aerospacetechIf you want to get rid of them all at once, I’d contact a dealer e.g. Simon Watson at the Aviation Bookshop or Andy Doran at the Falconwood Transport Bookshop.
If you want the hassle of selling them yourself, then just list them on Ebay for a minimal amount and see what happens.
If collected from Farnborough they are unlikely to be very valuable, as sales brochures are usually short and don’t generally have any unique information you won’t find elsewhere. Some specifically popular aircraft types might be collectable I guess.
If you have any brochures for rare items like aircraft, engines, radars or missiles that didn’t get produced en masse – like TSR.2, Rotodyne, etc. or even designs that were never built – this kind of material would sell well to people on my forum (secretprojects.co.uk).
aerospacetechWell, there’s at least a little life here still – the Modern Military Aviation section is tumbleweeds.
aerospacetechI presume old PMs have not been migrated then?
aerospacetechSo for anyone not familiar with the design , it a modify F-16 with extremly good sustained turn rate , it can sustain up to 8G at Mach 0.9 , 25k feet. Easily two time better than anything flying today including F-22 , PAK-FA , so why wasn’t this design more popular ?
According to Dan Raymer who worked at Rockwell, the HIMAT head guy got some budget for early ATF work, and got Dan Raymer assigned from the Advanced Design group to do some initial studies. HIMAT guy was utterly convinced that what everyone wanted for ATF was a scaled-up HIMAT and basically told Dan he wouldn’t spend any of the study money on anything that wasn’t a scaled-up HIMAT.
Dan was very sceptical because HIMAT was aimed purely at transonic maneuverability and ATF was already shaping up to be supercruise and low frontal RCS (proper stealth would come later) and quite incompatible with the HIMAT design, so he worked out of hours on his concept which eventually became the basis of Rockwell’s unsuccessful ATF submission. Dan presented both the HIMAT design and his out of hours design to the HIMAT guy, Dan’s design had 60% less wave drag, supercruised at Mach 1.6, with broadly equal transonic maneuverability and low RCS from front quarter. The HIMAT guy reluctantly agreed to work two baseline designs, and not give up the HIMAT design, but it was soon dropped.
aerospacetechSpeculation has centred on the PW9000 engine, which was discussed in 2010 as an F-135 low pressure spool mated with a PW1000G core rated about 25,000lb. Now, the point with the PurePower core is it is scalable to any size. The suggested thrust for PW9000 was 25,000lb, compared to 28,000lb for the F-135, which suggests an increased bypass ratio over F135 and higher efficiency. However, if it was anywhere near 4:1 bypass ratio, the overall thrust (given a fixed low pressure core size) would be less than 25,000lb, I believe.
I think bypass ratio will be between 1:1 and 2:1. This will still require significant effort on intakes – the F118 cut down the F101 bypass ratio from 2:1 to about 0.87:1 for stealth reasons. This will be a reasonable improvement on the F118 fuel efficiency.
aerospacetechLast one – Sukhoi T-12-6.
Not all wildly practical but a lot of different shapes. Spot the Mi-24, Su-25UB and even MiG-29 parts in some of these designs.
aerospacetechSome more including Sukhoi T-12, also a Grunin design.
aerospacetechHow about some Russian designs?
These are all by Yevgeny Grunin, first at Sukhoi and later at his own company, AeroProgress (ROKS-Aero). These designs were low cost CAS/COIN designs using elements of existing aircraft supposedly to reduce cost.
aerospacetechThat’s a great diagram, and it clears up a couple of bits I was uncertain about. It does appear that the IFF system was the main priority for MiG-21PF which makes sense in view of the interceptor role.
Quality of the picture is great, if you feel like taking any more I’ll clean them up and post them on Secret Projects.
aerospacetechI’m not yet certain of the exact RWR used on various MiG-21 variants – I have found one reference suggesting Sirena-2 was removed from the MiG-21F-13 – but please note the following attachment from SPO-10 technical manual.
2 distinct antenna types are associated with SPO-10. The one you point out on the tail is the largest / most conspicuous.
Thanks for referring to my website BTW (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk)
aerospacetechI checked the technical documentation I have. There is no Sirena type device on MiG-21F izd. 72, MiG-21F-13 izd. 74 or MiG-21PF izd. 76. I also checked all cockpit controls on cockpit drawings on the pages from technical description books I have, that is cockpits for: MiG-21F, 2 different series versions of cockpits for F-13, 2 different series versions of cockpits for PF (that took me quite some time…) There is no switch or anything related to a Sirena type device.
On MiG-21MF besides SPO-10 indicator, on the right side of the cockpit there is a switch to power up the system, and next to it a potentiometer to adjust audio warning volume.
Please don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying “to be right” at all costs here – not my style. IMHO, those earlier Sirena devices on MiG-21 giving warning only from rear hemisphere, quoted on a lot of books, etc are actually an error that was copied over and over by everybody during the decades. I can’t find any proof of it being real. If I see some kind of proof, even in the form of a cockpit warning light or switch, then fine. I would have no problem to admit that yes, in fact there were such devices.
“Sirena” (Siren) was a rapid development coming from Soviet capture of a F-86 Sabre in Korea. Designed by Senior Lieutenant Vadim Matskevic it was a single purpose device to warn a MiG driver that an F-86’s APG-30 radar gunsight was approaching your tail for a gun kill. It had no control switches except an off switch, or displays, simply an audible alarm.
To prove his concept, Matskevic set up the radar emitter from the captured Sabre on the roof of one of the institute’s tall buildings and mounted his warning device on a MiG. Every time Mikoyan and Sokolov flew the MiG over the building, “we heard a low-pitched ‘howling’ in the earphones,” Mikoyan recalled. “As the distance from it grew, the noise became higher in pitch, but lower in volume. Even so, it remained perfectly distinct within seven or eight kilometers [four to five miles]
.
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/cit-wetterhahn.html?c=y&page=3
In May 1952 10 prototype units were rushed to Korea and fitted to MiG-15s. Initially they had false alarm issues but eventually proved their worth.
TsKBA Avtomatika (OKB-373) made tail warning radars for bombers – they were given the task of productionising the device and became the sole developer of RWR equipment in the USSR.
SPO-1 and SPO-2 were basically similar to that first prototype device, audio warning only.
SPO-3 (Sirena-3) was the first version with a display and 360 degree coverage, development of which was completed in 1957. MiG-21R had it. For cheapness, it used a simple system of 4 lights, each connected to a single receiver. This meant you got only a vague idea of the threat quadrant.
SPO-10 (Sirena-3M, 1966) was largely similar to SPO-3 in concept but made with modernised electronics.
aerospacetechThere’s a couple of nice windtunnel models of the Hawker P.1121 at RAF Museum Stores, Stafford which would be a more practical display item.
With its ventral inlet it would look cool near the EAP when that is put on display.
aerospacetechJ-79-8 configuration: 17 stage compressor, 3 stage turbine
AL-21F-3A configuration: 14 stage compressor, 3 stage turbine
J-79-8 length: 5.3m
AL-21F-3A length: 5.16m
J-79-8 compression ratio: 13:1
AL-21F-3A compression ratio: 14.55:1
J-79-8 Mass flow: 76.7kg/sec
AL-21F-3A Mass flow: 104kg/sec
J-79 turbine entry temperature: 954°C
AL-21F-3A turbine entry temperature: 1093°C
No great magic – it sucks in more air, compresses it more, and burns it hotter. AL-21F is a later design and superior in all respects. It used some technology from recovered J-79s, but it is certainly NOT the same design. Its compressor is much more advanced getting more compression from less stages.
aerospacetechThe bit I can’t understand with the Hawker Siddeley group, was the way that in 1955, they had the P1121, Gloster GA6 and Avro Arrow all under development in different sub groups, all about the same take off mass, all similar range payload but radically different aero technology leading to vastly different performance. Clearly each sub group didn’t talk to one another and were actively protected there own technology……..what was HS group doing?……….What did HS group have to gain from such non-sense? ……….Did Dobbie really have control?
This stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about Hawker Siddeley group. Essentially, Tommy Sopwith had a habit of buying up struggling aviation companies run by his mates from the early era of aviation who got into financial difficulty. He then proceeded to let them run their own affairs largely untouched. So what looked on paper like a mighty big aviation concern was in large measure a collection of cottage industries dotted around the UK.
So all the different constituent companies ran pretty much as they did before becoming part of the group. They competed against each other on contracts, and even when specifically told to make a single submission to GOR 339 they failed to do so.
aerospacetechThe actual text isn’t actually very good in my opinion. Some nice piccies though.
Sign In
