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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Henry J Cobb wrote:
Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal wrote: On 2/28/04 1:01 AM, in article , "John Keeney" wrote: It's all just a trick: the USAF wants the F-35Bs so they can rip the lift fan out and put the generator for the laser there. ;-) Honestly, now that I've said it, it doesn't sound that far fetch... They better get that laser thing miniaturized quick then because right now it's HUGE! The bigger problem is cooling it. http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...cle.cfm?Id=994 Cooling a laser is a “very difficult engineering challenge,” said Zimet, especially when the goal is to generate high levels of power. In a 100 kw solid-state laser, for example, there could conceivably be 900 kw of wasted power that has to be eliminated. That is because, by nature, solid-state lasers are not efficient. Ten percent is considered high efficiency, compared to most solid-state lasers that average 1 percent efficiency. AvLeak article on F-35 and laser/HPM he http://www.aviationnow.com/content/p...20708/aw32.htm Guy |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Surely there are some good still images from this footage available, right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'? Jerry Try this Jerry: http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader. Phil -- Pfft...english! Who needs that? I'm never going to England. Homer J. Simpson |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
|
#204
|
|||
|
|||
John Miller wrote in message ...
running with scissors wrote: every ****ing aircraft goes past the end of a runway. its called takeoff Heh. The high-performance types often don't cross the far-end threshold during takeoff. I remember one time 10,000 feet over Sherman field, looking straight down at the midpoint... ahh but in tarverworld past the end the runway is an unmapped part of the A-320's flight control system. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:11:23 -0500, JL Grasso
wrote: On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +1100, Phil Miller wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Surely there are some good still images from this footage available, right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'? Jerry Try this Jerry: http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader. Thanks, Phil. I'd seen that bit earlier. It clearly looks like the same boxes to me. I have no idea where the conspiracy theory is supported by that, other than the written text which alleges it. Jerry Yeah. How anyone can draw any conclusion from such a terrible picture is boggling. Seems fairly consistent with this pic for mine: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_sidefront_lg.jpg but too fuzzy (and the box is on a fair old angle to the photographer) to say whether the stripes are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or it's just a white blob and not stripes at all. Phil -- The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die. There, you feel better now? -- Dennis Miller |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 2/28/04 1:54 PM, in article , "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message SNIP snip Logic fault. You are claiming that because it was allegedly not required in this instance, it will never be required. Kind of hard to support that kind of argument. Given a scenario like Afghanistan, where the CAS assets had to transit great distances to and from the required area of operations, the ability to get STOVL assets into the A/O early in the campaign could be a big advantage, and reduces the load on the other assets (like those F-15E's and F-16's transiting out of the Gulf area). If it is unnecessary, why is the USAF now joining the STOVL bandwagon--merely to make nice with their USMC brethren? Precisely... With one important distinction they're more than likely hoping to take their USMC brethren's place and to keep unit costs down by ensuring that the STOVL version doesn't get axed. That is so far out of reason it is unbelievable. Firstly, if the STOVL version were axed, the USMC would just buy one of the other two versions--they will have to replace those old F/A-18's and (by then) AV-8B's with *something*, so there is no merit to this strange theory you have postulated. Secondly, axing of the STOVL would be unlikely anyway, because the RN/RAF have placed their bets on that version. Have you got any *reasonable* reasons why the USAF would allegedly just toss away a few billion bucks on STOVL aircraft it really does not want? I doubt that. Is STVL the way to go for all TACAIR? Of course not. But eliminating it just reduces your own versatility, and that would not be a wise move in the current environment of uncertainty (as regards where/when/how we'll have to fight). Brooks What I'm claiming is that STOVL is still risky technology that kills too many pilots in peace time and offers too little benefit in war time for that cost. Any evidence that STOVL kills more pilots than other fast jets? Or any evidence that the F-35B is inherently unsafe or "risky" technology? ISTR the STOVL X-35 demonstrator did pretty well... Brooks --Woody |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Save the enlarged pic in that repeort, open it in any graphics editor and
use the color chooser (usually an eyedropper) and check the colors. The box in the enlargement clearly has 1 red corner at the bottom, the other bottom corner (closest to the photog) has a white bottom. The stripes are diagonal. The IPSC should lay off the wine during investigations. "Phil Miller" wrote in message ... On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:11:23 -0500, JL Grasso wrote: On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:46:00 +1100, Phil Miller wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:40:35 -0500, JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Surely there are some good still images from this footage available, right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'? Jerry Try this Jerry: http://www.airdisaster.com/investiga...96/af296.shtml Whether it proves anything or not I'll leave to the reader. Thanks, Phil. I'd seen that bit earlier. It clearly looks like the same boxes to me. I have no idea where the conspiracy theory is supported by that, other than the written text which alleges it. Jerry Yeah. How anyone can draw any conclusion from such a terrible picture is boggling. Seems fairly consistent with this pic for mine: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/cvr_sidefront_lg.jpg but too fuzzy (and the box is on a fair old angle to the photographer) to say whether the stripes are vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or it's just a white blob and not stripes at all. Phil -- The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody's out to get you. Nobody gives a **** whether you live or die. There, you feel better now? -- Dennis Miller |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
LOL you call:
"expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious shipping. assault support from amphibious shipping or from expeditionary locations ashore?" anything but yada yada gobbledygook? You have just described a good mission for an air/sea rescue helicoptor! Please though, don't try again, you are wasting everyone's time. "Frijoles" wrote in message thlink.net... Your question was (quote) "Can anyone conjure a F-35B Marine job that could not be none by the navy?" The question was answered with specific operational capabilities (exercised in combat operations) that the Navy does not possess. You are obviously ignorant of the process by which "requirements" are generated and validated. You are obviously ignorant of how procurement #s are generated. You are ignorant of the numbers of aircraft resident in the USMC TACAIR inventory, and you are ignorant of how they are employed -- to wit, " I cannot get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway!" Come back with some intelligent questions after you've done some research. "puttster" wrote in message om... yes, please do, but not with politispeak generalities. Instead, give me the best one practical example of the ideal mission as the perfect reason why the Marines would need to order 400+ F-35B's. "Frijoles" wrote in message hlink.net... No need to conjure. Try expeditionary air operations (FW and RW) ashore, as demonstrated in DS, OEF and OIF. TACAIR operations from amphibious shipping. How about assault support from amphibious shipping or from expeditionary locations ashore? Should I go on? "puttster" wrote in message om... Chad Irby wrote in message . com... In article , (puttster) wrote: Then let me ask why the Marines need the V/Stol capability. I cannot get a good picture of a mission where the marines would need 400+ of them with all the support for them but still not have a decent runway! Why are you limiting the situation to needing 400+ at once? The situation is more like "we need a dozen for this small brushfire war in a place where there are no good airstrips," or we need to put a small landing force in at this area, and the bad guys have a few planes, so we need a little fighter cover from the LHDs." If there are no good airstrips how would the marines get their gas, bombs, food, and all the other support? How (why?) were their Harriers used in Iraq? To support Marine actions on the ground, without having to go through the other services as much. They've been flying off of the USS Bonhomme Richard. Overall, Iraq hasn't been a good test of what we'd need the Harrier for. |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:07:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:23:07 -0700, "khobar" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote in message ... JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. You are aware that the DFDR presented in court to substantiate the official story was NOT the DFDR from the crashed aircraft, yes? ... based on Assiline's assertion which he based on the appearance of the box. IIRC correctly, he said that the one that he saw shortly after the crash had vertical stripes on the housing, whereas the one in court had diagonal stripes. Pretty conclusive, yes? Yes actually. I've seen footage of the DFDR being recovered and no way is it the same one presented in court. Surely there are some good still images from this footage available, right? Can you provide a cite, or is this more 'common knowledge'? It's so long ago, Jerry that I don't have cites readily to hand. I most certainly did take a great interest in this crash. UK TV did too, with certainly more than one decent documentary about this event. I believe I may still have a vid of at least one of the documentaries in question. And before you try discrediting TV documentaries - realise that in the UK we don't have the same commercial pressures as in the USA and we make possibly the worlds' finest docs. I most certainly recall seeing the 'black box' being recovered in live recorded footage - and it was a fairly tatty looking one ( well worn ). The one presented at the investigation / court was entirely diiferent - almost pristine. There is also I believe a question over 7 or 10 IIRC 'missing seconds' from the DFDR record !! I leave you to draw your own conclusions. Graham |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
JL Grasso wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:08:49 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 02:45:53 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: JL Grasso wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:43:07 -0800, "Tarver Engineering" wrote: The A-320 which crashed into the trees in France was performing a fly-by demonstration, by a line pilot, not an Airbus test or demo pilot. The profile was to fly by at 500 feet. The pilot was making a scheduled revenue flight with passengers and came up with the low slow fly by all on his own. Actually, it was a charter flight. And not to split hairs, but the low/slow fly-by was discussed by airline officials and both captains in a prior briefing that day. The accident was officially caused by descent below obstacle height combined with a delayed application of TOGA power to exit the fly-by. The F.O. was also declared mentally ill for demurring from the above 'explanation'. Cite? Crikey ! I thought it was common knowledge ? Are you sure that you're not thinking of Norbert Jaquet? I thought that Mazieres (the FO) flew for AF for some time after the accident. I could be wrong, however. If it was common knowledge, a cite should be a simple matter. Unless you mean 'common knowledge' in the Tarverian sense. I stand corrected, I got the 2 confused. It's been a long time since it happened. The F.O. stayed 'shtumb' ( is that how you spell it ) and kept out of the way of the flak. Do you not think it strange that someone who criticised the official findings and supported the captain being declared mentally insane is a very odd way to go about an accident investigation ? Graham |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"C-175 SoCal Beware" Original Poster Replies | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 8 | July 8th 04 07:01 AM |
More LED's | Veeduber | Home Built | 19 | June 9th 04 10:07 PM |
Replace fabric with glass | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 38 | April 17th 04 11:37 AM |
RAN to get new LSD class vessel to replace 5 logistic vessels ... | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 10 | November 3rd 03 11:49 PM |
Air Force to replace enlisted historians with civilians | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | October 22nd 03 09:41 AM |