Page 8 – Key Publishing

kfeltenberger

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 187 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 … 11 12 13 →

Author

Posts
November 8, 2008 at 10:57 pm in reply to: Publicly Accessable Missile Info? #1784964

kfeltenberger
Participant

There is no single on-line source giving detailed information on all guided missiles from WW2 to the present day, a timespan of six decades. However, good information covering about half of this time period – a era when missile development was in its ‘golden age’ – is available on-line.

Between the late 1950s and the late 1980s, the British aviation weekly ‘Flight International’ published an annual guide to the world’s guided missiles. This was originally compiled by Bill Gunston (who needs no introduction), then by Mark Hewish (probably the best defence journalist of his era), and finally by Doug Richardson (currently the editor of the monthly ‘Jane’s Missiles & Rockets’)

You should be able to download all of these from Flight’s on-line archive. Access is free, but searching for what you want could take time. You could try searching for words such as “world”, “missile” and “directory” or “survey”. Each annual edition was anything from 20-30 pages in length, complete with data tables. Downloading every fifth year would probably give you all the information you need.

Thanks!

November 8, 2008 at 4:57 am in reply to: Publicly Accessable Missile Info? #1784987

kfeltenberger
Participant

In a similar line of thought…I was reading about the AIM-9X and it mentions it uses a common launcher rail. What missiles can this rail handle? I’ve seen F-16’s with AIM-120 on the wing tips, and F-15s with them on the wing rails that usually would hold AIM-9.

Assuming the software was compatible, could you put a MICA on one of these rails or likewise, an AIM-120 on a Rafale’s belly and wingtip rails?

Thanks!

November 7, 2008 at 2:57 am in reply to: Mirage IV Disposition? #2494190

kfeltenberger
Participant

Aren’t they lighter & smaller, as well as more powerful & fuel-efficient? It could potentially carry more fuel, increasing range even more.

That’s my thinking. I’m sure the airframes have life left on them, I don’t think the French drove the IV’s as hard as we drove the B-52 fleet.

November 6, 2008 at 11:14 pm in reply to: Mirage IV Disposition? #2494240

kfeltenberger
Participant

I agree, the Mirage IV is a beautiful aircraft. I was looking at her stats and wondered what could be done with the airframe if newer engines were utilized instead of the fuel hungry Atars? Something like the M-88 or EJ-200 would give it longer legs and probably better performance as well.

Thanks for the info! I’m working on a project where oil is discovered along the Lesser Antilles and it sparks a regional conflict/cold war that goes warm, and the French decided to create “Le petite Blackbird” by refurbing the remaining Mirage IVs and operate them out of either Guiana or Martinique.

Thanks again!

November 6, 2008 at 11:11 pm in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2494243

kfeltenberger
Participant

About the Harrier

1Saludo

The picture with the rocket pods got me to wondering why it seems that rocket pods tend to be used more by European air arms than the US (Navy, Marines, and AF)? Is there a reason why one would favor mostly rockets over mostly bombs, or is it more a doctrinal issue?

November 6, 2008 at 10:55 pm in reply to: Publicly Accessable Missile Info? #1785015

kfeltenberger
Participant

Thanks for the links!

Kurt

October 25, 2008 at 5:33 am in reply to: Condition of B-52s #2452818

kfeltenberger
Participant

More specifically,
TF33 (Pratt & Whitney JT3D) is a turbo-fan development of the J57 turbojet (F-100 Super-sabre, F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dart, B-52A-F, A-3 Skywarrior, F4D Skyray & F-8 Crusader), and first flew in a B-52 and B707s in 1960.

The TF33 also powered DC-8s, C-141 Starlifters, and E-3As (lots of spares).

TF-33 length ~170″; diameter 53″; weight 4,000-4,600 lb; thrust 17,000-21,000; SFC .52-.56

The TF30 (Pratt & Whitney JTF10A) is a “blank-sheet” turbofan originally developed for the F6D Missileer in non-afterburning form, with the afterburning form designed for the F-111. Also planned to be used for the US Navy 1963 VAL program (to be fitted in non-afterburning form in either a re-designed A-4, or a re-designed AF-1E Fury (formerly FJ-4B), or a re-designed F-8 Crusader (the A-7, the winner of the competition). The TF30 first flew in 1964.

It was also later fitted in the F-14A Tomcat.

TF-30 length 135″ (235.5″ w/afterburner); diameter 42″ (49-50″); weight 2,600 lb (4,000 lb); thrust {lb.s.t.} 11,000-13,400 (18,500-21,000 [one version 15,000 (25,000)]); SFC .62-.64 (2.45-3)

Thanks for clearing that up…for some reason I was thinking they were the same and didn’t check my facts as carefully as I should have.

October 24, 2008 at 9:45 pm in reply to: Condition of B-52s #2452923

kfeltenberger
Participant

Is the TF-33 the same engine used in the Tomcat-A? If so, why not use the engines that were used in the -B or -D?

October 18, 2008 at 7:53 pm in reply to: Will the Eurofighter flop? #2455581

kfeltenberger
Participant

Flex I would admit it, if it were the case. Just for your information, I am a huge Rafale and gripen fan aswell as Russian hardware, but from my experiences they do not offer what the typhoon can.

What exactly does the Typhoon offer today that the other aircraft mentioned can’t? I’m not interested in what might be integrated next year or whenever, but right now, today, what makes Typhoon so superior to the current crop of contenders?

October 16, 2008 at 10:12 pm in reply to: Where To Find TO&E Info? #2456580

kfeltenberger
Participant

Thanks! Scramble looks like it’s exactly what I’m looking for.

October 9, 2008 at 12:44 am in reply to: A400M delay has RAF concerned #2460938

kfeltenberger
Participant

EADS should sue the Europrop International for the delays on the engine. IIRC the first A400 was rolled out a long time ago now and that he engine is the primary reason why the program is overdue.

Are there any current suitable engines that could be substituted? Not just turboprops, but perhaps jets?

October 7, 2008 at 8:20 pm in reply to: Possible futire Air wars #2461586

kfeltenberger
Participant

Various South American border clashes would be one of my thoughts on the issue.

October 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm in reply to: French Military Aviation Questions #2461665

kfeltenberger
Participant

It is an “explosive” canopy warning and the triangular one warns of the ejection seat.

Thanks! I thought it was something to do with either the ejection system or EW system but wasn’t sure.

Kurt

October 7, 2008 at 7:42 am in reply to: French Military Aviation Questions #2461927

kfeltenberger
Participant

Thats not an eye. It represents the glass canopy and probably meant to warn where the canopy breaks off during ejection.

I know it’s not an eye, it’s just that’s the closest thing I could think of to describe it. 🙂 That makes sense, but there’s also the triangular warnings as well that seem to warn about this.

October 7, 2008 at 7:12 am in reply to: French Military Aviation Questions #2461931

kfeltenberger
Participant

Huh ? I really don’t see what symbol you are referring to… 😮

Thanks for the answers! They’re exactly what I was looking for. As for the symbol, it’s on the canopy frame in this pic:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/France—Air/Dassault-Rafale-B/0893531/L/

It looks like an eye with three lines radiating up from it.

Thanks!

Kurt
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 187 total)

← 1 2 3 … 7 8 9 … 11 12 13 →