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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused by design problems with the tilt-rotor system. Fascinating, tell us more. There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to tiltrotor tech. The vortex ring state crash was really interesting, because it happened when they took it in a descent that was *way* faster than any normal cargo helo would even attempt. They've also found out since then that the V-22 can get *out* of VRS by tilting the rotors forward, which normal helos can't do. On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues. The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way. The Chinook liked catching on fire... Overall, the V-22 is doing pretty darned good. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , "Tarver Engineering" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... Oddly enough, none of the crashes in the F-22 program have been caused by design problems with the tilt-rotor system. Fascinating, tell us more. There's been one crash from an engine fire, one from a gyro problem, one from vortex ring state, and one from hydraulics. None directly tied to tiltrotor tech. I was thinking there was only the one YF-22 crash. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote: You're not alone. Very few aviators (military or civilian) have shown much interest in obtaining the FAA's new "Powered Lift" rating since the V-22 seems to crash with distressing regularity. For extremely loose definitions of "regular." Less often than the big helicopters we're currently using, during their development, and none at all in what, three years? Four crashes of an experimental aircraft type in over a decade of development is actually pretty darned impressive. Extremely loose definition of "development," too. Then you're going to have to start screaming Ay? Whose "screaming?" about that horrible "F-14 deathtrap," which had about the same number of crashes per flight hour in development, and was, by no means, anything like the first swing-wing plane. Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me. Squadrons of fighters and fighter bombers with variable geometry wings have been around for decades (since the 60's) long before the F-14 was even on the drawing boards. In fact, unlike tilt-rotor aircraft, some swing-wing aircraft such as the F-111, Su-22 and Su-24 have been operational for so long now that they've even become obsolete! And there's also the B-1, Mig-27 and Tornado swing wings which, unlike the Osprey tilt-rotor, have also been operational for decades. Don't misunderstand, I wouldn't be building and flying flexwing trikes if I were a luddite, but I haven't met too many pilots whom are all that impressed by either the Osprey or the Harrier especially when compared to their more conventional fixed and rotary wing counterparts. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Mike Marron wrote: Why you keep trotting out the F-14 is beyond me. Because, during its development, it crashed *more* often than the "dangerous" Osprey has, per hour of flight. And *way* more often than the "troubled" F-22. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
R. David Steele wrote:
How much payload do you lose in the STOVL version? http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avf35.html The F-35A and F-35C can carry two 900 kilogram (2,000 pound) JDAMS internally, while the STOVL F-35B is limited to internal carriage of two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) JDAMs. ... Only the USAF F-35A has a built-in gun, with an "Advanced 27 Millimeter Cannon", an improved version of the Mauser BK-27 revolver-type cannon, in the left wingroot. The other variants do not have a built-in gun, but can accommodate a cannon pack plugged into one of the weapons bays. Out of date information, again. The 27mm has been replaced by a 25mm Gatling. And the gun pack goes on a conformal stealthy belly pod, not in the weapon bay. The 25mm makes sense. What we need to do is covert other 20mm Gatling guns, such as those on the F/A-18 or the MK 15 20mm Phalanx CIWS Close-In Weapons Systems, over to the 25mm. It is just a matter of long term logistics and costs. I believe that some ships are using the 25mm Bushmaster as surface defense weapons (against small attack boats). I think you're really overestimating the potential savings here. There are already massive stockpiles fo 20mm ammo and it doesn't cost much to buy more. But it woudl eb exceedingly exopensive to swap gun mounts, if it's possible at all. Many aircraft installations would find it very hard to exchange the M-61 for a GAU-12. The Navy decided against this sort of refit for the Phalanx several years ago. The Block 1B has improved (longer) barrels and enhanced 20mm ammunition, but it keeps the same caliber so that existing ammo stocks can be used. The Navy's real preference is to move up to Rolling Airframe Missile for anti-missile defense and use the 30mm Mk 46 turret (from the Marine AAAV) for small-boat defense It is the same as converting the 5-Inch 54 Cal. MK 45 Guns over to the 155mm (~6 inch) shell. That would save money plus mean that ships could offload shells to the Marines. There is no intention to convert existing 127mm mounts or ships to 155mm. It's just not a practical possibility. Future ships will have 155mm in the form of the Advanced Gun System, which is much larger than the Mk 45. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues. Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash, killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a broken tail wheel. The Huey, when it first came out, had the depressing tendency to lose its rotor when you took it into negative Gs the wrong way. This hasn't changed - the Huey has a teetering rotor, which looses its head moment at low and negative G conditions. Once the head moment is gone, control of the rotor is lost and it starts thrashing and eventually mast bumps. If the mast bump is severe enough, the mast breaks and rotor departs. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"David Lednicer" wrote in message ... Chad Irby wrote: On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues. Not certain what you are talking about. That is a common thread in Irby's posts. There was one crash and one heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash, killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a broken tail wheel. The Blackhawk has served America well. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
David Lednicer wrote: Chad Irby wrote: On the other hand, when the Blackhawk was in development and early deployment, the pilots called the the "Black Rock." Tail issues. Not certain what you are talking about. There was one crash and one heavy landing during Black Hawk development. The crash was a result of the airspeed input into the horizontal tail scheduling not being hooked up after maintenance. On take off, the horizontal tail stayed in the high incidence position, causing the aircraft to pitch over and crash, killing the crew. The heavy landing resulted from an excessive rate of descent, due to pilot error. The result was a shaken up crew and a broken tail wheel. There were later problems with the Blackhawk with RF interferencecausing unwanted stabilator inputs, which caused more crashes after deployment. They fixed it pretty soon, but it *was* a real problem with early versions. Of course, after a couple of decades of deployment, they're great copters. The point is that we've seldom built *any* new combat aircraft that didn't have one or more major issues along the way, and damned few major new systems that didn't have one or more crashes or *severe* safety problems. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
That is a common thread in Irby's posts. It's definitely a badge of honor that "Tarver Engineering" thinks I'm so eeeevil. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
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 |
FS: 1996 "Aircraft Of The World: A Complete Guide" Binder Sheet Singles | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 14th 04 07:34 AM |
RV Quick Build build times... | [email protected] | Home Built | 2 | December 17th 03 03:29 AM |
FA: Congested Airspace: A Pilot's Guide | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:51 PM |
FA: Used Aircraft Guide | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | July 15th 03 03:17 AM |