michelfVery nice…
michelfFirebird,
The AICUs controlled the inlet ramps…if you recall the initial test flights were done with out this system being activated..and IIRC speeds up to M1+ were possible with the inlet ramps fixed..
So whilst they are essential for M2+ flights and the best efficiency of all flights; they are not essential for flight per se and certainly not for ground runs….
michelfThe SR was always a Recon asset, but checking thro the SR history a little deeper reveals….
The RS designation was the correct one…it was inverted by Johnson to SR and rather than correct the President the USAF changed all the material.
The same occured with the A-11……it was written as AMI (Advanced Manned Interceptor) yet when read out it was the A-11…even tho we now know it as the YF-12, the A-11 being a previous design study done by Lockheed during the A-12 design process.
Lockheed had already proposed a B-12 version of the A-12/ YF-12 airframe; using ‘dynamic’ bombs as opposed to ones loaded with explosive.. a large lump of rather heavy metal moving a M4+ would have created a certain amount of damage….
As the payload bays in the chines for the A-12/ YF-12 and SR-71 are all very similar then it is not beyond the realms of imagination that an opening payload bay (as used in the YF-12) could have been developed for the SR or RS should than have been needed……theory I know, but the communality present establishes a baseline potential.
Officially the S in SR denotes Strategic…..
michelfAnd why not….?
The numbering system is not perforce linear…..F-117 anyone…
The X planes follow their own system and once named X-35 its pretty easy to be lazy and say its the F-35…rather than going back to the next logical number…
michelfThe last time she used her native electrical system would have been during the decomissioning…..
As for restoration work.. the question is not when, but why? Her native systems are not needed for display purposes..even if one wanted to move the nose up and down the use of her native hydraulic system is unnecessarily complicated and difficult. An electrical system allied to permanent hardware changes (screwjacks) would be far more economical and reliable within a display environment..not good for originality or the purists but more than sufficient for the vast majority of visitors to such a display and far more acceptable to H+S…..
michelfThe X-29 revealed that the theoretical and potential advantages of FSW were simply not there in reality…..so the idea of having run two full scale airframes to test the theory and then built a canarded third version is implausible….
The X-31 programme clearly showed far more promise and real advantages over the existing airframes…..
michelfPeter,
She is no longer an aircraft…she is a visitor attraction.. and so none of her native systems comply with the basic H and S regs governing that side of things…regardless of the real saefty issues or BA’s conditions…
If H+S learnt her native systems were being used then they would be within their rights to close her, until such time as a system that conforms was avaliable…sounds stupid but its horse for course I’m afraid.
As for the hanger…I’m pretty certain that somebody has drawn one up.. all in preparation of the business case to take around the HLF and other funding bodies to bring the money together.
michelfDaivd, Kev,
Does it really surprise you that ‘we’ cannot organise/ co-ordinate the preservation of large (or small) aircraft on the UK?
Honestly?
Just look at the divergence of views on this board, the multiple persepctives on the issues, problems and means avalaible to us.
This board represents one of the largest resources, in human terms, interested in aircraft preservation; yet there is no consensus….of what should or should not be preserved or how..so is it a surprise that its an unco-odinated free for all, with every one doing what they have to do to survive….regardless of the bigger picture.
The reality is that there are too many organisations each pulling in a separate direction, each trying to have a piece of the pie. This generates jealousies and conflict between the larger players and they each feel aggrieved by others and very little co-operation between them.
For example I personnally do not see this as the calamity that Kev sees… yes we have lost the last complete airline Standard VC-10…but it is neither the last VC-10 nor the last Standard VC-10 (albeit in exective configuration with different wings) extant in the UK…for the same reason losing the Trident is a shame but not the end of the world, other examples exist..even the 707 is not a ‘great loss’, as it represents a very narrow facet of UK aviation history…
This is not to say it is acceptable or desirable or that Kev’s views are not understandable and valid, but my priorities are different and in this context the preservation of limited variants of types is less important than the world class preservation of an immaculate and exemplar specimen of the overall type, allowing the retention of a fantastic example of the type, with other artefacts helping the understanding of the sub types and vairants (large scale models/ nose sections and so forth).
It all depends on what we, as individuals and as a group; feel are the imperatives of aircraft preservation…and that is where the differences lie. It is this divergence which means an overall policy is not going to be possible within the private sector and to be honest, do you want either the Government or its Civil Servants (which one…RAFM/ Science Museum/ IWM?..) to do it for us?
Thus we do not have a co-ordinated collection policy across the National Collections, we have duplication, we have conflict and apathy….
Whilst we can pressure others to do better, perhaps the best pace to start is here…and lead by example.
michelfBA did nothing to ‘actively’ prevent reactivation.. such as altering or damaging any of the airframe or systems.
However unless something is actively done to preserve the systems, such as flushing and sealing fuel systems, flushing and refilling the hydraulics with a light oil, then time (very little needed) will degrade the systems to an extent that they would need complete refurbishment and re-testing prior to any reactivation.
In the case of Concorde this is possible but improbable…many of these ‘consumables’ (mainly seals) are not longer avaliable as ‘active’ components, not having been stored and traced since BA retired the fleet and dispersed (and sold and or scrapped) the spares holding. This is to say nothing of the money, skills and time required for any work to be done on any of the airframes to bring them back to life (not even to flight status).
So even before ‘big and obvious’ items, such as engines etc are considered; the sheer scale of refurbishing the hyraulic and fuel systems place a very high hurdle to any reactivation.
michelfShe is in very good museum condition…but she has not run up her engines since being retired..
She was decommissioned only, with no ‘conservation/ preservation’ measures undertaken to her systems.
As for a return to flight…..depends on who you ask… 😉
michelfThe real driver behind this revival may well be the increase in fuel prices…as the BWB does promise some interesting % increases in fuel economy…certainly sufficient to make the capital investment worth at least a study.
If double digit % reductions in fuel consumption are possible, no matter the scale of the aircraft then the military will be interested as it may give payload increases and if future civil versions may keep user prices at the current low levels then passengers will not ‘mind’ at all…afterall do you remember the mindset when the twin aisle 747 came in..’who would want to sit away from a window?’ according to them nobody would want to fly in it.. or escape from the upper deck and so on and so forth…solutions will be found.. whether or not they are acceptable is the challenge the designers face.
Explosive bolts and jettisoning large parts of the airframe/ engine pods are, to date, fairly incompatible with civil aircraft and operations into and out of the currently located civilian airfields…..not to say that its not going to happen….but not on the foreseable future’s horizon. 😉
The military freighter may indeed be a more viable application. Also measn the funding is effectively a Government funded process..allowing civilian spin-offs in the future.. sound familiar?
michelfFirebar,
If the F-14 was not designed as a multi role aircraft perhaps you can explain what the ‘bomb release’ button does on the control stick.. you know, the one to the right of the coolie hat trim button on the top of the column….The one you have to use your right thumb to activate..
Not its not the front trigger at the front of the grip.. that does the gun camera on the first detent and then fires the gun or the selected missile (AIM 7/AIM 9 or AIM 54) on the second detent…This is the one activated by the right index finger, so clearly its only secondary control…. :rolleyes:
Or even you could explain why Grumman tested all of the then current A2G weapons in the NavAir inventory in the early 70s and cleared then thro the contractor trials as listed in the contract for the F-14.. to ensure it met the spec in the contract..
The capabilty was limited in comparison to the A-6 for sure, but it was built in from the beginning..
NavAir rightly deceided in the 70s it was not going to pursue the A2G capability of the F-14 in the NavAir programme..why? Lets see; F-4s, A-6s, A-4s, A-6s on its carriers so A2G capability was pretty well covered….but in terms of fighters it had the F-8.. and the F-4…and the capability the F-14 had far outclassed both the F-4 and hte soon to be retired F-8…
Come on Firebar…you need to do some more research…
Also the MiG 25 radar tracks are hardly in the same as a FAI observed record is it now….especially when both the observed, official records for the Ye 266, the specification for the Mig 25 of max Mach being 2.85 tend to support the 2.85 figure rather than the 3.2…granted it could go faster, just like the max Mach for the Sr was 3.2, but it could fly faster…
Nobody here is doubting the Mig 25 is a great plane.. remarkable in many ways and surpassing many other designs in its intelligence and its performance…but to continue to attempt to ‘prove’ its superiority over every other by ‘belittling’ these it merely provides openings to put the MiG’s performance into perspective, rather than to celebrate its achievements….
michelfYup.. I did mean TEB..
The boron based fuel additive is not the boron based fuel you implied…
michelfKK,
Just being picky..
The green hued flame is the TEB ‘shot’ used at engine ignition and at every A/B ignition…it lowers the ignition point of the JP-7 to allow it to ignite quickly and predictably.
The fuel was JP-7, a kerosene based fuel..AFAIK the SR only used that fuel…The KC-135Qs; which were dedicated to the SR fleet; were equiped with modded engines to allow it to be burnt in th etankers’ engines if needed, but generally used JP-4/5 (oh and they had a hard wired intercomm in the boom as well.)
michelfDavid,
The a/c in Switzerland were prepared to be outside, with the technical and man power to achieve that aim…
The choice however was to allow them to be seen outside, in context as it were…thus expenditure was focussed to that aim as opposed to a building…
Different approaches, lead to different solutions…
I used it more as an illustration that keeping aircraft outside is possible and achievable…just not as widely done as covering them..
Sign In
