Author Topic: Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.  (Read 40470 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #812 on: February 01, 2019, 06:06:34 PM »
Thanks, I got a kick out of another article they posted. Iran, apparently, invented the Space Shuttles!  The more you know.... 

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26029/batshit-iranian-regime-wants-their-people-to-think-they-invented-the-space-shuttle

LOL at their latest advance from the stone age:



Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #813 on: February 01, 2019, 06:14:38 PM »
Quote
Above all else, the billboard shows how warped the propagandists within the regime really are. There seems to be no technological claim that is too outlandish to present to the masses.

 


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #814 on: February 01, 2019, 06:20:01 PM »

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #815 on: February 01, 2019, 06:59:46 PM »
Quote from: Some Idiot Child
The billboard is running in conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution that saw the ousting of close American ally Mohammad Reza Shah

Quote
Known as Operation Ajax, the CIA plot was ultimately about oil. Western firms had for decades controlled the region’s oil wealth, whether Arabian-American Oil Company in Saudi Arabia, or the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Iran. When the U.S. firm in Saudi Arabia bowed to pressure in late 1950 and agreed to share oil revenues evenly with Riyadh, the British concession in Iran came under intense pressure to follow suit. But London adamantly refused.

So in early 1951, amid great popular acclaim, Mossadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry. A fuming United Kingdom began conspiring with U.S. intelligence services to overthrow Mossadegh and restore the monarchy under the shah. (Though some in the U.S. State Department, the newly released cables show, blamed British intransigence for the tensions and sought to work with Mossadegh.)

The coup attempt began on August 15 but was swiftly thwarted. Mossadegh made dozens of arrests. Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi, a top conspirator, went into hiding, and the shah fled the country.

The CIA, believing the coup to have failed, called it off.

“Operation has been tried and failed and we should not participate in any operation against Mossadegh which could be traced back to US,” CIA headquarters wrote to its station chief in Iran in a newly declassified cable sent on Aug. 18, 1953. “Operations against Mossadegh should be discontinued.”“Operations against Mossadegh should be discontinued.”

That is the cable which Kermit Roosevelt, top CIA officer in Iran, purportedly and famously ignored, according to Malcolm Byrne, who directs the U.S.-Iran Relations Project at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

At least “one guy was in the room with Kermit Roosevelt when he got this cable,” Byrne told Foreign Policy. “[Roosevelt] said no — we’re not done here.” It was already known that Roosevelt had not carried out an order from Langley to cease and desist. But the cable itself and its contents were not previously published.

The consequences of his decision were momentous. The next day, on August 19, 1953, with the aid of “rented” crowds widely believed to have been arranged with CIA assistance, the coup succeeded. Iran’s nationalist hero was jailed, the monarchy restored under the Western-friendly shah, and Anglo-Iranian oil — renamed British Petroleum — tried to get its fields back. (But didn’t really: Despite the coup, nationalist pushback against a return to foreign control of oil was too much, leaving BP and other majors to share Iran’s oil wealth with Tehran.)

Operation Ajax has long been a bogeyman for conservatives in Iran — but also for liberals. The coup fanned the flames of anti-Western sentiment, which reached a crescendo in 1979 with the U.S. hostage crisis, the final overthrow of the shah, and the creation of the Islamic Republic to counter the “Great Satan.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-iran-tehran-oil/


Quote
The ridiculous propaganda play makes you feel sorry for average Iranians who have to live with such childish hyperbole from a government in which they have very limited ability to reform through the democratic process.

Quote
makes you feel sorry

I know I feel something else.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #816 on: February 03, 2019, 11:45:14 AM »



Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #819 on: February 05, 2019, 08:24:09 PM »
grasp the nettle and move on Taiwan?


https://taskandpurpose.com/china-electromagnetic-railgun-deployment




Never stop an enemy in the process of deploying technology that is already obsolete.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #820 on: February 07, 2019, 07:23:47 PM »
Probably more suited to this thread than the gun one, so...


Early in the A-10 program, firing the GAU-8 expelled gun gases that would cause the aircraft's engines to flameout.  The video below shows the ejection of then Maj Rusty Gideon after one such incident.  I met Gideon years later when he was a GO in command of the USAF Safety Center.



So any idea what the gases/cause of the flameouts were? I recall that it's a problem on VTOLs (eg Harriers, Yak-38, JSFs) in hover mode where they can ingest their own hot exhaust gases and then cause the engines to cut out at low altitude.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a bit of a waste to eject from and crash what looked like a fairly high up and still gliding plane over flat terrain. That and ejections aren't exactly good for the health...


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #821 on: February 07, 2019, 08:12:13 PM »
Probably more suited to this thread than the gun one, so...

So any idea what the gases/cause of the flameouts were? I recall that it's a problem on VTOLs (eg Harriers, Yak-38, JSFs) in hover mode where they can ingest their own hot exhaust gases and then cause the engines to cut out at low altitude.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a bit of a waste to eject from and crash what looked like a fairly high up and still gliding plane over flat terrain. That and ejections aren't exactly good for the health...




Jets are air/oxygen breathers, the exhaust gases (no oxygen) and particulate matter (unburned gun power) flowed over the wings and suffocated the engines.  The terrain around Edwards is not particularly flat, and has lots of rocks.  The decision when to eject is made as a function of the envelope of the escape system.  A controlled, low speed ejection at at least a minimum enough altitude to allow sufficient time for all phases of the ejection to occur is preferable to a crash landing in rough/unknown terrain.  He had a wingman who was flying with him calling out altitude.  When he approached minimum safe ejection altitude without identifying a safe landing site, he was ordered to eject. 

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #822 on: February 08, 2019, 10:11:59 AM »


Jets are air/oxygen breathers, the exhaust gases (no oxygen) and particulate matter (unburned gun power) flowed over the wings and suffocated the engines.  The terrain around Edwards is not particularly flat, and has lots of rocks.  The decision when to eject is made as a function of the envelope of the escape system.  A controlled, low speed ejection at at least a minimum enough altitude to allow sufficient time for all phases of the ejection to occur is preferable to a crash landing in rough/unknown terrain.  He had a wingman who was flying with him calling out altitude.  When he approached minimum safe ejection altitude without identifying a safe landing site, he was ordered to eject.

Makes sense I guess, just mostly looked flat with some shrubs from the grainy video. I'd expect an A-10 to do alright with an emergency landing in a field considering a lot of the design was to allow for operations into poor quality strips.
Probably glides like a brick too.   ;D



An F35 being refueled by a CH-53 at Iejima (former WW2 base).

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #823 on: February 12, 2019, 12:04:35 PM »


Shutters going full afterburner. Incredible photography.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #824 on: February 12, 2019, 05:28:13 PM »

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #825 on: February 12, 2019, 06:45:19 PM »

HS at ~:58! Wow. Spittake on that. Amazing.

Non-science or plane guy here but aren't afterburners an inefficiency in the system? Or taking advantage of that inefficiency? Why in cars we don't like and have, pretty much, eliminated back-fires problems but still seen in modern jets, I guess on purpose for the power burst but seems like it would be better to get the energy used in the normal process? Idk though and just speculating. Seems inefficient and fuel-waster.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #826 on: February 12, 2019, 07:10:33 PM »
HS at ~:58! Wow. Spittake on that. Amazing.

Non-science or plane guy here but aren't afterburners an inefficiency in the system? Or taking advantage of that inefficiency? Why in cars we don't like and have, pretty much, eliminated back-fires problems but still seen in modern jets, I guess on purpose for the power burst but seems like it would be better to get the energy used in the normal process? Idk though and just speculating. Seems inefficient and fuel-waster.

Adds extra thrust while minimally adding to weight - ie you're not needing the weight of another engine for increased thrust.

Militaries are less concerned with fuel efficiency when compared to the civil world, so to them the trade off is worth it I guess. On the other hand, Concorde used them on takeoff so they could get to more drag (and therefore fuel) efficient speeds and altitudes.


Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #827 on: February 12, 2019, 07:34:24 PM »
Adds extra thrust while minimally adding to weight - ie you're not needing the weight of another engine for increased thrust.

Militaries are less concerned with fuel efficiency when compared to the civil world, so to them the trade off is worth it I guess. On the other hand, Concorde used them on takeoff so they could get to more drag (and therefore fuel) efficient speeds and altitudes.


Thanks. Yes, I get that in war efficiency is not the key goal, at least tactically. I recall something about Blackbird tanks would "leak" but then, somewhat, would "seal up," to use a technical phrase  ;) , at speed and altitude?

I wish I would've flown on her. It seems we are retrograde, devolving, in some aspects of our society and tech. I want either super-sonic planes like the Concorde back or, at least, cocktail lounges upstairs and/or friendly stewardesses in appropriate dress and manners. For some damn reason the various Asian airlines (both Muslim and Oriental) are the only ones who realized this reality is a good thing for customers these days.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #828 on: February 12, 2019, 07:58:45 PM »
Thanks. Yes, I get that in war efficiency is not the key goal, at least tactically. I recall something about Blackbird tanks would "leak" but then, somewhat, would "seal up," to use a technical phrase  ;) , at speed and altitude?

Yes, the SR-71 was designed to leak fuel on the ground (to do with the cold fuel and temperature differences if I remember rightly) and seal up when at higher altitudes and speeds. They also had to inflight refuel reasonably soon after takeoff because fuel vapours in the tank limited their top speed.
There's a book written by an ex Blackbird pilot called "Sled Driver: Flying the World's Fastest Jet" which covers a lot of these things. While trying to remember the name I came across this article:

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/that-time-an-sr-71-made-an-emergency-landing-in-norway-1765436508

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #829 on: February 12, 2019, 08:35:50 PM »
Adds extra thrust while minimally adding to weight - ie you're not needing the weight of another engine for increased thrust.

Militaries are less concerned with fuel efficiency when compared to the civil world, so to them the trade off is worth it I guess. On the other hand, Concorde used them on takeoff so they could get to more drag (and therefore fuel) efficient speeds and altitudes.



Using afterburners uses fuel at a very high rate, they are not used that often.  The fact the F22 has a "super cruise" capability, the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound without afterburners, gives it a decided advantage against earlier generation jets.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #830 on: February 12, 2019, 08:40:48 PM »
Yes, the SR-71 was designed to leak fuel on the ground (to do with the cold fuel and temperature differences if I remember rightly) and seal up when at higher altitudes and speeds. They also had to inflight refuel reasonably soon after takeoff because fuel vapours in the tank limited their top speed.
There's a book written by an ex Blackbird pilot called "Sled Driver: Flying the World's Fastest Jet" which covers a lot of these things. While trying to remember the name I came across this article:

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/that-time-an-sr-71-made-an-emergency-landing-in-norway-1765436508
Great article and interesting situation. Thanks. Norway is funny how we do stuff. Now, non-NATO Swedish (though PIP haha) and submarine incidents are even better!

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #831 on: February 12, 2019, 08:47:03 PM »
Using afterburners uses fuel at a very high rate, they are not used that often.  The fact the F22 has a "super cruise" capability, the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound without afterburners, gives it a decided advantage against earlier generation jets.
Is it designed or not? I guess is that my non-tech person question? Was the afterburner a trick realized after or designed for it? Because why would you want excess fuel not expired in the system, that would assume some efficient process in power production.  I'm a blockhead but back-fires were a "problem" in vehicles so why good for jets?

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #832 on: February 12, 2019, 09:48:58 PM »
Is it designed or not? I guess is that my non-tech person question? Was the afterburner a trick realized after or designed for it? Because why would you want excess fuel not expired in the system, that would assume some efficient process in power production.  I'm a blockhead but back-fires were a "problem" in vehicles so why good for jets?

I've heard claims the afterburner was invented by both the Germans and the Brits, not sure which is correct.  I don't know the actual development history of the technology, but have to believe it was designed.  The concept isn't that complicated, it's just dumping raw fuel into excess air coming out of the engine and igniting it in a lengthened tailpipe.  It's like a blowtorch and increases thrust.  The use of afterburner operationally is for circumstances where the relatively short burst of speed is deemed more important than fuel economy, such as lifting a heavy load or trying to overtake a target.  Besides, with the advent of reliable aerial refueling, the penalty paid for afterburner use was somewhat mitigated.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #833 on: February 13, 2019, 01:39:20 PM »
https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Indictment-Monica-Witt.pdf 

"A former Air Force counterintelligence agent has been indicted by a grand jury on espionage charges after she defected to Iran to work on behalf of its intelligence services, Department of Justice officials announced Wednesday"   

https://news.yahoo.com/former-air-force-intel-agent-163951541.html

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #834 on: February 13, 2019, 06:42:12 PM »
https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Indictment-Monica-Witt.pdf 

"A former Air Force counterintelligence agent has been indicted by a grand jury on espionage charges after she defected to Iran to work on behalf of its intelligence services, Department of Justice officials announced Wednesday"   

https://news.yahoo.com/former-air-force-intel-agent-163951541.html

Wow! I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s some sort of neocon plant to ensure that Project For A New American Century continues in Iran. Ayatollah you so.  ;)

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #835 on: February 14, 2019, 12:42:02 PM »
Airbus scraps A380 superjumbo jet as sales slump

Quote
European aircraft manufacturer Airbus has pulled the plug on its struggling A380 superjumbo, which entered service just 12 years ago.

Airbus said last deliveries of the world's largest passenger aircraft, which cost about $25bn (£19.4bn) to develop, would be made in 2021.

The decision comes after Emirates, the largest A380 customer, cut its order.

The A380 faced fierce competition from smaller, more efficient aircraft and has never made a profit

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504

The writing has been on the wall for the A380 for a long time. Five things this article doesn't really mention:
-Qantas cancelled a number of orders in recent weeks
-Four engined aircraft are fuel hungry and not needed with modern engine technology and certification
-Airlines are moving towards connecting smaller cities (sometimes at large distances) directly which is more popular with travelers, but also doesn't require as many passengers to fill up a plane and be profitable.
-Older A380s are starting to be 'retired' by their operators, meaning that companies could buy second hand A380s (but to my knowledge no one wants to buy them)
-I might be misremembering this, but freighter versions or conversions aren't likely due to the aircraft's design, shape, and profitability potential.





Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #836 on: February 14, 2019, 04:34:04 PM »
Airbus scraps A380 superjumbo jet as sales slump

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47231504

The writing has been on the wall for the A380 for a long time. Five things this article doesn't really mention:
-Qantas cancelled a number of orders in recent weeks
-Four engined aircraft are fuel hungry and not needed with modern engine technology and certification
-Airlines are moving towards connecting smaller cities (sometimes at large distances) directly which is more popular with travelers, but also doesn't require as many passengers to fill up a plane and be profitable.
-Older A380s are starting to be 'retired' by their operators, meaning that companies could buy second hand A380s (but to my knowledge no one wants to buy them)
-I might be misremembering this, but freighter versions or conversions aren't likely due to the aircraft's design, shape, and profitability potential.





Even if they never produce another one, they're still stuck with supporting this beast. Sustainment engineering requirements/costs don't decrease with decreased numbers of operational aircraft.  Few a/c does mean less "warehousing" of spares, but the processes and associated costs to forecast and logistically support even a small fleet are constant.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #837 on: February 14, 2019, 04:50:19 PM »
Wow.  I guess Airbus was too bust trying to think how the could, they didn't stop to think if the should. 

I have felt that pain!

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #838 on: February 14, 2019, 05:10:06 PM »
Wow.  I guess Airbus was too bust trying to think how the could, they didn't stop to think if the should. 

I have felt that pain!

*lol*  That why you don't want engineers making business decisions. Bean counters have a place.

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.
« Reply #839 on: February 14, 2019, 09:28:47 PM »
Wow.  I guess Airbus was too bust trying to think how the could, they didn't stop to think if the should. 
I think they misjudged which way the industry was trending - ie they expected the hub and spoke model to continue to dominate, and that airlines would resort to larger aircraft to carry more passengers into already badly congested airports like Sydney or Heathrow. Increased fuel prices and changes to regulation/certification also killed off airliners using more than two engines.

McDonnell Douglas actually had a similar design to the A380 before they were bought by Boeing, so it's not like they were alone. The 747-8 has struggled too for similar reasons, but that development was relatively inexpensive and the design is mainly being used for freighters.




Even if they never produce another one, they're still stuck with supporting this beast. Sustainment engineering requirements/costs don't decrease with decreased numbers of operational aircraft.  Few a/c does mean less "warehousing" of spares, but the processes and associated costs to forecast and logistically support even a small fleet are constant.

Once production ends there'll have been 251 built total. While looking that up, I came across a bit saying that they were actually losing money on each aircraft built so to me it sounds like they approached Emirates to drop/convert their orders to something else:

Quote
In February 2019, Airbus announced the end of A380 production in 2021, after its main customer, Emirates, agreed to drop an order for 39 of the planes. Airbus will build 17 more A380s until the production line closes; 14 for Emirates and three for All Nippon Airways, taking the total number of expected deliveries of the aircraft type to 251. Airbus would have needed more than $90 million from the price of each aircraft to cover the estimated ~$25 billion development cost of the programme. But the $445 million price tag of each aircraft was not sufficient to even cover the production cost, so with Airbus losing money on each A380 and orders evaporating, it made economic sense to shut down production. Enders stated on Feb 14, 2019, "If you have a product that nobody wants anymore, or you can sell only below production cost, you have to stop it."

Personally I don't particularly like the A380 as a passenger - other widebodies like the 777 are just as comfortable and quiet (if not more so), while stuff often touted about the A380 (eg showers) are a gimmick. And I say this after having spent all day yesterday in two of them.