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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "John Carrier"
wrote: Like Woody I agree it should be a JDAM dump truck. In addition, it should be an outstanding tanker. Unlike Woody, I'd dispense with a nice avionics suite in favor of "just enough" to do the mission and get back to Mother. With more and more of the smarts now in the weapon, vice the carriage, this puppy might even be a (gasp!) UAV. Current avionics are compact and theoretically cheap. An integrated GPS/Inertial is the size of a loaf of bread. Smaller than that actually. I just finished working on one. Mass produced, (they aren't) cockpit displays are cheap. I see no reason why if Joe S. Ragman can have a full-up GPS nav in his Cessna for a couple thousand, the military must pay a million for less capability. Of course, we do. Excuse me, they do. There's a big difference in environment and reliability requirements. I've designed avionics equipment for every Navy fighter used in the last 25 years (not to mention AF). The differences between Mil aviation and commercial are striking. If it's not designed for the mil environment, it fails prematurely. Period. And Murphy guarantees it will be at the worst possible time for you, the pilot. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Harry Andreas
wrote: In article , "John Carrier" wrote: There's a big difference in environment and reliability requirements. I've designed avionics equipment for every Navy fighter used in the last 25 years (not to mention AF). The differences between Mil aviation and commercial are striking. If it's not designed for the mil environment, it fails prematurely. Period. And Murphy guarantees it will be at the worst possible time for you, the pilot. The commercially based MFD's in the Prowler were put in as a "rapid" change to fix the ADI failing with no off flag problem and they are pretty unsat. Lots of display overheat lights and pretty impossible to see from the right seat with the sun overhead or behind. They really don't get dim enough for my taste at night either. Don't know what the survivability at the boats been. Allen |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Jim wrote:
This time of the year I usually ask the regular readers of this newsgroup which aircraft they flew years ago they'd most like to see with a newer engine. Always worthy of many fine comments. This time a slight revision. You are recalled to active duty for combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which airframe and what would that be? Keep in mind this could mean your F-4J against a MiG-29 or SU-30? Avionics? Engine? FCS? Brings new meaning to DACM. ;- We end up with one old fart lead in his upgraded F-8J with an old fart wingman in his upgraded F-4J [F-8J leads because he was senior on retirement 40 years ago] taking on the a section of the evil empire's MiG-29s. I love it. ;- [I'd prolly still bet on the F-8J/F-4J, but I'd want some good odds to take that side of the bet. Particularly since by the rules, you've limited them to one change only.] -- OJ III [Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading. Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
SNIP
There's a big difference in environment and reliability requirements. I've designed avionics equipment for every Navy fighter used in the last 25 years (not to mention AF). The differences between Mil aviation and commercial are striking. If it's not designed for the mil environment, it fails prematurely. Period. And Murphy guarantees it will be at the worst possible time for you, the pilot. Undoubtedly true, but the fact remains that "milspec reliability" comes at a ridiculous premium in cost. R / John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Pechs1" wrote in message ... chief- You are recalled to active duty for combat overseas. You will return with a version of the model you formerly flew. But this time you can change one aspect only. Which airframe and what would that be? BRBR A-4F+, with a great radar. 4 SW, guns. The radar is decent rather than great, but check out the A-4K Kahu upgrade - probably coming to the US once the fine print on the contract is sorted out. -- Errol Cavit | | "If you have had enough, then I have had enough. But if you haven't had enough, then I haven't had enough either." Maori chief Kawiti to Governor George Grey, after the Battle of Ruapekapeka 1846. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wanted: copy of Flying Buyers' Guide 1983 or older | Ren? | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 14th 05 06:06 AM |
Story of an older pilot 74 | Hankal | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | November 3rd 04 03:52 AM |
Canadian Forces cast about for used Hercules airframes | Andrew Chaplin | Military Aviation | 24 | October 3rd 03 02:24 AM |
#1 Jet of World War II | Christopher | Military Aviation | 203 | September 1st 03 03:04 AM |
Long-range Spitfires and daylight Bomber Command raids (was: #1 Jet of World War II) | The Revolution Will Not Be Televised | Military Aviation | 20 | August 27th 03 09:14 AM |