1110 replies to this topic

[Nied]

You know if Airbus/EADS wanted to really compete in the newest KC-X round, they could pick the PW2000 for the A320 re-engine project, slap the MRTT's boom on an A321 and have their very own version of a KC-757 (which IMHO is what Boeing should have offered all those years ago when the USAF first approached them about a KC-135 replacement and the 757 was still in production).

[David Hingtgen]

A321 sucks, period. Wing is too small and even Airbus knows it. It sold poorly because it is nowhere near as good as the 757. No range, no climb rate, no internal fuel capacity. Similar pax capacity, far lower capability. Simple fuselage/wing size mismatch.

You'd have one heck of a short-range, no-loiter tanker if you made a KC-321.

[505thAirborne]

Since this thread is about Aircraft, just thought I would throw out that I saw two B-2 Stealth Bombers fly over my house yesterday on return to Whiteman Air Force Base. way to awesome a sight, sadly I couldn't get my camera quick enough!!

Also not sure if this is old or new, just saw on MSNBC they were showing an F-18 Super Hornet (aka the Green Hornet) that can run on a 50/50 mix of Bio-fuels & JP5.

[Nied]

I had thought the A321's problem was more a lack of power than wing area, which is why I was advocating flat out stealing the 757's engines (that and the commonality with the C-17). I would recommend Boeing do the same thing with the 737-900 but it barely has enough clearance for CFM56s let alone the bigger P&Ws. Really this was a thought experiment on how to get what IMHO would be the ideal KC-X proposal which is a KC-757.

Final thought: Imagine the type of performance you'd get from a PW2000 powered A318!

[Zentrandude]

Since this thread is about Aircraft, just thought I would throw out that I saw two B-2 Stealth Bombers fly over my house yesterday on return to Whiteman Air Force Base. way to awesome a sight, sadly I couldn't get my camera quick enough!!

Also not sure if this is old or new, just saw on MSNBC they were showing an F-18 Super Hornet (aka the Green Hornet) that can run on a 50/50 mix of Bio-fuels & JP5.

Not sure why its like a shock about jet engines running biofuel unless its hard to atomize, JP5 itself is hard to burn.

[David Hingtgen]

Jet engines can run on most anything---rubbing alcohol, diesel, gasoline. It's just not the best thing to use. I am totally unimpressed when Richard Branson boasts about how he got one engine on one of his 747's to use 10% algae-oil or whatever.

Anyways---A321 doesn't have enough wing, plain and simple. If it was a thrust issue, that could have been easily corrected, and the later variants with more power would have performed better than they do.

[the white drew carey]

Jet engines can run on most anything---rubbing alcohol, diesel, gasoline. It's just not the best thing to use. I am totally unimpressed when Richard Branson boasts about how he got one engine on one of his 747's to use 10% algae-oil or whatever.

Can they run on love?

Edited by the white drew carey, 01 April 2010 - 12:24 PM.

[Ghost Train]

Any type of gasoline, fuel or whatever starts off as a random mush of 3 to 8 carbon-length hydrocarbons you pull from the ground, some are in a linear alkane form and other are cyclical hydrocarbons. Some example of crude pulled from the ground can range from:

CH3-CH2-CH2-CH3
CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3
etc.

(Can't draw the cyclical one on a board post )

There are also some really neat branching alkanes. Anyways, fuel needs to be refined to get a more cohesive product particularly because of the diversity of stuff you can pull from the ground.

The reason alcohol works just as well, is because they share a somewhat similar structure as plain alkanes, with the only difference being the presence of the a hydroxyl group:

CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-OH (Penthanol)
CH3-OH (Methanol)
and the most important chemical compound of all:
CH3-CH2-OH, Ethanol / Booze / Magic Water etc.

The main source of "energy" are those C-H and C-C bonds which pack tons of energy.




KNOWING IS 1/2 the BATTLE... GIJOOOOE!

[David Hingtgen]

Don't know how long it's been up, but the USAF has their demo listing for the first part of the season up: http://www.acc.af.mi...eamschedule.asp

::edit:: Here's the Navy: http://www.navy.mil/...acdemo2010.html

Marines: http://www.marines.m...s/Aviation.aspx

[Nied]

Don't know how long it's been up, but the USAF has their demo listing for the first part of the season up: http://www.acc.af.mi...eamschedule.asp

::edit:: Here's the Navy: http://www.navy.mil/...acdemo2010.html

Marines: http://www.marines.m...s/Aviation.aspx

As usual I'm planning on combining a trip to my parent's house with the Andrews open house, but man does it look like it's going to be pretty lame this year. Only a F-22, Super Hornet (VFA-122 again too) and the Blue angels. Most years you could have looked forward to at least an A-10 or Harrier added to that and it wasn't that long ago that you could expect an F-16 and F-15 on top of both of those. Although from other shows I've been too I really think I got spoiled growing up outside of DC ("only a F-22? Lame!").

[David Hingtgen]

Sad to see there's no F-15C demos at all any more.

Just tossing this out there just in case:
If anyone's built the Academy 1/32 F-16, and didn't use the TERs, I could really use them. (the F-16 has a unique TER, and there's very few ways to get one in 1/32)

[Nied]

Sad to see there's no F-15C demos at all any more.

Yeah but the F-15E demo is nearly identical except for a few simulated bombing and strafing runs (often with pyro!) so you get much of the same effect. I'm really disappointed that I haven't seen more of the QF-4E/Gs painted up in various old paint schemes. I know they were flying them everywhere for a while, except every airshow I happened to be at it seems. The one I did see one year at Andrews was really cool though. It's a damn shame they'll be used up soon.

[Beltane70]

The closest shows to me that I saw on those pages are all in Atlantic City. I don't want to go to AC to see planes!

[Coota0]

I'm heading down to Eglin's next week. Looking forward to the F-22 and V-22 (especially the static) it will be my first time to see both.

[David Hingtgen]

If you want to know about the various F-16C blocks, here's a really good guide:
http://zone-five.net...hread.php?t=231

And that's not a complete list of variations, the Block 30 section could be twice as long (speaking from experience researching the IA ANG here)

[HoveringCheesecake]

Anyone have a good source for bomb graffiti or art from World War 2? The CAF wants to paint the bombs in Sentimental Journey with some authentic slogans, but so far I've only found 9 pictures and some of them aren't applicable to the B-17 in question.

[David Hingtgen]

Based on what I've seen for Desert Storm, be sure to include lots of misspellings.

[Nied]

Nice article on what it's like to fly the Blackbird. A lot of it is stories that have been told before but it's still a decent read.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Nice article on what it's like to fly the Blackbird. A lot of it is stories that have been told before but it's still a decent read.

Hmmm, "The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our Mach 3.2 limit.". Thats 2250mph. Isn't that about Mach 3.2?

[Bri]

Hmmm, "The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our Mach 3.2 limit.". Thats 2250mph. Isn't that about Mach 3.2?

Depends on the altitude, the Mach number doesn't represent a constant speed.

[Zor Primus]

Heard that the B787 found a problem with the position of their engines, to far out on the wing or something along those lines. Considering the delivery date for some orders this is a big deal.

[Nied]

Heard that the B787 found a problem with the position of their engines, to far out on the wing or something along those lines. Considering the delivery date for some orders this is a big deal.

Where'd you hear that? I haven't seen anything in any of the trade publications.

[Ghost Train]

1 mile every 1.6 seconds is equivalent 1,609 m every 1.6 seconds. Mach speed is just the ratio of the object's velocity to the speed of sound at the present conditions. The speed of sound near sea level is about 340 m/s. So the mach speed based on that is 2.96.

(1609 m/s) / 1.6 sec = 1005.63 m/s
Mach ratio = 1005.63 / 340 = 2.96

But as Bri pointed out, Mach is indeed a relative amount, as the speed of sound is not constant across the atmosphere. It is affected by both temperature and air density which varies substantially. At an altitude of about 24,000m, the speed of sound is about 300 m/s, which gets you to Mach 3.35, so rounded up yes... 3.4.

So depending on where you are Mach values can vary dramatically.

[Uxi]

They start prodution on the F-22C or F-23A yet? No? :backs out of thread:

[F-ZeroOne]

Apparently the RAF flew a Tornado GR4 strike mission over Afghanistan recently with a British pilot in front and a German - Luftwaffe - navigator in back. You can probably supply the in-cockpit banter...

[Zor Primus]

Where'd you hear that? I haven't seen anything in any of the trade publications.

Co-worker mentioned it when he saw I have a model of one on my desk...haven't been able to find anything concrete either. Probably heresy.

[David Hingtgen]

I hang out at airliner forums more than anywhere else, and haven't heard a thing.

And frankly---Boeing invented the concept of hanging jet engines off the wings. I doubt they'd have a problem with the basic positioning of engines on the wings of ANY plane since they've been calculating out the requirements for 60 years. (Airbus had some issues with the A340, as it was their first 4-engined plane but even then it was only mild aerodynamic issues, not structural)

[Bri]

Apparently the RAF flew a Tornado GR4 strike mission over Afghanistan recently with a British pilot in front and a German - Luftwaffe - navigator in back. You can probably supply the in-cockpit banter...

I'm sure they have a lot to talk about


Callsign "Tom and Jerry 1" by any chance?

[the white drew carey]

Co-worker mentioned it when he saw I have a model of one on my desk...haven't been able to find anything concrete either. Probably heresy.

Heresy!?!

[David Hingtgen]

Bringing up anything negative with the 787 *is* heresy on some forums...

[Knight26]

ITs either heresay or the model on your desk is based off an old design so the engines are out of place.

[the white drew carey]

CV-22 Osprey down in Afghanistan. The cause is being investigated, but several militant groups are claiming they shot it down.

Incredibly uninformative news blurb.

[F-ZeroOne]

I'm sure they have a lot to talk about


Callsign "Tom and Jerry 1" by any chance?

"Why is there a gauge marked "tea" level on this panel, Herr Tom...?"

Edited by F-ZeroOne, 10 April 2010 - 10:44 AM.

[Nied]

Boing!

[Cruel Angel's Thesis]

This is from the Dreamland Resort. A fellow by the name of Scot Tway posted a E-mail from his brother about the SR-71, figured everyone here would love it. We learn how slow the Blackbird can go. Since there is a constant break of every few words, i have word wrapped it and reset it so its not doing that. there was a minor spelling thing i also fixed. Enjoy

From my Brother, USAF Ret. (F4, A10 etc.)

Brian was my Instructor Pilot in my upgrade into the A-10 in 1978.

> Subject: "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?"
> To:
> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009, 1:15 PM
> As a former SR-71 pilot, and a
> professional keynote speaker...
> Brian Shul, Retired SR-71
> Pilot via Plane and Pilot Magazine | Brian Shul, Retired SR-71 Pilot
>
As a former SR-71 pilot, and a professional keynote speaker, the question I'm most often asked is "How fast would that SR-71 fly?" I can be assured of hearing that question several times at any event I attend. It's an interesting question, given the aircraft's proclivity for speed, but there really isn't one number to give, as the jet would always give you a little more speed if you wanted it to. It was common to see 35 miles a minute. Because we flew a programmed Mach number on most missions, and never wanted to harm the plane in any way, we never let it run out to any limits of temperature or speed. Thus, each SR-71 pilot had his own individual "high" speed that he saw at some point on some mission. I saw mine over Libya when Khadafy fired two missiles my way, and max power was in order. Let's just say that the plane truly loved speed and effortlessly took us to Mach numbers we hadn't previously seen. So it was with great surprise, when at the end of one of my presentations, someone asked, "what was the slowest you ever flew the Blackbird?" This was a first. After giving it some thought, I was reminded of a story that I had never shared before, and relayed the following.
I was flying the SR-71 out of RAF Mildenhall, England, with my back-seater, Walt Watson; we were returning from a mission over Europe and the Iron Curtain when we received a radio transmission from home base. As we scooted across Denmark in three minutes, we learned that a small RAF base in the English countryside had requested an SR-71 fly-past. The air cadet commander there was a former Blackbird pilot, and thought it would be a motivating moment for the young lads to see the mighty SR-71 perform a low approach. No problem, we were happy to do it. After a quick aerial refueling over the North Sea, we proceeded to find the small airfield. Walter had a myriad of sophisticated navigation equipment in the back seat, and began to vector me toward the field. Descending to subsonic speeds, we found ourselves over a densely wooded area in a slight haze. Like most former WWII British airfields, the one we were looking for had a small tower and little surrounding infrastructure. Walter told me we were close and that I should be able to see the field, but I saw nothing. Nothing but trees as far as I could see in the haze. We got a little lower, and I pulled the throttles back from 325 knots we were at. With the gear up, anything under 275 was just uncomfortable. Walt said we were practically over the field—yet; there was nothing in my windscreen. I banked the jet and started a gentle circling maneuver in hopes of picking up anything that looked like a field. Meanwhile, below, the cadet commander had taken the cadets up on the catwalk of the tower in order to get a prime view of the fly-past. It was a quiet, still day with no wind and partial gray overcast. Walter continued to give me indications that the field should be below us but in the overcast and haze, I couldn't see it. The longer we continued to peer out the window and circle, the slower we got. With our power back, the awaiting cadets heard nothing. I must have had good instructors in my flying career, as something told me I better cross-check the gauges. As I noticed the airspeed indicator slide below 160 knots, my heart stopped and my adrenalin-filled left hand pushed two throttles full forward. At this point we weren't really flying, but were falling in a slight bank. Just at the moment that both afterburners lit with a thunderous roar of flame (and what a joyous feeling that was) the aircraft fell into full view of the shocked observers on the tower. Shattering the still quiet of that morning, they now had 107 feet of fire-breathing titanium in their face as the plane leveled and accelerated, in full burner, on the tower side of the infield, closer than expected, maintaining what could only be described as some sort of ultimate knife-edge pass. Quickly reaching the field boundary, we proceeded back to Mildenhall without incident. We didn't say a word for those next 14 minutes. After landing, our commander greeted us, and we were both certain he was reaching for our wings. Instead, he heartily shook our hands and said the commander had told him it was the greatest SR-71 fly-past he had ever seen, especially how we had surprised them with such a precise maneuver that could only be described as breathtaking. He said that some of the cadets' hats were blown off and the sight of the plan form of the plane in full afterburner dropping right in front of them was unbelievable. Walt and I both understood the concept of "breathtaking" very well that morning, and sheepishly replied that they were just excited to see our low approach. As we retired to the equipment room to change from space suits to flight suits, we just sat there-we hadn't spoken a word since "the pass." Finally, Walter looked at me and said, "One hundred fifty-six knots. What did you see?" Trying to find my voice, I stammered "One hundred fifty-two". We sat in silence for a moment waltsaid,D'nâ€t ever do that to me again!” And I never did. A year later, Walter and I were having lunch in the Mildenhall Officer's club, and overheard an officer talking to some cadets about an SR-71 fly-past that he had seen one day. Of course, by now the story included kids falling off the tower and screaming as the heat of the jet singed their eyebrows. Noticing our HABU patches, as we stood there with lunch trays in our hands, he asked us to verify to the cadets that such a thing had occurred. Walt just shook his head and said, "It was probably just a routine low approach; they're pretty impressive in that plane." Impressive indeed. Little did I realize after relaying this experience to my audience that day that it would become one of the most popular and most requested stories. It's ironic that people are interested in how slow the world's fastest jet can fly. Regardless of your speed, however, it's always a good idea to keep that cross-check up…and keep your Mach up, too.

Cruel Angel's Thesis