TomcatViPPluging TVC on the Gripen won’t come that easy. A major aerodynamic work hat to be done first. Especially on a Carrier based fighter with high sink rate.
The major problem relies in case of failure of the nozzle blocked at an angle and the canard configuration frwd of the CG.
TomcatViPRocket plane’s tail activated prematurely in fatal crash
NTSB’s Hart told a news conference on Sunday investigators had determined that the spacecraft’s ‘feathering’ tail system, designed to help slow its descent into the atmosphere from space, was supposed to have been released for deployment as the craft was traveling about 1.4 times the speed of sound.
Instead, the feather began rotating when the rocket-powered vehicle was traveling at Mach 1, the speed of sound.
Hart said the feathering tail system, which folds the vehicle in half aerodynamically to create more atmospheric drag, appeared from video footage to have been unlocked early by the co-pilot. About two seconds later, the space plane’s tail section began to rotate.
“I’m not stating that this is the cause of the mishap. We have months and months of investigation to determine what the cause was,” Hart said.
Asked if pilot error was a possible factor, Hart said: “We are looking at all of these issues to determine what was the root cause of this mishap … We are looking at a number of possibilities, including that possibility.”
SpaceShipTwo’s propellant tanks and engine were recovered intact, indicating there was no explosion. “
Source:
Reuters.com
TomcatViPStrengthened landing gear for higher than usual sink rates as specified by the Flygvapnet..but corrosion resistance? I never knew that the Gripen had coatings for preventing corrosion too..any source for that info? And was such a requirement for an Air Force fighter because of using salt to de-ice runways and dispersed roads used for landing?
I think so.
TomcatViPThere was a retrofit for the extended tail .I am sure of that. Some USAF were
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232892[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPBoth types landed on CdG: http://www.stripes.com/news/us-and-french-navies-complete-combined-strike-group-operations-1.265315
yes sry, my bad .Shld have take a second look at the picture with the sun not on my back 😮
TomcatViP(Sorry for my approximate English. I tried to best myself that time.)
No. Procurement is not the end game. Direct savings in a military procurement is not what a nation have to look after if we speak about an airlifter.
My remark on the RedBull AirForce was a joke meaning that otherwise, no one would have ever buy a fighter in peace time.
If they had gone for a CASA212, a much cheaper aircraft than a C130, I would not have raised the point. But the budget for hundreds of 295 is subsequent enough to divert some capacity in the buy.
You have to realize that each dollars invested have to generate a “revenue”. That it has to be a potential revenue is when you are lucky and nothing happens for real.
Again, we are not talking of a dozen of accessory items to help an Air force to keep its peace time cost down, but a hundred of aircrafts. Up to India to shape the way it will face a natural/humanitarian disaster or a proxi war.
For example, in the early 90’s, every nation started to reduce their fleet of Helo drastically. Now, look at what point we are. Only the US have a sizable helo force to really provide homeland security in case of disaster. And they even made a surprising move in that direction to even increase their capacity. Prices have also sky rocketed with a disastrous side effect on the industry (I won’t extrapolate).
India have to face the problem according to this equation. This is not for today budget. This is for a stronger economy tomorrow.
And again, the size of the allocated budget make it a strategic buy.
Regarding your point for 2Vs4 engines debate, it might be that a C130 will win in term of “flight time” available (spaced maintenance, more direct flying route, less grounded airframe at front location*, better capacity). Flight time means that an aircraft can resupply more locations. For example, a C295 will do two or three rotations for each C130 landing on the very same spot. During that time, the C130 would have resupplied two more locations.
*We could check the data from the Khe Sanh battle btw the Provider and the Hercule
TomcatViP@Hallow : Didn’t read the text of the link you’ve provided, but on th picture, that’s an Hornet (C) 😉
TomcatViPLook again, will ya.
You know, I can devoid more time looking at all the “pictures” that are posted and then take time to detail what I see.
I am not sure that everyone of you would be pleased with the results.
It’s a mater of being polite and respectful with others business.
TomcatViPYou might be interested reading that interview with Ric Parker: Director of research and technology, Rolls Royce:
There is an interesting part regarding new pusher prop engines being (re)envisioned for large airliners
TomcatViPThe shorter T-50-1…
Shorter ? What do you mean. Was that confirmed for real ?
TomcatViPAt least a dozen armed forces think that the cockpit view is good enough for military use, including a few which operate the C-130. I expect they’ve done more to evaluate the cockpit view than looking at a video.
“IMOHO” as written in the text 😉
The probe is in much the same place as it was on C-130s for many years.
And that’s sad. Italians can do better. It easly said but If you reproduce the same error as the model for the copy, you’ve failed.
Nobody is suggesting all C-27J instead of all C-130J, any more than anyone is suggesting that the IAF should have a transport fleet of C-17s only. A rational fleet structure is a mixture of sizes, depending on transport needs. If you buy only big aircraft, you can’t afford to buy or operate as many, & numbers can matter. One aircraft can only be in one place at a time.
I refer to the press talking of hundreds (!) of C295. This is the very matter of my concerns. The 295 is a good plane for liaison and light bulk cargo in peace time. 10/15% of a transport fleet is a good and justifiable measure. X1000th no
I don’t know the exact maintenance costs. But I reckon that the person who says that four AE-2100D do not cost much more to maintain than two AE-2100D is the one who has to justify his position, not the other way round.
Again. Peace time. No disaster etc… You don’t size your airforce according to those variable otherwise, a bunch of extra 300 an old C54 a new paint with a drunk bull charging on the nose and everyone would be please of that.
TomcatViPFrench nuclear plants in new mystery drone overflights
Two points:
– analysis of core reactants are feasible that way with direct sampling at specific times
– Static permanent cost-effective drone defense exists in several interesting concepts
TomcatViPWhere’s the risk in the C-27J? Ordered by 10 countries to date, not counting the USAF murder of the USA army’s attempt to get it. In production, in service, performing well according to the customers.
The original G.222 was also a perfectly good aircraft. The Afghan second hand purchase was a ****-up – again managed by the USAF, IIRC, so look beyond the aircraft & manufacturer for the problems.
Where an aircraft can go isn’t the only issue. Using a C-130 for loads that can be carried by a smaller, cheaper to buy & fly aircraft, with half the engines to maintain, doesn’t make much sense.
I understand you Swerve. But first to respond at your second point (the C130 is not needed in term of load capacity), it’s not like India is never short of airfreighter during emergency crisis. When this happens, with a country of that size and that population, you are always short of aircraft like the C130.
This is my point: today India have unique opportunity to fulfill its tactical need in of airlifter for the next 30/40 years. I understand that you have to size the fleet in function of the needs… But with the change in climat, the mountainous terrain, the low land Bangladesh nearby (think in term of refugee) and a tactical war with millions of combatants as a plausible perspective… Are 100+ C130 too expensive for the price of 200- C295 ?
Isn’t it really such awkward to spend a little bit higher each year in maintenance* when everything goes fine in the country but spare a lot of money (Billions!) resulting from a quick and effective reaction after a typhoon, a tsunami, an epidemic disease, an early invasion ?
See it like an opportunity for India to spare the country from such disaster.
And, as an added cost/political revenue, lending a mighty C130 force to UN just like the US does for free… Why can’t anybody see any advantage ?
Regarding the C27J, I am sorry but (to make it quick) that bird have proved to be too costly to operate for the load it carries. And the cockpit view does not make it suitable for any military use IMOHO. Especially with the refuel boom installed (what India will require I guess)**.
*and that remain to be seen. Give me the Number please ! 😉
**basic requirement are to be able to fly safely in close formation – watch the video on internet (cockpit view) and judge it by yourself
TomcatViPHere some short extract of the unfolding of events:
Today’s test had been delayed by weather for some three hours. After a 45 minute climb to 50,000 feet attached to WhiteKnightTwo, SpaceShipTwo was released for its test flight. The accident occurred not long after release.
Stuart Witt, chief executive of the space port, recounted observing what appeared to be the plume from the initial firing of the spacecraft’s rocket as it was released from the mothership, an indication that engine ignition had been achieved.
[…] the first sign of a malfunction came 90 seconds to two minutes after the carrier jet released the spacecraft, which occurred at 10:10 a.m. local time. […] I wasn’t hearing anything that I became concerned. And I looked over at my colleague, and then there was a radio call, something about a chute.”
TomcatViPC27J !!!! The keen of the scrapyard ?
Forget about it. Too much risky for any high ranked General.
By the way I don’t know where a C295 can go that a C130 can’t.
And why does it have not to be the Indonesians that lead the deal for the 295 ?
Sign In
