Author Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.  (Read 9248 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #90 on: July 17, 2017, 10:14:19 PM »
Yes when you start to really think about ballasting, it does become problematic.  You'd ideally want the weight in the seat to get it away from the crewmember.  It would take a full redesign of all the components to make a heavy and a light version of the device, but then you are manufacturing/testing/certifying 2 units.  Not gonna fly in the realworld.

Some of those Russian/Soviet K-36 units look like they come close to what I am imagining. 
Someone told me that the minimum altitude required for an inverted K-36 ejection is 100ft. Care to comment?

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

peace
Hog

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #91 on: July 18, 2017, 02:24:37 PM »
Yes when you start to really think about ballasting, it does become problematic.  You'd ideally want the weight in the seat to get it away from the crewmember.  It would take a full redesign of all the components to make a heavy and a light version of the device, but then you are manufacturing/testing/certifying 2 units.  Not gonna fly in the realworld.

Some of those Russian/Soviet K-36 units look like they come close to what I am imagining. 
Someone told me that the minimum altitude required for an inverted K-36 ejection is 100ft. Care to comment?

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

peace
Hog


It's been at least fifteen years since I've looked at validated K36 terrain clearance curves/table, but I'm skeptical about an inverted 100 ft AGL ejection being within the seat's performance envelope.  In any event, there are a number of variables other than altitude (aircraft airspeed, attitude, sink rate, method/timing of escape path clearance, system sequencing delays in a multi-place a/c, etc) that would have to be taken into account to predict terrain clearance.  Keep in mind, however, the K36 design is optimized for high speed ejection, so lower end performance is compromised.  To illustrate the point,  consider the oft shown MiG 29 ejection at the Paris Air Show in 1989.  The press went wild about the K36's performance, but in point of fact an ACES II seat under the exact same ejection parameters would have had the ejectee under a full chute and in steady state descent 75-100 ft higher than he got with K36.  Bottom line, the K36 is no more vertical seeking/self righting than any other seat.

We did a Foreign Competative Testing (FTC) program on the K36 in the mid 1990s, the final report can be found on the Defense Technical Information Center's website at www.dtic.mil.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #92 on: July 19, 2017, 12:05:55 AM »

It's been at least fifteen years since I've looked at validated K36 terrain clearance curves/table, but I'm skeptical about an inverted 100 ft AGL ejection being within the seat's performance envelope.  In any event, there are a number of variables other than altitude (aircraft airspeed, attitude, sink rate, method/timing of escape path clearance, system sequencing delays in a multi-place a/c, etc) that would have to be taken into account to predict terrain clearance.  Keep in mind, however, the K36 design is optimized for high speed ejection, so lower end performance is compromised.  To illustrate the point,  consider the oft shown MiG 29 ejection at the Paris Air Show in 1989.  The press went wild about the K36's performance, but in point of fact an ACES II seat under the exact same ejection parameters would have had the ejectee under a full chute and in steady state descent 75-100 ft higher than he got with K36.  Bottom line, the K36 is no more vertical seeking/self righting than any other seat.

We did a Foreign Competative Testing (FTC) program on the K36 in the mid 1990s, the final report can be found on the Defense Technical Information Center's website at www.dtic.mil.
Thanks for the insight and for the link. 

A full 75-100 feet higher, that is impressive.

peace
Hog


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #93 on: July 20, 2017, 02:53:37 PM »
Concept demonstration explores robotic aviation refueling system



Quote
Soldiers manning the fuel pumps at forward refueling points are at risk from enemy targeting and the U.S. Army is testing out a new technology so that it can remove them from harm’s way.

The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center is testing out a Limited Initial Capabilities Demonstration of the Autonomous & Robotic Remote Refueling Point (AR3P) that uses a robot to refuel a helicopter in the front line.
Equipped with articulated arms and sensors, the robotic arm can top up fuel without any human input.
The system was developed by the Center’s Aviation Development Directorate and Operational Energy Lab using commercial off-the-shelf materials for the majority of the package.

Engineers hope to eventually refuel a AH-64 at Fort Eustis, Virginia during Phase 4.

https://www.army.mil/article/190980/concept_demonstration_explores_robotic_aviation_refueling_system

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #94 on: July 26, 2017, 03:25:17 PM »
Honeywell have their own flying testbed 757, recognisable by having a third engine pylon behind the cockpit. Currently flying around the world demonstrating new satcom hardware.




Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #95 on: July 26, 2017, 09:17:56 PM »
From November:

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #96 on: July 26, 2017, 10:00:38 PM »
Flying test bed aircraft are some of the strangest, yet least known, in aviation history.  Initially they were used primarily to test new engines, then flight control systems (with the development of fly by wire extensively), and more recently avionics as shown in Taaroa's previous post.

https://goo.gl/images/GMGW6H

https://goo.gl/images/xE5K4j

https://goo.gl/images/UYFH3W


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #98 on: July 28, 2017, 11:26:02 AM »
Just a passing mention that both pilots were women...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/air-india-forgotten-landing-gear-low-fuel/

Have seen this story passed around a bit for the past week or so and I think the common consensus was that the story sounded like bs, but I guess there's some truth to it now that it's appearing on this site (which has some of the best aviation journalism around):

https://avherald.com/h?article=4ac18ec7&opt=0

A few years ago there was a lot of noise around fake pilots being a thing in India, so maybe it's that issue becoming a problem again. My understanding is they also have staffing issues there, but foreign pilots can't hold Indian licences and therefore can't fly or their airlines.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-24/fears-grow-over-indias-fake-pilots/2645216

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #99 on: July 28, 2017, 02:25:03 PM »
Saw "Dunkirk" the other day. The scenes with the Spitfires was awesome. Apparently they didn't use much CGI at all and used real planes. Pretty sweet to see. Some original ships and boats used also I'm told.


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #101 on: July 29, 2017, 01:48:42 PM »







Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #102 on: July 31, 2017, 08:15:07 AM »
NZ Customs investigating Kiwi made aircraft in North Korea

Quote
A New Zealand-made aircraft from Pacific Aerospace turned up at a North Korean military airshow painted up in the hermit state's colours in September last year.
The plane was photographed at North Korea's first ever public airshow, which featured fighter jets and military helicopters. The Hamilton-made PAC P-750 XSTOL, which has a North Korean flag on its tail, is used for skydiving and could be used by paratroopers.

Pacific Aerospace chief executive Damian Camp said at the time he was looking for answers.
"We're trying to get some detail on that because that aircraft is owned and operated by a Chinese company."
He said his company had sold the 10-seater plane to the Chinese company, translated as Free Sky, several months ago.

A UN Security Council report, however, showed a chain of emails that suggest the company knew its plane was in North Korea and it had been contacted by the Chinese company for parts and training.
The Chinese counterpart emailed Pacific Airspace regarding parts and saying that North Korean operators should be "trained ASAP for this aircraft operating".
Pacific Aerospace replied that they would co-ordinate training in China.
"[Name redacted] departs for China tomorrow and will co-ordinate with you to deliver the training in how to replace the flat motor," the email read.

There are strict United Nations sanctions banning a wide range of exports and services to North Korea in response to its nuclear weapons programme.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11897326

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #103 on: August 01, 2017, 03:40:23 PM »
Here is an interesting account of high altitude Zeppelins that were being developed near the end of WWI.  A couple of interesting items are contained in it, such as the Germans had supposedly planned a 'there and back' bombing run on New York but then the war ended.  Also some bio information on a guy called "Harry the Man."  I can't speak for the technical veracity of the writer, I leave that up to you experts.  But it makes for a good read, especially if you have just poured yourself a steaming hot cup of coffee.

http://sped2work.tripod.com/zeppelins.html


Photos of downed "Type U" Zeppelin L 49, basis for the Shenandoah.
By Unknown - Gallica.fr, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34172590





 

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #104 on: August 01, 2017, 06:30:16 PM »
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/01/airline-pilots-suspended-letting-child-fly-plane/
It doesn't seem quite as bad as it seems, the pilot and co-pilot were right there but still...allowing a 10year old to operate the controls on a commercial passenger plane? But at least he dressed the part.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #105 on: August 01, 2017, 08:32:39 PM »
Here is an interesting account of high altitude Zeppelins that were being developed near the end of WWI.  A couple of interesting items are contained in it, such as the Germans had supposedly planned a 'there and back' bombing run on New York but then the war ended.  Also some bio information on a guy called "Harry the Man."  I can't speak for the technical veracity of the writer, I leave that up to you experts.  But it makes for a good read, especially if you have just poured yourself a steaming hot cup of coffee.

http://sped2work.tripod.com/zeppelins.html


Photos of downed "Type U" Zeppelin L 49, basis for the Shenandoah.
By Unknown - Gallica.fr, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34172590





 

Germans may not have made it to the US with a Zeppelin,  but they did fly one full of supplies to East Africa and back.  Technically the mission was a failure since the supplies did not get delivered, but the airship flew over 4000 miles round trip.  The hundredth anniversary of that mission is coming up in a couple months, would make a good entry in your "One Hundred Years Ago" thread.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #106 on: August 01, 2017, 09:14:25 PM »
Saw the U-2 discussion in the UFO thread, and it reminded me of this:



The idea behind the carrier ops was to eliminate the need for foreign government permission to use their bases for the U-2 and to increase the aircraft's operating range. Only used operationally once to spy on French nuclear testing in the Pacific.


Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #107 on: August 01, 2017, 09:30:52 PM »
Germans may not have made it to the US with a Zeppelin,  but they did fly one full of supplies to East Africa and back.  Technically the mission was a failure since the supplies did not get delivered, but the airship flew over 4000 miles round trip.  The hundredth anniversary of that mission is coming up in a couple months, would make a good entry in your "One Hundred Years Ago" thread.

Thanks for the 'heads up' Unc.  I'll keep an eye out for it.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #108 on: August 03, 2017, 03:01:38 AM »
World’s last operational T-33s retired in Bolivia


Jul. 31 saw the world’s last operational T-33s jet trainers being retired by the Bolivian Air Force. Bolivian president Evo Morales was the guest of honor for the retirement ceremony at Grupo Aéreo de Caza 31.
Between 1948 and 1959 a total of 6557 T-33 Shooting Stars were produced, 5691 by Lockheed, as well as 210 by Kawasaki and 656 by Canadair.




Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #109 on: August 03, 2017, 03:12:19 AM »
World’s last operational T-33s retired in Bolivia


Jul. 31 saw the world’s last operational T-33s jet trainers being retired by the Bolivian Air Force. Bolivian president Evo Morales was the guest of honor for the retirement ceremony at Grupo Aéreo de Caza 31.
Between 1948 and 1959 a total of 6557 T-33 Shooting Stars were produced, 5691 by Lockheed, as well as 210 by Kawasaki and 656 by Canadair.





When I was stationed at Plattsburgh they had a program called the Co-pilot Enrichment Program. They first used T-38s to give KC-135 co-pilots more flight hours as a pilot. They switched them out for the T-33s because they did better in the cold weather and were cheaper to fly. They were cool little aircraft.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #110 on: August 03, 2017, 04:58:35 AM »
Saw the U-2 discussion in the UFO thread, and it reminded me of this:



The idea behind the carrier ops was to eliminate the need for foreign government permission to use their bases for the U-2 and to increase the aircraft's operating range. Only used operationally once to spy on French nuclear testing in the Pacific.


That's awesome, I have heard of the carrier capable version the U-2G, and the carrier capable and aerial refueling capable U-2H.  There were 3 examples of the carrier capable no Air-Air-Refueling U-2G, and there was only a single U-2H with carrier capability and AAR capability.

AAR capability brought range up to 7000miles and duration up to 14 hours, AAR was seldom used as human pilots cant take that kind of duration in such a tricky plane to fly with it constantly flying on the verge of a stall.

Thank you very much for posting this video.  It made for some great discussion, everyone was surprised to see it on youtube.

I would include my U2 pics and YF-12 pics(YF-12A, AF Ser. No. 60-6935 (Article 1002)-only remaining YF-12 in existence) from the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson near Dayton Ohio, but I'm having issues with photobucket right now.

peace
Hog

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #111 on: August 03, 2017, 05:05:48 AM »
When I was stationed at Plattsburgh they had a program called the Co-pilot Enrichment Program. They first used T-38s to give KC-135 co-pilots more flight hours as a pilot. They switched them out for the T-33s because they did better in the cold weather and were cheaper to fly. They were cool little aircraft.

I would've thought a relatively newer plane like the T38 would have better fuel efficiency than something made towards the beginning of the jet age.

This video has been floating around the past few days:

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #112 on: August 03, 2017, 05:22:47 AM »
When I was stationed at Plattsburgh they had a program called the Co-pilot Enrichment Program. They first used T-38s to give KC-135 co-pilots more flight hours as a pilot. They switched them out for the T-33s because they did better in the cold weather and were cheaper to fly. They were cool little aircraft.
I didn't realize that the T-33 was a Kelly Johnson aircraft as well.

Here is a Canadian T-133 Silver Star without its wingtip tanks.


The T-133 designation threw me the first time I saw it, but our designation for the F/A-18 is actually the CF-118.
Our CF-18s have outlasted the Space Shuttle by a few years now. We get a system and have to make it work for 30-40 years.
In the late 70's we just about got the Iranian F-14s but we got the slightly modified CF-18 instead as we helped the Americans smuggle some of their people out of Iran during the 79 hostage crisis.  We were offering a hugely discounted price for Irans F-14s as the Americans were cutting off all F-14 support.  Our officials were telling the Iranian officials that once the US cut Irans F-14s service, the planes would fall into disuse.  That's too bad as we would have gotten a sweet deal on 80 F-14s and the Americans would have been more than happy to re-establish service routines with us Canadians.  But in the end, F-15 was too expensive, so we procured 138 CF-18s for $4billion in 1982 dollars.  Unit cost was US$35million a plane.
We have lost over 20 planes and 11 pilots over the CF-18s service life.


Since we only have the budget for a single line, I personally think we should stick to same matix of selection that we used when we were shopping back in the 70's.  Dual engines, excellent RADAR.
The F-35 is a mistake IMO.  Low Observability is nice, but engine redundancy is needed moreso for us as we have Arctic sovereignty and over water interceptor alerts over water when the Russians send the Bears to probe NORAD airspace.
Ideally a fleet of Canadian CF-122's would have been nice, but no one else is getting their hands on them.

peace
Hog

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #113 on: August 03, 2017, 05:56:01 AM »
Anyone have any thoughts on the F-35 program.

I'm wondering if the F-18 E/F might be a better candidate for our country.  What about for other countries?
 I realize that engine tech has come a long way, but IMO having redundant propulsion is a big negative for some countries.

peace
Hog

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #114 on: August 03, 2017, 07:00:39 AM »
Anyone have any thoughts on the F-35 program.

I'm wondering if the F-18 E/F might be a better candidate for our country.  What about for other countries?
 I realize that engine tech has come a long way, but IMO having redundant propulsion is a big negative for some countries.

It was ambitious, but at this point it just seems a bit like a money sink. Latest news I heard about it was that they were having oxygen supply issues for pilots which is what also occurred in the F22 a few years ago.

I can't really comment on Canada's situation, but I imagine it has largely similar issues to Australia with the bonus of cold weather.
Australia bought the F35 after intense lobbying for the F22, but has since bought Superhornets and Growlers while maintaining F18s to supplement the force until the F35 is in service. Seems the way things are going is that the Superhornets and Growlers are going to be a permanent fixture even when the F35 arrives.
Australia's military is been somewhat defensive oriented with the assumed enemies being to the north *cough* Indonesia *cough*, and the result is that there are a number of 'empty' airbases in the north of the country that can be quickly brought online in the event of war. Now let's say there's a war with Indonesia; the range of the F35 means that it can't reach Jakarta from the closest base without aerial refueling unlike the now retired F111. It also can't ferry between the east and west coast without refueling somewhere.



Then you have the two mini aircraft carriers that are now in service - they're perfectly capable of operating the F35B, but the government refused to order any of those or make a few changes (eg heat resistant deck coating) to allow it. So now you've got what are essentially helicopter carriers with ramps.
The Australian government is too far down the rabbit hole to pull out now, and Australia is even one of the few designated places where maintenance and upgrades will be carried out (the result is this situation: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-fighter-southkorea-idUSKBN0JW06O20141218 ).

tldr the F35 was probably a mistake but it's too late now.



Oh and as to the redundancy issue, I think for military aircraft modern engines are reliable enough to just use single engines. It's more of an issue for civil aircraft where you have passenger lives at risk and no chance of bailing out.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #115 on: August 03, 2017, 11:42:01 AM »
Single engine T-33s were more fuel efficient than twin engine T-38s.

Canadian CT-133s would occasionally fly in to WPAFB, last one I remember was in the late 90s/early 00s.  They flew in a really cool two tone green and grey camouflage scheme, or an overall grey scheme and usually drew a crowd on the flight line. One of them I saw had a small, nose mounted "thimble", found out later these aircraft were used as simulated attacking aircraft/missiles against ground forces and warships.

Armed T-33s were responsible in large part for the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion. With no US fighter cover, the B-26s and ships used by the invasion force were sitting ducks.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #116 on: August 03, 2017, 11:48:57 AM »
Anyone have any thoughts on the F-35 program.

I'm wondering if the F-18 E/F might be a better candidate for our country. What about for other countries?
 I realize that engine tech has come a long way, but IMO having redundant propulsion is a big negative for some countries.

peace
Hog

just buy Russian made jets. They are superior in every way to American junk.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #117 on: August 03, 2017, 12:46:43 PM »
just buy Russian made jets. They are superior in every way to American junk.

Oh really?  Then why do Russian airlines buy Boeing jets like the two that are soon to be Air Force 1 and Air Force 2.  They were originally made for a Russian airline but the company went bankrupt.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #118 on: August 03, 2017, 12:50:50 PM »
Oh really?  Then why do Russian airlines buy Boeing jets like the two that are soon to be Air Force 1 and Air Force 2.  They were originally made for a Russian airline but the company went bankrupt.
Count me as being a bit suspect of buying a used plane, and a Russian one at that, for use by our government officials. But we outsource and/or buy a lot of our electronics, data-mining, and software to China, Amazon, Google, and Israel so, I guess, it is ok.

Re: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #119 on: August 03, 2017, 12:54:23 PM »
Count me as being a bit suspect of buying a used plane, and a Russian one at that, for use by our government officials. But we outsource and/or buy a lot of our electronics, data-mining, and software to China, Amazon, Google, and Israel so, I guess, it is ok.

Those planes are in storage at Boeing. I don't think the Russian airline ever took delivery.