Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.

Started by Taaroa, June 04, 2017, 09:15:23 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hog

From pulling the handle, to being under canopy/parachute, to on the ground in 4 seconds.

crash video from 2010. You don't get much better quality video of ejections.  High alpha pass, loses the starboard/right engine(engine would not rise above idle even with max thrust/burner selected), resulting in departure from controlled flight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HDIxzSMp-0#t=152.8580407

I was surprised at the yaw rate esp. with a jet like the Hornet where its  thrust vectors from each of its engines is relatively close(in other words its engine nozzles located close together).  I can only imagine the resulting yaw rate in a jet like the F-14 Tomcat with its engines so much father apart.  Then the next step further like the crazy yaw rates that would happen during a single engine out on birds like the SR-71.

Pilot interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anz4bBsZ2WM

The physics involved in ejections is amazing. I remember seeing an US Air Force training video that dealt with the issue of aircrews not initiating the ejection process soon enough. The one pilot talked about making the decision at 10,000ft and due to his high sink rate, if he had waited another 1/2 a second his or his backseater would have hit the ground before getting under his chute.  IIRC it was an F-15 of an F-4.

peace
Hog

Hog

When people refer to the "cans" of a fighter jet, are they talking about the engines "Variable Area Nozzle" or the aft part of the engine/afterburner/nozzle?

Pictured here on a F/A-18.  Are these the "cans" of the jet?


TIA

peace
Hog


Uncle Duke

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/deadliest-night-fighter-korea-180951418/

Another largely forgotten early jet that, despite limitations, held the line until more capable aircraft arrived.  I got to tour one of the last flying Skyknights, a contractor flown US Army test support (White Sands) aircraft based at Holloman AFB in the late 80s. It was a big airplane, with huge electronics bays.  The amount of instrumentation installed in the a/c was very impressive.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on October 24, 2017, 08:50:13 PM
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/deadliest-night-fighter-korea-180951418/

Another largely forgotten early jet that, despite limitations, held the line until more capable aircraft arrived.  I got to tour one of the last flying Skyknights, a contractor flown US Army test support (White Sands) aircraft based at Holloman AFB in the late 80s. It was a big airplane, with huge electronics bays.  The amount of instrumentation installed in the a/c was very impressive.

Great article Duke.  I never even knew this aircraft existed!

Taaroa

This large investment by Airbus in the Bombardier C-Series is a stroke of genius for the company, with few downsides for them.
Airbus gets a new aircraft type for a niche they didn't have a product for which has already been fully developed and certified while sending a big "fuck you" to Boeing, and Bombardier get Airbus' marketing/sales expertise and potentially a way to get around the tariffs that Boeing got the US govt to impose on the aircraft.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-10-17/airbus-sends-a-thank-you-card-to-donald-trump-and-boeing




Meanwhile, at Boeing:
https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/920090106521903104

Hog

^^^^^

Also on the Canada/USA trade front,  this Boeing Defence/Bombardier dispute is barring a new fleet of F/A-18s to be sold to us. Boeing Defence has launched a complaint against Bombardier.

"In April, Boeing asked US officials to slap tariffs on Bombardier, accusing the Canadian company of dumping its C Series passenger jets on the US market at "absurdly low prices."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/politics/us-fighter-jet-sale-canada/index.html

We've got over US$5billion to spend for over 80 aircraft.  McDonnell-Douglas is re-suggesting their F-35 as an "interim" solution for Canada.  Though I really don't think we'll get involved in that debacle.
We were looking at Kuwaiti F-18 E/F Superhornets as they have this deal. "It seems there is closed order for 28 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Kuwait, with an option of up to 16 more"  But IIRC the Kuwait/Canada F-18 deal is for Kuwaits old F-18C models. But apparently Kuwait wont be selling the old C models fast enough for Canadas needs.

Back in the late 70's, early 80's we bought 138 C/F-18s, 90 CF-18-A models, single seat models and 40 CF-18-B models, 2 seat models. As of 2008 the RCAF had 72-A models and 31-B models remaining in inventory, and as of Sept 18, 2017 only 76 combined in operational use.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/cf-18-replacement.page

Boeing was awarded a CAN$2.6 billion contract to upgrade 40 CF-18 jets with the first jet modernized delivered to the CF(Canadian Forced) on April 2, 2007 and the last modernized het was delivered March 2010.
A 425 Squadron CF-18A Hornet after undergoing IMP Phase II, distinguishable because of the IFF antenna on its nose.




We are looking to buy excess used  Australian F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets.

We are looking for 18  "interim" Superhornets which will fly alongside the current CF-18's

peace
Hog


Taaroa

Quote from: Uncle Duke on October 11, 2017, 11:31:30 AM
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/187470/airbus-corruption-scandal-may-lead-straight-to-the-top.html

I spent an evening with a group of UK aerospace contractors/subcontractors/suppliers in a pub listening to their amusing stories of palm greasing "wogs".  The discussion started when I declined to allow them to buy my drinks due to DoD regulations against such things.  Their stories were nothing on the scale as discussed in the article, but much smaller potatoes meeting the "expectations" of (primarily) Middle Eastern and Asian types visiting them in the UK.  The standard stuff you'd expect, wine, women and song for the most part, but some of the visitors had very unique requirements.  The funniest was a senior military officer from an unnamed Middle Eastern nation who wanted to drive a classic Aston Martin.  They made it happen, but the VIP was very disappointed the car lacked all the high tech gizmos and systems on James Bonds' car.

Taiwan just fined Dassault, Thales, and Safran for $267mil over bribery too.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/10/27/2003681137


albrecht

Quote from: Taaroa on October 26, 2017, 08:41:32 PM
Taiwan just fined Dassault, Thales, and Safran for $267mil over bribery too.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/10/27/2003681137
Nice. Price of doing business?
and that article linked me to find this man's unfortunate drunken tattoo decision:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2017/10/23/2003680896

albrecht

Quote from: Walks_At_Night on October 26, 2017, 08:48:36 PM
I wonder if the proposed Dam Busters remake will ever happen?
Why? An almost perfect movie already.  Hollywood is only about remakes and they, usually, are worse than the originals. Then again, I guess it would be nice for kids to see the events. And with a good director, real planes (and not CGI crap,) it could work. Obviously, the dog will be renamed for the audience's sensitivities.

chefist

Love this thread...hey, my favorite passenger was the "Connie"...go to 22:00...it can go in reverse! (blade manipulation)

https://youtu.be/WA5euQD0Nx4

Quote from: albrecht on October 26, 2017, 08:58:29 PM
Why? An almost perfect movie already.  Hollywood is only about remakes and they, usually, are worse than the originals. Then again, I guess it would be nice for kids to see the events. And with a good director, real planes (and not CGI crap,) it could work. Obviously, the dog will be renamed for the audience's sensitivities.

Totally agree - the original was a very fine film.  A long time ago I read some stuff about the proposed remake and it sounded like it had some positive aspects - Peter Jackson was going to make it with real Lancaster mockups and I think Hugh Laurie was being considered for Barnes Wallis.  Yes - there was lots of bitching about the dog.    Then poof - it is like the whole project just disappeared.  Probably for the best.  Really the only films that I can think of that I would to see remade are The Fountainhead and Starship Troopers
 

Taaroa

Quote from: albrecht on October 26, 2017, 08:55:28 PM
Nice. Price of doing business?

Certainly seems that way with aviation, with bribery and government 'assistance' par for the course. If you haven't already then you should read the article that Uncle Duke posted earlier about the trouble Airbus is in: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/airbus-corruption-scandal-threatens-ceo-tom-enders-a-1171533.html

Quote from: chefist on October 26, 2017, 08:59:48 PM
it can go in reverse! (blade manipulation)

Didn't know that such an old prop plane did that. It's how modern turboprops do reverse thrust too - they change the pitch/angle of the blades so that they're effectively pushing air forwards instead of backwards while the engine itself keeps on keeping on in the same direction it always runs.



(I apologise if you already know all this, but someone else reading the thread mightn't)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dgNyavFQ-I



Yorkshire pud

Quote from: albrecht on October 26, 2017, 08:58:29 PM
Why? An almost perfect movie already.  Hollywood is only about remakes and they, usually, are worse than the originals. Then again, I guess it would be nice for kids to see the events. And with a good director, real planes (and not CGI crap,) it could work. Obviously, the dog will be renamed for the audience's sensitivities.

Good film as a film, but almost nothing in it is factual. Other than the squadron was based at RAF Scampton, the Lancasters and the training at the Derwent dams. The reason was simple; The operation was still covered under the official secrets act when the film was made. Google the couple of documentaries that have been made, the reality is far more excting than the film, and all the more incredible they did what they did, although the actual damage on German industry was neglegible.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: chefist on October 26, 2017, 08:59:48 PM
Love this thread...hey, my favorite passenger was the "Connie"...go to 22:00...it can go in reverse! (blade manipulation)

https://youtu.be/WA5euQD0Nx4

If you find yourself in Sacramento, go to the aerospace museum at McClellan. There's a E121 in the airpark. The Connie based AEW surveilance aircraft that used to patrol the Pacific in the cold war. You can go inside it and have a couple of the old boys regale you about how it works and flying in it for twelve hour shifts...


Taaroa

Russia is apparently developing a new Ekranoplan (a type of vehicle that uses ground effect to fly), but one which can land on ground as well as water unlike previous attempts.

QuoteThe project is given the code-name Rescuer and will be handled by Alekseyev Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau, which in the past produce ground effect vehicles such as Lun and Orlenok.
The vehicle is expected to weigh 600 tons with a length of 93 meters and wing span of 71 meters. It will be able to operate on land as well. Top speed is 550 km/h.
Scaled models have completed wind tunnel testing and the timeline to complete the project is 2025.

https://iz.ru/659793/sergei-valchenko-nikolai-surkov-aleksei-ramm/rossiia-postroit-arkticheskogo-monstra


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo


Taaroa

Quote from: Rix Gins on October 29, 2017, 12:43:24 AM
Really, a bird/birds caused this damage?  Looks more like a cannonball hit the plane. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-29/nba-oklahoma-thunder-stunned-by-major-plane-damage/9097020

I may be remembering things wrong, but an airliner nose cone is made of lighter and weaker materials (eg fibreglass) to allow weather radar beams to pass through with less interference. You have to remember also that the plane is traveling very fast at that height - say for argument it's doing mach 0.8, at 30000ft with standard temperatures it'd be doing the equivalent of 541mph - and even a goose will cause a lot of damage.

This pic is from hail damage:

Rix Gins

Quote from: Taaroa on October 29, 2017, 02:54:09 AM
I may be remembering things wrong, but an airliner nose cone is made of lighter and weaker materials (eg fibreglass) to allow weather radar beams to pass through with less interference. You have to remember also that the plane is traveling very fast at that height - say for argument it's doing mach 0.8, at 30000ft with standard temperatures it'd be doing the equivalent of 541mph - and even a goose will cause a lot of damage.

This pic is from hail damage:


Yeah I see what you mean.  Same kind of round dent on the nose.  Thanks Taaroa.

Uncle Duke

Quote from: Rix Gins on October 29, 2017, 12:43:24 AM
Really, a bird/birds caused this damage?  Looks more like a cannonball hit the plane. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-29/nba-oklahoma-thunder-stunned-by-major-plane-damage/9097020

The key to birdstrike damage is the airspeed of the aircraft at the time of impact.  If you remember your basic physics, the velocity term is squared when determining kinetic energy, so even a small bird can pack a lot of punch in a collision with an a/c at high speed.  The first B-1 we lost was as a result of a strike by a pelican, basically punched a hole in the aircraft and took out key systems.  We lost three good men in that mishap.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/01/21/air-force-blames-pelican-in-fatal-crash-of-b1b/62d03249-691c-44ec-95d6-a7200d2f1159/?utm_term=.51071d623396

Birds are also particularly dangerous when they get ingested into jet engines.  They can take out turbine blades that take out more turbine blades and things go to shit very quickly.  That's what happened when Capt Sullenberger had to put his airliner into the Hudson River.


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Uncle Duke on October 29, 2017, 08:50:54 AM
The key to birdstrike damage is the airspeed of the aircraft at the time of impact.  If you remember your basic physics, the velocity term is squared when determining kinetic energy, so even a small bird can pack a lot of punch in a collision with an a/c at high speed.  The first B-1 we lost was as a result of a strike by a pelican, basically punched a hole in the aircraft and took out key systems.  We lost three good men in that mishap.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/01/21/air-force-blames-pelican-in-fatal-crash-of-b1b/62d03249-691c-44ec-95d6-a7200d2f1159/?utm_term=.51071d623396

Birds are also particularly dangerous when they get ingested into jet engines.  They can take out turbine blades that take out more turbine blades and things go to shit very quickly.  That's what happened when Capt Sullenberger had to put his airliner into the Hudson River.

That was some very fine flying that the gentleman did. Engine failure/ restart procedures were updated as a result. 

Taaroa

Quote from: Uncle Duke on October 29, 2017, 08:50:54 AM
Birds are also particularly dangerous when they get ingested into jet engines.  They can take out turbine blades that take out more turbine blades and things go to shit very quickly. 

It's one of the reasons why airliner engines have the marks (swirl etc) on their spinners - when they rotate at engine speeds they flicker in some kind of way that is meant to scare away birds.

https://youtu.be/_Xb4c_KqLco

Bird strikes at high level like in what Rix Gins was posting about aren't common due to the altitude, so they're normally during takeoff or landing like in this one from the other week:

QuoteA Virgin Australia Boeing 737-800 performing flight from Melbourne,VI to Brisbane,QL (Australia), was climbing out of Melbourne's runway 27 when the crew declared PAN reporting excessive left hand engine vibrations and decided to return to Melbourne. The aircraft levelled off at 5000 feet. The crew advised an eagle carrying a rabbit had just impacted their #1 engine, positioned the aircraft for an approach to runway 16. The aircraft landed safely 17 minutes after departure.

https://avherald.com/h?article=4aff3476&opt=0


Uncle Duke

Quote from: Taaroa on October 29, 2017, 11:26:20 AM
It's one of the reasons why airliner engines have the marks (swirl etc) on their spinners - when they rotate at engine speeds they flicker in some kind of way that is meant to scare away birds.

https://youtu.be/_Xb4c_KqLco


I never knew that, I always thought it was just to look cool. It would be interesting to see effectivity data on the spinner markings, seems like the aviation equivalent of automobile mounted deer whistles.  I remember a bird strike on a commercial airliner above 35K ft, maybe 20-25 years ago, involving a large soaring bird like a condor.  It was either in South America or Africa as I recall.

I know of at least two "boar strikes" on take off involving F-16s over the years.  One involved a USAF a/c, I think in South Carolina or Arkansas.  Don't recall there being any injuries (except to the boar), with limited damage to the Viper. The second incident occurred in Pakistan and was said to have destroyed the a/c, no mention of the fate of the pilot(s).  The Pakis, as well as the Israelis and a few other nations, did not release information on aircraft lost in mishaps even to the USAF Safety Center.  We eventually heard about them, but seldom got any details through official channels.  The Israelis were particularly annoying, they expected us to provide mishap data and technical support at the drop of a hat, but getting anything from them was like pulling teeth.

Quote from: Uncle Duke on October 29, 2017, 05:23:05 PM
I never knew that, I always thought it was just to look cool. It would be interesting to see effectivity data on the spinner markings, seems like the aviation equivalent of automobile mounted deer whistles.  I remember a bird strike on a commercial airliner above 35K ft, maybe 20-25 years ago, involving a large soaring bird like a condor.  It was either in South America or Africa as I recall.

I know of at least two "boar strikes" on take off involving F-16s over the years.  One involved a USAF a/c, I think in South Carolina or Arkansas.  Don't recall there being any injuries (except to the boar), with limited damage to the Viper. The second incident occurred in Pakistan and was said to have destroyed the a/c, no mention of the fate of the pilot(s).  The Pakis, as well as the Israelis and a few other nations, did not release information on aircraft lost in mishaps even to the USAF Safety Center.  We eventually heard about them, but seldom got any details through official channels.  The Israelis were particularly annoying, they expected us to provide mishap data and technical support at the drop of a hat, but getting anything from them was like pulling teeth.

The spiral spinner looks cool enough on an FW-190 - at least as long as the bastard isn't coming after you..............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl7SlZoPP_I

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod