If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message . com...
Peter Skelton wrote in message . .. On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:49:41 -0500, (Peter Stickney) wrote: To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_ infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in service until the early 1960s. ISTR Comets in service with Freddie Laker into the 70's. Dan Air used them until Nov. 3, '80 (something over 110 passengers which must have been fun.) Those were Comet IVs, not Comet Is. Basically an entirely new airframe with a Comet-like shape. They were entirely redesigned structurally, and a bit larger. (71,760 kg MTOW rather than 47,620 kg) They used Rolls Avons (With about twice the push) rather than the centrifugal DH Ghosts. The Comet IV was actually a pretty good airplane. Unfortunately, it took about 4 years to get the Comet IV redesigned and off the ground. By that time, instead of competing with DC-6s and Lockheed 749 Constellations, it was competing with the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC-8. At that point, it was too slow, and too short-ranged. (Pan Am 707 used to take off about a half-hour after BOAC Comet IVs, and they made a point of announcing when they passed the Comets somewhere between Iceland and Greenland. With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned. The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required re-engineering of the wing roots) The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long loitering patrols. The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility. With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude performance. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiv" wrote in message ...
-- - "ZZBunker" wrote in message om... "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . .. "Keith Willshaw" wrote: On the 4th October 1958 two B.O.A.C. Comet 4s inaugurated the first regular transatlantic jet passenger service - another first for British innovation. But not non-stop, it had to stop in Newfoundland to refuel while the 707 made the journey non stop. I suggest you work on your reading skills. Keith Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?... No! Since we have to keep reminding the British that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland. And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean. Did this ocean appear afterwards? The *Atlantic* Ocean *never* appeared. Since it was *invented* by jerk *Mediterranean* Philosophers who made up a mythical place called Atlantis, populated by fire-breathing Dragons, of course. Or as the Greeks need to remimded every two years these days. Olympus is high, but since the Japanese make Olypmus, rather than the Swiss, it's unlikely the British Ski Jumping Team will win any Gold Medals this year. So, maybe they should stick to their usual Canadian Olympic form and practice with the Jamiacan Bobsled Team. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Eunometic" wrote in message om... With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned. Please xplain your reasons for arriving at this conclusion. While the Nimrod is a fine aircraft the P-3 has had rather more export success. The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required re-engineering of the wing roots) I seriously doubt that any real advantage accrues from this. Nimrod has a LARGE radar signature. The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long loitering patrols. The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility. AMRAAM is highly unlikley With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude performance. Thats just silly. Nimrod simly doesnt have the payload carrying capacity. The RAF used to have a mini B-52 , it was called the Vulcan Keith |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Minyard" wrote in message ... On 26 Jan 2004 00:45:07 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: Why We Lost The Vietnam War From: "Tarver Engineering" Date: 1/25/04 1:58 PM Pacific Standard Time There were 11 million of us under arms that made that will happen. I don't doubt the contribution of men under arms during WWII. I am pleased that when we have a discussion about Bastogne I can contribute more than just wondering if my father changed the Wolf's spark plugs. Your father was among the greatest of he greatest generation. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer Your generation was no better or worse than any other. Where did you serve, Al? |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
(B2431) wrote in message ...
From: IBM Date: 1/26/2004 1:17 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (ZZBunker) wrote in . com: [snip] No! Since we have to keep reminding the British that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland. And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean. Tweren't even the Brits to be precise. Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman. IBM There wasn't an ocean there? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Well, since those of us with brains don't even ask active duty US Navy people about oceans, it goes without saying that the last people we people we ever ask questions about oceans are retired US Air Force people. The only thing we advise them is to buy a condo somewhere in Florida, and buy three .44 Magums. One for you, one for your Marine wife, and one loaded one for the people who can shoot. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
From: (ZZBunker)
Date: 1/26/2004 7:01 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (B2431) wrote in message ... From: IBM Date: 1/26/2004 1:17 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: (ZZBunker) wrote in . com: [snip] No! Since we have to keep reminding the British that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland. And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean. Tweren't even the Brits to be precise. Just another itinerant Genovese snake-oil salesman. IBM There wasn't an ocean there? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Well, since those of us with brains don't even ask active duty US Navy people about oceans, it goes without saying that the last people we people we ever ask questions about oceans are retired US Air Force people. The only thing we advise them is to buy a condo somewhere in Florida, and buy three .44 Magums. One for you, one for your Marine wife, and one loaded one for the people who can shoot. Gee, you are so funny. The original poster said begin quote No! Since we have to keep reminding the British that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland. And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean. end quote If taken literally he was saying there was no ocean there hence my wise ass question. As for my shooting abilities I am an NRA shooting instructor and earned marksmanship awards in both the Army and the Air Force. Oh, and it is spelled "magnums" which you would know if you actually had the brains you claim. Have a fine day. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Two words:
Lyndon Johnson. Ed "The French couldn't hate us any more unless we helped 'em out in another war." --Will Rogers (Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.) |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"Spiv" wrote:
Now now Keith. Newfoundland is on the western edge of the Atlantic so it WAS 'transatlantic' wasn't it?... No! Since we have to keep reminding the British that the *Vikings*, not the British discovered New Foundland. And when they did it, there *was no* Atlantic Ocean. Did this ocean appear afterwards? Christ!...musta been one bitch of a rainstorm wot?. -- -Gord. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(Eunometic) writes: (Peter Stickney) wrote in message . com... Peter Skelton wrote in message . .. On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:49:41 -0500, (Peter Stickney) wrote: To add some Military Content. The groundings and losses did not necessarily mean the immediate scrapping of the Comet I. DH _did_ infact, come up with a rebuild program that would allow the airplane to have some useful life. The only Comet Customer who took them up on this was the Royal Canadian Air Force, which had purchased two Comets to support the First Air Division in Europe. These remained in service until the early 1960s. ISTR Comets in service with Freddie Laker into the 70's. Dan Air used them until Nov. 3, '80 (something over 110 passengers which must have been fun.) Those were Comet IVs, not Comet Is. Basically an entirely new airframe with a Comet-like shape. They were entirely redesigned structurally, and a bit larger. (71,760 kg MTOW rather than 47,620 kg) They used Rolls Avons (With about twice the push) rather than the centrifugal DH Ghosts. The Comet IV was actually a pretty good airplane. Unfortunately, it took about 4 years to get the Comet IV redesigned and off the ground. By that time, instead of competing with DC-6s and Lockheed 749 Constellations, it was competing with the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC-8. At that point, it was too slow, and too short-ranged. (Pan Am 707 used to take off about a half-hour after BOAC Comet IVs, and they made a point of announcing when they passed the Comets somewhere between Iceland and Greenland. With a modified Fueselage it of course became a great maritime patrol aircraft known as the Nimrod. Nimrod is apparently superior than the Orion: at least as far as the airframe is concerned. Nimrods are a bit faster than P-3s. That's not really relevant though, when looking for submarines. They're both big enough, fast enough when need be, and slow enough when need be. The Orion beats in wrt fuel consumption, The efficiency of the sensor suites is about equivalent, with a little seesawing back & forth depending on what point in time you're comparing the two. It's kind of ironic that the Orion also grew out of a semi-successful 1950s airliner with a troubled beginning - the Lockheed L-188 Electra, the fastes of the Western prop-driven airliners (The Tu-114 can beat it) L-188s also suffered a spate of mysterious crashes. In their case, it was a resonant vibration in damaged engine mounts that induced fuilure in the wing spar. Like the COnet, it got fixed (A bit more quickly - they didn't have to redesign the entire airplane), but it took time to rebuild public confidence, and the introduction of pure jets on U.S. Domestic routes killed off demand. The burried engines ( speys and now BMW/Rolls Royce BR715 ) provide a significantly reduced radar signature. (Here lies the disadvantage of burried eingines: installing high bypass ratio engines required re-engineering of the wing roots) Not really. The fan sections are entirely exposed within the ducts, and they're spinning pretty fast - that makes the return scintillate, which makes it easier to pick out of clutter, if you know how to look at it. With that big honkin' wing, and the large, slab sided fuselage, even if it was a bit less obvious, it's a distincion without a difference. The engines which are close to the fueselage mean that opperation with engines shutdown does not create significant asymetric thrust problems. Indeed opperation on 2 engines is I believe normal on long loitering patrols. Asymmetric operation with an Orion isn't much of a big deal, either, although it can be a handful in some circumstances. Remember that it had to be able to climb out on 3 engines on takeoff, with a load of passengers aboard. Early on, it was policy on teh P-3 to patrol on 2 engines. The occasional difficulty in getting them both started again, and the need to have as many alternators running a possible to supply th electrical buses has changed that so that they only cage 1 engines. (The last I heard - one of my former bosses was a Navy Reserve P-3 Pilot) The latest Nimrods I believe have a range in excess of 6500nm and can launch cruise missiles. They can be armed with sidewinders and presumably AMRAAM style self homing missiles is a possibility. P-3s are good for about 4500 NM, including 3 hours stooging around at 20,000', and 1 houf chasing contacts at 200', with a 10% reserve. As for what it carries, we've got all teh Cruise Missile carriers the START Treaties will allow. (That's what happens when you're a Major Nuclear Power ) So we can't fit Tomahawks or ALCMs. However, it will carry a whole raft of Harpoons & SLAM-ERs, which are Cruise Missiles of a somewhat more subdued nature. I don't recall if anybody's stuck a Sidewinder on a P-3, but there's no reason why you can't. A SIrewinder requires a standard rack to fit the rail to, soem wires to wake it up, and some wires to insert the seeker's growl into the intercom system. AMRAAMs are right out, for either. While an AMRAAM has an active seeker, it still needs a fighter-type Fire COntrol System to properly program it before launch. With the correct systems and sighting they might even provide the RAF with a mini B52. The big wings must provide good altitude performance. As for the Nimrod being a mini-B-52, well, we've got B-52s to fill that role. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lost comms after radar vector | Mike Ciholas | Instrument Flight Rules | 119 | January 31st 04 11:39 PM |
All Vietnam Veterans Were Awarded The Vietnam Cross of Gallantry | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 1st 03 12:07 AM |
Vietnam, any US planes lost in China ? | Mike | Military Aviation | 7 | November 4th 03 11:44 PM |
Soviet Submarines Losses - WWII | Mike Yared | Military Aviation | 4 | October 30th 03 03:09 AM |
Attorney honored for heroism during the Vietnam War | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 6 | August 14th 03 11:59 PM |