History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:38 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Micael wrote:
That's one of the more insane ideas I've heard in a while. And I'm surrounded by the semi-crazy.

It was all quite sensible and very well thought-out. For example, the P.128 had a heat exchanger in its belly so that the crew could utilize the thermal flash to power their boiling vessel and thus make themselves a cup of tea while heading for the next target.


Pull the other one, it's got bells on ;)

I shall be digging out some other interesting designs to comment on... there are very many!

One aspect I saw mentioned was that shoulder-mounted AAMs have significantly greater drag penalties than under-fuselage or under-wing ones. Does anyone have an explanation for why that is?

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:02 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 9631
Craiglxviii wrote:
Pull the other one, it's got bells on ;)


I thought you'd like that . . . . . Everybody laughed at the boiling vessel installed on British armored vehicles at first; now everybody has one. The US one is an exact copy of the British one, so reputedly is the Russian one. This isn't new by the way; British tanks were the first ones to have a drinking water supply for the crew.

Quote:
I shall be digging out some other interesting designs to comment on... there are very many!

The British came up with a series of very interesting aerodynamic research aircraft in the 1950s, not least because the state of aircraft design was undergoing rapid change and a whole briefcase-load of unsuspected phenomena were making themselves known. The problem was that the pace of aircraft change actually outpaced the design of the research aircraft so by the time they would have been available, things had moved on (the Bristol 188 and its issues come to mind here). Design on the 188 started in 1953; it would have been fabulously useful in 1956/57 but by 1962, it was slower than the combat aircraft entering the inventory, carried too little fuel to do research work and was generally useless.

Quote:
Tne aspect I saw mentioned was that shoulder-mounted AAMs have significantly greater drag penalties than under-fuselage or under-wing ones. Does anyone have an explanation for why that is?


I would suspect because the cross-section of the fuselage meant that there were vortexes generated at the missile location. That can cut either way; one of the reasons why wingtip mounted fuel tanks and missile launchers were favored for some years was that they alleviated wingtip vortex generation problems. When winglets for civilian airliners became the in-thing, it was pointed out that one could achieve the same results much less expensively by giving the aircraft tip-mounted AIM-9s. It is rumored El-Al actually took the suggestion seriously.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:32 pm
Posts: 5757
Given the nature of the threat to El-Al, did they want Sidewinder or Sidearm?

Also does anyone know if Sidearm is still around and in use?

_________________
Faugh a Ballagh


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:23 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 9631
jemhouston wrote:
Given the nature of the threat to El-Al, did they want Sidewinder or Sidearm?

Personally I think they were playing to the audience. I suspect that if they had been serious, they would have wanted AIM-9s rather than AGM-122. 122s were pretty much useless against shoulder-fired SAMs.

Quote:
Also does anyone know if Sidearm is still around and in use?


All the Sidearms are gone; they were converted from AIM-9Cs and the supply was always limited. There's always been talk of a simple, lightweight ARM that could be carried by military aircraft as a defense against SAMs and active guidance AAMs but nothing's ever come of it.

There has been talk of using guided 2.75 inch rockets as a tactical anti-missile/anti radar weapon.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
BVs. The key source of moaning for all Crunchies. I well remember one freezing cold exercise in Germany- so cold the Americans went home, as it happens, and we'd all pretty much become temporary eunuchs- encountering a dug- in Chally troop. The crews of all were enjoying toasty- hot tea and garibaldis.

Gits.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5260
The other real test of the designer's ingenuity is if they provide a little hollow on top of the engine where a pot can be nestled, providing the crew with a way of cooking and warming lunch/dinner. Bonus if they have a pot with a locking lid to fit on said space.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
KDahm wrote:
The other real test of the designer's ingenuity is if they provide a little hollow on top of the engine where a pot can be nestled, providing the crew with a way of cooking and warming lunch/dinner. Bonus if they have a pot with a locking lid to fit on said space.


That's what the BV does...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7024
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
Francis Urquhart wrote:
When winglets for civilian airliners became the in-thing, it was pointed out that one could achieve the same results much less expensively by giving the aircraft tip-mounted AIM-9s. It is rumored El-Al actually took the suggestion seriously.

And now I'm thinking of trying to write the documentation for installing that. Yes, it would be in my department (for the next 6 weeks or so!), and it's just going to be nasty. Also, the Sidewinder isn't big enough to do that to a 737, much less a twin-aisle.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5260
Craiglxviii wrote:
KDahm wrote:
The other real test of the designer's ingenuity is if they provide a little hollow on top of the engine where a pot can be nestled, providing the crew with a way of cooking and warming lunch/dinner. Bonus if they have a pot with a locking lid to fit on said space.


That's what the BV does...

No, the BV boils water and uses electrical power to do it.

The pot thing just uses the heat of the engine compartment, plus sitting on the engine, to act as a slow cooker.

Similar idea, though.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
ByronC wrote:
Francis Urquhart wrote:
When winglets for civilian airliners became the in-thing, it was pointed out that one could achieve the same results much less expensively by giving the aircraft tip-mounted AIM-9s. It is rumored El-Al actually took the suggestion seriously.

And now I'm thinking of trying to write the documentation for installing that. Yes, it would be in my department (for the next 6 weeks or so!), and it's just going to be nasty. Also, the Sidewinder isn't big enough to do that to a 737, much less a twin-aisle.


Please, have these AIM-54...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:55 am
Posts: 2683
Or a pair of Seekbats.

_________________
Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7024
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
Craiglxviii wrote:
ByronC wrote:
Francis Urquhart wrote:
When winglets for civilian airliners became the in-thing, it was pointed out that one could achieve the same results much less expensively by giving the aircraft tip-mounted AIM-9s. It is rumored El-Al actually took the suggestion seriously.

And now I'm thinking of trying to write the documentation for installing that. Yes, it would be in my department (for the next 6 weeks or so!), and it's just going to be nasty. Also, the Sidewinder isn't big enough to do that to a 737, much less a twin-aisle.


Please, have these AIM-54...

That would be a lot funnier if I hadn't thought of that earlier. The problem with those (besides the fact that this idea is stupid) is that the airliner doesn't have the radar to support them.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
drunknsubmrnr wrote:
Or a pair of Seekbats.

I'm thinking Sea Dart...

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:55 am
Posts: 2683
You need a radar for Sea Dart. Seekbats just need a modified Fuzzbuster.

_________________
Semper in excremento, sole profundum qui variat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 9:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
drunknsubmrnr wrote:
You need a radar for Sea Dart. Seekbats just need a modified Fuzzbuster.


That's ok, we have an airliner. Type 965 it.

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7115
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Francis Urquhart wrote:
All the Sidearms are gone; they were converted from AIM-9Cs and the supply was always limited. There's always been talk of a simple, lightweight ARM that could be carried by military aircraft as a defense against SAMs and active guidance AAMs but nothing's ever come of it.

I seem to recall a few years back there was talk of re-starting the Sidearm seeker-head line to fit to the more recent models of AIM-9 that have been obsoleted; I suppose that foundered on the ground of 'um, that tooling fell off the back of a truck 20 years ago'. On the other hand, I also distinctly recall - possibly in a recent AvLeak - reading something about the AIM-9Ls that the Euro-NATO countries have warehouses full of having the possibility of getting air-to-mud mods...

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
The British came up with a series of very interesting aerodynamic research aircraft in the 1950s, not least because the state of aircraft design was undergoing rapid change and a whole briefcase-load of unsuspected phenomena were making themselves known. The problem was that the pace of aircraft change actually outpaced the design of the research aircraft so by the time they would have been available, things had moved on (the Bristol 188 and its issues come to mind here). Design on the 188 started in 1953; it would have been fabulously useful in 1956/57 but by 1962, it was slower than the combat aircraft entering the inventory, carried too little fuel to do research work and was generally useless.
.


BAe P.1214-3... that certainly looks an interesting proposal!

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:42 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 9631
Craiglxviii wrote:
BAe P.1214-3... that certainly looks an interesting proposal!

Reminds me a bit of the German 1945 napkinwaffe. Usually 'designs' like that are a sign that the design team has run out of solutions before running out of problems and are getting desperate.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:41 am
Posts: 5532
Location: Cambs, UK
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Craiglxviii wrote:
BAe P.1214-3... that certainly looks an interesting proposal!

Reminds me a bit of the German 1945 napkinwaffe. Usually 'designs' like that are a sign that the design team has run out of solutions before running out of problems and are getting desperate.


Hey they got to the stage of building a model..!

P.1216-6 then ;)

_________________
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents, they could be captured, tortured.
Bernard Woolley: You mean by terrorists?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: By the BBC, Bernard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: RAF Fighters V6.2
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:40 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 9631
Craiglxviii wrote:
Hey they got to the stage of building a model..! P.1216-6 then ;)


This is where we should take the design team, confine them to quiet, dark rooms with rubber-lined walls and feed them large quantities of opiates.

More seriously, I know there was a huge amount of resentment in Kingston in particular (but also across the rest of British Aerospace) about the nationalization etc. I wonder if these so-called designs were a bit of revenge by wasting as much government money as possible BAe is very good at that.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group