TomcatViPFrench Gendarmes were investigating the Li battery runaway theory
Un téléphone iPhone 6S, une tablette iPad mini 4 et quatre flacons de parfum dont deux aérosols. Autant d’objets en apparence anodins qui sont pourtant au cœur de l’enquête des gendarmes français sur le crash de l’Airbus d’Egyptair qui a fait 66 morts, dont 15 Français, en mai dernier, en mer Méditerranée.
Tous ces objets étaient posés sur le coin droit du tableau de bord, à la place du copilote, près d’une des vitres du cockpit. A l’endroit exact d’où sont partis les premiers messages d’alerte envoyés automatiquement par le système Acars de l’appareil. Ils signalaient des avaries sur les vitres latérales droites.
[…]
Le premier de ces messages transmis est le « 3044 anti ice right window ». Ce code indique un problème de dégivrage ou de l’alimentation électrique de la vitre droite, celle du copilote. Il est suivi dans la même seconde d’un autre message, « 561200 sliding right window », qui concerne cette fois la vitre coulissante du cockpit, toujours côté copilote.(Google translation)
—————-
An iPhone 6S phone, an iPad mini 4 tablet and four perfume bottles including two aerosols. So many apparently innocuous objects that are at the heart of the investigation of the French gendarmes on the crash of the Airbus of Egyptair which made 66 dead, including 15 French, last May, in the Mediterranean Sea.
*
All these objects were placed on the right-hand corner of the dashboard, in place of the copilot, near one of the windows of the cockpit. At the exact location from which the first alert messages were sent automatically sent by the Acars system of the device. They reported damage to the right side windows.
[…]
The first of these messages is the “3044 anti ice right window”. This code indicates a defrost problem or the power supply of the right-hand window, that of the co-pilot. It is followed in the same second of another message, “561200 sliding right window”, this time concerning the sliding window of the cockpit, always side co-pilot.
Interesting development around a Li Batterie runaway.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250676[/ATTACH]
Notice:
It is understood that the information provided by the Le Parisien source has not been independently verified. While investigators may have at one point probed whether an overheating mobile device started the fire, this line of inquiry has not been advanced.
Source:
http://www.leparisien.fr/
TomcatViPFrance is not a member of SALIS, therefore their rates do not apply..
No.
The consortium includes 12 NATO nations (Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the United Kingdom) and two partner nations (Finland and Sweden).
And
Volga-Dnepr and Ukraine’s ADB provide the SALIS aircraft and also provide AN-124-100 aircraft to support the Afghanistan mission, with weekly sorties from Europe to Afghanistan and back, under contractual arrangements with NATO Support Agency (NSPA).
Source:
Nato.int
TomcatViP[…] a member of the British Air Staff stated they will consider the CTOL variant as they move towards the next SDSR. It is really simple.
To Bee or not to Bee… That’s so British. 😮
TomcatViP[ATTACH=CONFIG]250674[/ATTACH]
(as sourced from the small Airforce thread – the Baphomet_00)
TomcatViPContrast to what Picard may try to tell you , Rafale M is not the same as the land version. Its body is re-enforced to land on carrier.
Also using your logic, how about Mirage 2000 that can do 90% mission of Rafale C , so what the point of having Rafale C ?
about 800kg difference in weight b/w the M’s and land version.
TomcatViPSorry… Not relaxed stability…. VARIABLE stability 😮
TomcatViPJust to add into the open box of supposition: so far no one has confirmed any usage of some form of variable stability to more accurately simulate different plane behavior in high G / high AoA were you fly a lot with your pants. Although the Northrop design will do a good candidate (large ratio of tailplane/wing area and distance b/w CG and tailplane pivot).
(edited)
TomcatViPNope, I was not claiming the Rafale program costs were “cheap”.
I was claiming the French tax payer has nothing to complain regarding tax payers from other countries currently designing their fighters. That was to answer I don’t remember who….
Once more,no. In plain logic:
– Per aircraft, the Fr tax payer paid more
– Per pax (what each tax payer got to pay), the cost is higher -> less buy power for the defense service and increased burden on Fr economy (see my previous post).
– No stealth capacity were induced creating a dangerous gap in response b/w tactical and nuclear strike.
TomcatViPHidden cost of France’s logistic for its war effort revealed: 2/3rd of transport budget
France relied on leases with ICS and the NATO agency to fly more than three quarters of tonnage flown to its overseas operations, which cost two-thirds of total transport costs in 2012-15, the audit office report said.
[…]
audit office […] provide[s] more information on the cost of an ICS flight hour and whether the office questioned the company while drawing up its report.
ICS leases out a seven-strong fleet of Antonov 124-100 and Ilyushin Il-76 heavy airlifters. [..]“On average in 2013-2014, it would have cost 32 percent more to transport a ton of freight by ICS than SALIS,”
Source:
DefenseNews.com
TomcatViPAirbus missed deadline for the tactical upgrade of A400 fleet
That tactical standard converts a cargo plane into a more capable aircraft fitted with self-protection kit, capable of parachute drops, short runways, refueling fighter and transport aircraft, and being refueled.
The first retrofit version was accepted and flown Jan. 9 to the Orléans air base, central France, with two more due for delivery, the DGA said. The third new A400M was delivered Dec. 23, bringing the French fleet to 11 units.
[…]
the advanced version [was] to be delivered last year
Source:
DefenseNews.com
TomcatViPI agree with you production cost of Rafale is below the F22 despict being an omnirole fighter, it is also below the typhoon despite being a national independent program.
But it also below the F 35. Try to find them, the Rafale costs are crystal clear and publicly available. In a strange way the F35 costs are…. Stealth. But few addition and you understand why it is so difficult to find complete cost structure of the F35.
Rafale program is more expensive for the tax payer (per pax). In fact, Rafale is more costly to buy that the combined fleet of Raptor and Lightning would be for the US taxpayer. I made the quick comparison times ago and the result should remain invariant. What Fr pays as an extra is an independent, self-sustainable aerospace industry that ideally feed the R&D and body-build an anemic export balance. Ideally. This not the case anymore for various reason past the short term effect of raw number comparison.
Also, the Fr taxpayer don’t get the Stealth effect and hence is precluded from the political leverage that such fleet would yield (Tactical deterence). As suggested at the time, this would have been alleviated through a silver bullet program toward a small fleet of Stealth or Hypersonic vector. This was at hand reach of the industry potentials. Such was the combination of Mirage III / Mirage IV, and it has worked for decades.
Also the maintenance costs of the Rafale are out there. They don’t yield such an idealistic picture as you suggest. Dassault having even lost traditional customers due to higher maintenance costs on the Mirage 2000 than other design.
TomcatViPNo surprise, the acquisition was doomed from the start when the Australian DoD recommended the AH-64 but were overruled by the Minister of Defence of the day who wanted to improve relations with Europe. Tiger and the MRH-90 were poor acquisition decisions and both against department recommendations.
not only a poor decision, but one that proved disastrous: only 3 Tiger* are serviceable at any time and the fleet cost 500M$ (AU?) budget in maintenance.
The ANAO report noted that the Tiger has “consistently underperformed” against availability and rate of effort targets, that “on average”, only 3.5 aircraft, of the operational fleet of 16 in service with 1 Aviation Regiment in Darwin were considered serviceable at 10am on any given day in 2015, and that the “Tiger fleet is unlikely to exceed 74 per cent of its original target for rate of effort”.
Wrote Crocombe in the July 4 dated letter: “Multiple statements throughout the extract state that on average during 2015 only 3.5 aircraft were considered serviceable. The recorded data on the Defence Restricted Network states 5.4 aircraft [were available] for 2015 and 6.8 aircraft so far in 2016.”
Further, the “determination of serviceability where a measure is taken at 10am on any given day is not a good metric as it is not adjusted if no aircraft were required on the day, or if the aircraft became serviceable and flew later in the day.”
Source:
http://australianaviation.com.au/
or
http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/09/anao-reports-questions-the-value-of-upgrading-the-tiger-arh/
*sorry, I plead gulity for rounding the number at 15% 😮
TomcatViPI can understand some decisions can looks bad from amators point of view. But professional take these decisions every week. That is the difference between commenting and being responsible.
That apply also to USA, they divided by 3 in a recent past a 5 gen fighter mainly for costs and delays reason.Without concurrency that would have been already apply for the F35 program.
If Professional do abort a fighter program for an oleo strut, I ‘ll take notice of your amazingly invaluable insight. Meanwhile, I’ll take the responsible decision to walk the dog.
TomcatViPSo far 200 F35 are flying with several customer all over the world, including a stunning array of the most prestigious air forces… But those are surly poor devils manipulated by the 400lb guy.
TomcatViPWell, if we speak about that, it’s fair to say I have been more trolled and the object of hatred jealousy by people that ARE the issue :rolleyes:
Sign In
