mach 2,35 came the distances covered by speeds below = > 200 km, because sink-rate is less than full-power climb-rate and a landing-reserve of ~ 200 km or ~15 min of flight-time.
Still excellent values for an interceptor.
Two D-30F6 in full AB at take-off guzzle ~1 ton of fuel per minute!
Assuming that the numbers are honest (I think so) we can further assume that this is a proven value (by test) that found its way into the operational manual. After finihsing the interception process the MiG-31 will not fly to the target and back at full Mach. Means: The 720km are the maximum distance from base to intercept a target at supersonic speed and return safe (means: with some reserve). That is a good value, most aircraft fall far short or can’t sustain supersonic speed at all.
Fuel flow can be estimated with
(max AB thrust all engines) * 0.33 * 2 = Fuel Flow of aircraft at 50.000ft and Mach 2. For low-bypass turbo-fan of 80s technology.
MiG-31:
27 tons thrust * 0.33 * 2 = 17.8 tons/fuel per hour. Internal capacity is 17 tons. Add fuel for take-off, climb and return to base. Some reserves are needed.
Schorschthat picture can constitute a genocide…:( what a waste of precious models..
The word “precious” is in question here. The models in question were really not very good. Most of them had strange painting, were assembled badly and due to the 1:72 scale were not really a starter.
The Gripen was repainted and I used some swiss markings. Wasn’t ist kind of a vision? 😀
SchorschYou still do now qualify your claim that only business pax would endure 20 hours on a flight. Please do so or atleast admit it was an unqualified opinion.
100% of the people I know say that sitting in an aircraft for more than 10 hours is horror. Maybe I don’t know so many hard-core business people. So, yes, it may be unqualified. 😀
SchorschDU is normally harmless, but when ingested it is rather nasty causing (terminal) deceases. Of all DU on board the El Al 747 only a fraction was recovered. The rest must be assumed as burned up. The dust of that might have caused some of the weird illnesses reported in the Bijlmermeer.
Having said that, the exact cargo of the 747 was never revealed. There have been persistent rumours since day one that the 747 carried (components for) chemical weapons. Some of the cargo was traced back to US chemical plants, and the destination of some of the cargo was traced to known Israeli weapon labs.
Officially the plane only carried electrical equipments, flowers and perfume… but noone really buys that story. Except for officials that is.
There are two ways DU can be dangerous: First it is a heavy metal and hence toxic. It works like lead and the symptoms occur rather fast and are clearly distinguishable. For these symptoms the DU needs to be swallowed in a signicant amount.
Second is cancer (radiation desease is impossible due to the low radiation), which is caused by ingested particles of DU. The kinds of cancer caused by this ingested DU are known, too. Many people died of lung cancer for example in Thüringen, Germany, when the Soviets started mining the Uranium there (with 50s Soviet style “safety” measures). People who ingested significant amounts of DU should have measurable higher rate of lung cancer.
Everything else is guesswork and cannot be reasoned scientificly with DU. It is just popular with journalists to blame something nuclear, athough the direct effects of such a low radiation is normally insignificant compared to other influences which might affect all victims (at first phycological problems due to loss of family members and appartment, drug abuse, etc).
SchorschThe funny thing is that some fighter designs have some very remarkable new design features, sometimes enabling them to do manouvers others can’t do. But the very visible nature of the cobra added to the impressive look of the Flanker makes it so famous. From the pure performance point of view AoA beyond 30° are mostly useless dumb of energy. But maybe there is a day when somebody uses it succesfully in combat (or at least in normal service, for example to evade a … something).
The high lateral stability of Flanker and Fulcrum have the advantage of lower design headache for the flight controls guys. A well designed (from the handling quality point of view) aircraft needs less attention of the control guys, which was definetely an advantage at the time of its design (remember one T-10 prototype that got lost due to controller instability). Most noticeable reason are the large vertical fins which get clear air through the wing-elevator gap even at extreme AoAs. Something similar can be noticeced on the F-18, the F-22 and to some extent on the F-15. F-16 maybe benefits from it ventral fins (the F-16 becomes unstable and “spinny” above 30° AoA). I would not recomment anything like a Cobra with the Eurofighter.
SchorschSo Airbus use D.A. as well? Is this the same as the Americans use for some of their shells (tanks?). I am really trying to find out if there is any radio-activity involved in this practice.
Depleted Uranium is rather harmless. Do yourself the favour and check the internet about reports on DU weapons in Gulf War and Kosovo. UNHCR and other organisations considered the risk as minimal.
A catastrophic plane crash normally kills many people, in the El Al case more than 70 people died. It is a little bit strange to ask for the very low risk of long-term risks from D.U.
Your friend that wrote about “… the people still dying” should get an update on his radiation knowledge.
SchorschI don’t want to argue here.. It is possible that they can.. But so far I have never seen a video..
BTW, MiG-29 is not ideal for such maneuver, as well..
When somebody tells you that smoking is dangerous, do you ask him for a video? Do you read newspaper or do you need a video clip showing you that there was an earthquake somewhere?
Fight testing is not like the Red Bull Air Race, it is “non-public”. Denying it until somebody finds the right video on patricksaviation.com is a little bit ignorant.
SchorschPugachev referred to Cobra as to sudden change of AoA at 90 degrees or more, without altitude gain..
I have personally seen three aircraft performing a Cobra, Su-27 derivatives, MiG-29 and JAS39A (which subsequently crashed).. All other manoeuvres I have seen so far (F/A-18, F-22) were with altitude gain (ergo the plane was actually climbing during the pointing of the nose). The same applies to F-14 and F-15 during tests.. The difference is obvious – during the real Cobra engine is sucking reverse airflow, while during high AoA with climb it is still *breathing* through intakes..
I will have to check F-18 HARV and F-16 MATV…
You are giving all the important points. What do I need for Cobra?
1st: I need sufficient elevator control to do a sudden pitch-up without significant altitude gain.
2nd: I need sufficient lateral stability to prevent any spin or other funny figures.
3rd: I need an engine that is tolerant to a sudden decrease in airflow. I guess Cobras are always flown with idle thrust.
The first point is valid for all 4th generation aircraft.
The second point ist hte most demanding in my view, but under controlled conditions with a good test pilot I think it is possible.
The third point should work for all current engines, too.
In my opinion all modern American aircraft can do he manouver, but with a lower safety margin. It is just something you can do, but you don’t wan’t to do. The Russian designs MiG-29 and Su-27 have a very high lateral stability making them more suitable for the manouver.
As always I cannot understand the attention payed to this manouver: It is a tactically useless thing. I await the day when aircraft are designed for airshows because the tax-payer should get the impression of their Superjäger.
BTW no line pilot can perform such a test: it exceeds the operational limitations and will – in a combat situation – lead to the loss of the aircraft.
SchorschThere is nothing to tell us the A380 is the “perfect” plane just yet. After a year or so in commercial ops, we’ll be better placed to suggest such. For now we only have what Airbus claim, and sadly we all know how much salt that usualy requires.
Yeah yeah, I take some figures from that can be considered reliable: For example the payload, the passenger capacity and the range. It still is (even if I put a 10% penalty on the Airbus figures) the most efficient aircraft for long-range hub-to-hub connections. You won’t find any serious engineer at Boeing who doubts that, Boeing normally challenges the nessecity of such a hub-aircraft.
Can you perhaps link us to research that shows pax would loathe a 20 hour flight? Hundreds of them endure a near 24 hour transit time between Australia and London each day. Perhaps the non stop service would provide for a great chance to get a sound sleep, rather than being woken up for the stop over.
Also, what evidence do you have to show us that an indirect stop over flight is more efficient that a direct non stopper? The a345 is not a reliable indicator, given the fact that it is limited to 200 seats on anything over 15 hours I believe.
I keep it simple. The aircraft that flies from London to Sidney will have to carry the pound of fuel, which is burned during approach, the whole way from London. Hence a very-long-range aircraft is burning fuel, just to carry fuel. That is a basic problem of every aircraft.
My aircraft has a zero-fuel-weight of 180 tons. I have 150 tons fuel and I fly 17.000km. I land with 10 tons of fuel. My average weight is hence:
180 + 10 + 140/2 = 260 tons.
Now I fly only half of the range, I need only 77 tons of fuel (i have slightly less reserve (7 tons)). My average weight now:
180 + 7 + 70/2 = 222 tons
We see that the stop-over effectively saves 38 tons of weight.
And now important remark, especially for Mr Bmused55: This is not only for Boeing aircraft. No, it even is true for Airbus aircraft. Yes, a A340-500 has the same problem. And you can see that airlines see this problem by not ordering the B777LR and the A340-500 in large numbers.
SchorschJust recently I was eyewitness of a sudden strike of a formation of Hammer-bombers against a variety (smileys for everybody who can identify particular aircraft) of combat aircraft of squadron 1/72 on the apron of AFB Box. the result was devastating: the whole strike force was destroyed, no aircraft remained operational. The whole operation was named “Operation Clean Out My Room” and resulted in the non-recyclable loss of several 100 grams of polycarbonate structures. I just managed to take a photo.
SchorschQF has had a long relationship with the 747, and with Boeing long-haul aircraft in general. I can see them being a potential launch customer for the pax 748, along with BA. I don’t see why an airline like QF, with an extensive global network, can’t operate both the 748 and the A380.
On the other hand is the A380 the best aircraft for direct hub-tu-hub operations. The range is sufficient, especially when considering the growth to models like the -800R or the -900 or -900R. With the B747-8 there is no possibility to grow.
Another interesting point is the B777LR for direct Sidney-London. I always considered this as pointless due to the inherent disadvantage of very longe range aircraft. But I think Qantas needs to compete with Middle East airlines making a stop in Dubai. That costs two hours, but is much more efficient and may win by offering additional services in Dubai (shopping, etc). Only the tough business guys want to sit 20 hours in one aircraft.
SchorschHow about downsizing the active fighter-force (nothing about helicopters and small utility aircraft) and joining a force with the Netherlands or even Germany. Both countries (Netherlands and Belgium) could deploy a good force of fighters and save in maintenance and training. The problem for small air forces is: if you want to deploy a minimum strike force of 12 aircraft in peace time (for example to Cooconistan), you need at least 36 (the remaining 24 stay at home and are in maintenance, training and “homlenad security” (what a stupid phrase)).
Generally I think that many small countries in Europe should consider new ways of keeping costs at current levels and still have usable assets: I think of a joint transport and tanker fleet (like done for the AWACS in NATO), possibly joined training facilities in a useful region (Belgium and the Netherlands are slightly crowded), joined weapon stocks, joined technical support. Of course it necessitates the same aircraft. I see a good chance for Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen mostly due to political considerations. However, the wel established contacts to LM due to the F-16 program should not be belittled.
SchorschThats a common misunderstanding. After some point, more engines didnt meant more safety. Average aircraft still need half its engines to fly (sometimes even more than half at long range), and from probability theory we can compute the chances for total aircraft loss in cases of 1, 2, 4, and 8 engines. This is standard exercise for students. Answer is: 2 engines are much better than 1. Next: 4 engines are only *slightly* better than 2. And hammer: 8 engines are actually *worse* than 4 regarding mission kill (you cant continue mission with 2 from 8 engines failed for sure, and most missions aborted after 1st engine failure) , and 8 engines offer NO advantage over 4 engines regarding total aircraft loss (i.e, more than half engines out).
You are right. Today I would not recomment anybody to use for engines. Especially because the loss of an engine may only cost you 1/8 of your thrust (which BTW is lower than that of a 4-engine aircraft). But regarding the engine arrangement of the B-52 an engine failure will sometimes come along with a failure of the other engine, probalby a loss of the generator. The eight engines were chosen because the B-52 was excessively heavy for its time (180 tonnes for the A-version, 230 tonnes for the H-version).
SchorschWhich necessitates a mathematical Lift/Drag ratio of 200/9.15= ~22. If we assume, that the paratrooper likes to jump the last 800 to 1000m vertically (at least have the option), we have more like 25. That is half of the LoD of a modern sailplane.
These saiplanes cost about 100.000 Euros, if we drop some expensive items (landing gears, canopy, instruments), we can reduce it to maybe 30.000 to 60.000 Euros (depends on number and equipment). That is barely the price of a Sidewinder.
We can assume that only special forces will use these vehicles.
And don’t forget: gliders have low noise, have no IR-signature and will remain undetected on most radars. When they land on normal ground (any field will do), it will remain undetected outside a 500 to 1000 meter radius.
Sign In
