|
Kilonum posted:Sukhoi is also marketing a new narrow-body airliner, the Sukhoi SuperJet 100. A partenrship between SNECMA (the French half of CFM) and NPO Saturn are making the engines, and Boeing was brought in for consultation of the design. Really, the only parts of it being bult in Russia are the wings, the fuselage and the engines, practically every main system is made in either the EU or the US. The Boeing 787 isn't exactly an All-American plane either: quote:Subcontracted assemblies included wing manufacture (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan, central wing box)[34] horizontal stabilizers (Alenia Aeronautica, Italy; Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea);[35] fuselage sections (Global Aeronautica, Italy; Boeing, North Charleston, USA; Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan; Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, USA; Korean Air, South Korea);[36][37][38] passenger doors (Latécoère, France); cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door (Saab, Sweden); floor beams (TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, India);[39][40] wiring (Labinal, France);[41] wing-tips, flap support fairings, wheel well bulkhead, and longerons (Korean Air, South Korea);[42] landing gear (Messier-Dowty, UK/France);[43] and power distribution and management systems, air conditioning packs (Hamilton Sundstrand, Connecticut, USA).[41][44] Boeing is considering bringing construction of the 787-9 tail in house; the tail of the 787-8 is currently made by Alenia.[45]
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
A lot of American rockets nowadays use Russian designed engines, too. The Atlas 5 for example uses a russian built RD-180, and they started doing that with the Atlas 2R I think. I always get a chuckle at the thought of a rocket that started out with the goal of nuking the USSR being powered by Russian engines (even if the current Atlas doesn't share much with the original).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:A lot of American rockets nowadays use Russian designed engines, too. The Atlas 5 for example uses a russian built RD-180, and they started doing that with the Atlas 2R I think. I always get a chuckle at the thought of a rocket that started out with the goal of nuking the USSR being powered by Russian engines (even if the current Atlas doesn't share much with the original). And most of the old ones were German-designed, either designed in Germany, or by "liberated" German scientists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:The Boeing 787 isn't exactly an All-American plane either: That's globalism at work. A lot of nations that still have flag carriers are greatly influenced by manufacturing happening in their nation. I'm sure when it was time for ANA or JAL or whoever to sign the paperwork to buy 787s they were reminded of this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:That's globalism at work. A lot of nations that still have flag carriers are greatly influenced by manufacturing happening in their nation. I'm sure when it was time for ANA or JAL or whoever to sign the paperwork to buy 787s they were reminded of this. Boeing also went on a "we design airplanes and bolt 'em together, we can contract out all that pesky parts manufacturing" kick, sort of a civilian equivalent to the LSI craze (because, of course, that worked so well). A lot of the executives who led the charge had zero manufacturing experience, and didn't bother to look too closely at wildly overoptimistic cost and time estimates from suppliers. End result: ridiculous delays, big cost overruns, and Boeing's been spending huge amounts of money on in-house manufacturing R&D that they literally give away to their suppliers, in the hope that they'll be able to actually make the parts they promised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Boeing also went on a "we design airplanes and bolt 'em together, we can contract out all that pesky parts manufacturing" kick, sort of a civilian equivalent to the LSI craze (because, of course, that worked so well). A lot of the executives who led the charge had zero manufacturing experience, and didn't bother to look too closely at wildly overoptimistic cost and time estimates from suppliers. End result: ridiculous delays, big cost overruns, and Boeing's been spending huge amounts of money on in-house manufacturing R&D that they literally give away to their suppliers, in the hope that they'll be able to actually make the parts they promised. Boeing's not the only company doing this, you know. In fact, one of the companies in that list, which actually used to be part of Boeing, is building major components for Airbus here in America. This isn't even new, I don't know why were treating it as a surprise. Nor are cost overruns and missed deadlines in the aerospace industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
That's pretty much how every manufacturing industry works. Nobody builds complicated machinery from the ground up themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's pretty much how every manufacturing industry works. Nobody builds complicated machinery from the ground up themselves. I agree, It would be a huge waste. You need to focus on what you are the best at. Boeing's problem is they picked some companies that have no loving clue what they are doing and didn't really coach them. You can't just say "build this poo poo" and expect it at your door on time. My basic understanding from crap I've gleaned from articles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:They were an enormous maintainance hog. Simply too goddamn big to fly off a carrier. They broke a lot. North American Aviation had to fly civilian tech reps around behind them to keep them in the air. The linear bomb bay is an...interesting...idea. I still laugh every time I think about it. The plane was literally designed to poo poo out a nuclear weapon, and the fact that it would occasionally deposit the payload in the course of a catapult launch is just icing on the cake. But yeah, airborne nuclear delivery off of a carrier is pretty silly, especially when a) the Navy already had a piece of the strategic nuclear pie with SLBMs and b) there were alternative methods to deliver tactical nuclear weapons in a maritime environment (not that the Vig would've been used for that anyway). KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:once you develop ICBMs it has literally no practical use other than to burn gas and be cool or whatever The Triad has a decent basis in a Cold War type world, especially where SLBMs had a CEP measured in thousands of feet (something that wasn't really improved upon for the U.S until the Trident IIs that didn't reach IOC until 1990). Your land based ICBMs may be vulnerable to a first strike, depending on your C3I networks, but pose a credible counterforce strike capability due to their accuracy. Your SLBMs are not accurate enough to be a reliable counterforce weapon, but are survivable enough and have enough throw weight to serve as a credible second strike countervalue weapon. Land based bombers provide flexibility, allowing you to signal your intentions in a highly visible manner (a bunch of nuclear capable bombers juuuust outside a country's airspace is a lot more noticeable than putting a couple more boomers to sea). In a post Cold War world where SLBMs have a CEP rivaling land based missiles? Scrap land based ICBMs and nuclear bombers, retain a couple SLBMs as your deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:once you develop ICBMs it has literally no practical use other than to burn gas and be cool or whatever So it's like a smaller B1 Lancer, then. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
Things America is working on: tiny drones that look like birds or Ipods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CXEy5udocV0!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 20:15
|
|
|
LASERBEAK! AFTER THEM!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The Triad has a decent basis in a Cold War type world, especially where SLBMs had a CEP measured in thousands of feet (something that wasn't really improved upon for the U.S until the Trident IIs that didn't reach IOC until 1990). Your land based ICBMs may be vulnerable to a first strike, depending on your C3I networks, but pose a credible counterforce strike capability due to their accuracy. Your SLBMs are not accurate enough to be a reliable counterforce weapon, but are survivable enough and have enough throw weight to serve as a credible second strike countervalue weapon. Land based bombers provide flexibility, allowing you to signal your intentions in a highly visible manner (a bunch of nuclear capable bombers juuuust outside a country's airspace is a lot more noticeable than putting a couple more boomers to sea). yeah i get the theory behind the triad but let's be real your best use of resources for bomber-based nuclear deterrent aren't going to be ones that fly off of boats
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:your best use of resources for bomber-based nuclear deterrent aren't going to be ones that fly off of boats An A-5 could carry a 2800-pound nuclear weapon, a B-52 can carry an A-5 at max takeoff weight and still have room for a couple of those 2800lb nukes. (Vigilante payload: 1x2800lb Mk27, MTOW: 62953lb; BUFF payload: 70000lb of anything you want, MTOW: near enough to half a million pounds) Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Nov 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 07:45
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
POST THE BUFF-IEST PICS YOU GOT  
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:That's all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 09:26
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:POST THE BUFF-IEST PICS YOU GOT Missing vertical stab. Cart start. Climb! Engine test-bed Fly-by 1 Fly-by 2 Hosting is mine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 11:22
|
|
|
LOO posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 11:47
|
|
|
That's come up many times. Sadly, the USAF has hundreds of TF-33s just waiting to be refurbed as necessary. Same reason AWACS and JSTARS will never get new engines. Too many spares available from old KC-135s, C-141s, B-52s, etc to justify the massive up front costs, even though the performance gains and maintenance and fuel savings will make up the difference down the road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 11:52
|
|
|
the idea I think has generally been "well poo poo we're retirin these things in just a couple of years so why bother re-engining them when we've got all these here spares kicking around" except for then the service life gets extended again. I imagine that if they had done the conversion whenever it was initially proposed it would make financial sense over the current projected service life of the aircraft..
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 12:43
|
|
|
B-52 MITO takeoff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ7niLYSVFo
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
Tsuru posted:Wasn't there at some point the idea to replace the BUFF's 8 engines with 4 bigger turbofans? It was originally an unsolicited proposal from Boeing to pull off the TF-33s and replace them with 4 RB211-535s (the ones on the 757). Range, speed, and fuel burn would all have been improved. Every once in a while it seems there's a new proposal, some of them just replace the 8 old engines with 8 new engines. PW2000, PW6000, CFM56-3 JT8D-200, and BR715 have all been suggested/considered, but they don't really go anywhere because of the point already made above: there are shitloads of spare TF-33s laying around. Godholio posted:That's come up many times. Sadly, the USAF has hundreds of TF-33s just waiting to be refurbed as necessary. Same reason AWACS and JSTARS will never get new engines. Too many spares available from old KC-135s, C-141s, B-52s, etc to justify the massive up front costs, even though the performance gains and maintenance and fuel savings will make up the difference down the road. That's not what GAO said. GAO said "Boeing claims this will save the government 4.7 billion dollars. We calculate that it will actually cost the government 1.6 billion dollars. So don't do it." Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Nov 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
it's monday. Take a break and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmOb46bvCs Pratt & Whitney 28cyl radial engine cutaway in operation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Love me some BUFFs! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 20:00
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
GAO is retarded. They also don't give a poo poo about mission ready rates. TF-33s are tired loving engines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:GAO is retarded. They also don't give a poo poo about mission ready rates. TF-33s are tired loving engines. Yeah, you're right, Boeing wouldn't tweak the numbers to present its case in the most optimistic light or anything like that. It's a business proposal, you can trust it. How tired's an engine going to get sitting around full of preservative with no hours on it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Yeah, you're right, Boeing wouldn't tweak the numbers to present its case in the most optimistic light or anything like that. It's a business proposal, you can trust it. No where near as tired as the maint guys who have to pull the broke rear end engine and put in a new one. Then test it. That takes time which has readiness implications. Think you both are right, *shrug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
I don't think anyone seriously doubts that re-engining the 52's would be a ridiculously smart move, but it costs money now to save money later. In the current political climate, it's not going to happen until the C-5 re-engining finishes in 2016 and the C-17 line stops, which will launch political pressure to keep jobs at Boeing's Long Beach facility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 22:43
|
|
|
Don't forget that Long Beach is pitching to get the Diet 737 MAX production line about that timeframe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:How tired's an engine going to get sitting around full of preservative with no hours on it? Those engines need to be overhauled before entering service. Like a depot-level rebuild. There are fewer mission-ready spares than you would ever imagine. As someone who routinely flies on one of these lucky TF-33 powered aircraft, I can offer my anecdotal evidence that engine shutdowns have been the number 1 cause of IFEs on my flights, and IFEs are not rare. They're disturbingly routine. I've got almost 2k hours riding in the back. I only have my new logbook here so I can't actually tell you how many. I have no doubt Boeing inflates the numbers, I work with their contractors on a near-daily basis and as usual, I'm baffled how it's cheaper to pay the contract than have a couple of active duty captains doing the job of any 5 of them. Cygni posted:I don't think anyone seriously doubts that re-engining the 52's would be a ridiculously smart move, but it costs money now to save money later. This really is at the heart of a lot of military budget woes. We spend money on the wrong things and neglect minor investments that would pay back the initial cost in spades. Godholio fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Nov 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 00:33
|
|
|
Speaking of BUFF's.. Bomb's Away! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dGLgZ8htLI4#t=144s
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the AF already re-engined a small fleet (the RC-135s) and a large fleet (the non-E KC-135s), and is in the process of getting ready to re-engine the E-8s, albeit with a revised JT3D design as opposed to the CFM56s they put on the RC-135s and KC-135s.Godholio posted:Those engines need to be overhauled before entering service. Like a depot-level rebuild. There are fewer mission-ready spares than you would ever imagine. As someone who routinely flies on one of these lucky TF-33 powered aircraft, I can offer my anecdotal evidence that engine shutdowns have been the number 1 cause of IFEs on my flights, and IFEs are not rare. They're disturbingly routine. I've got almost 2k hours riding in the back. I only have my new logbook here so I can't actually tell you how many. To expand on this a bit, it's not like the AF has a bunch of mission ready TF33s sitting around hangars at Tinker ready to throw onto an aircraft at a moment's notice. In addition to the fact that the engines have to be overhauled at depot before they enter the supply system, the AF has been slashing funds from depot level mx for years in order to try and save procurement programs and operational level funding. However, even after the engines get into the supply system the AF's supply system is loving broken beyond all belief and therefore it's not like a base can just accumulate a bunch of spare engines to allow for any contingencies. So in short, while in theory it might seem like a staying with older, less reliable engines would still save money and not hurt MC rates due to the plethora of spares the AF has lying around, in reality re-engining with a newer more reliable engine would probably really help the MC rate. Godholio posted:I have no doubt Boeing inflates the numbers, I work with their contractors on a near-daily basis and as usual, I'm baffled how it's cheaper to pay the contract than have a couple of active duty captains doing the job of any 5 of them. Organizational level contractor maintenance support is one of the biggest rackets in the military...I'll buy at the depot level (I guess, don't really have any direct experience with it yet), but at the organizational level there is so much duplication of effort and inefficiency it's not even funny. Godholio posted:This really is at the heart of a lot of military budget woes. We spend money on the wrong things and neglect minor investments that would pay back the initial cost in spades. We just spent a shitload of money on upgrading one of our secure facilities...that we will now no longer use at all because our IAO and PSM got canned as part of the civilian cuts the AF just announced. So yeah, brilliant funding choices there guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2011 07:26
|
|
|
Godholio posted:fuel savings will make up the difference down the road. From the military/former military people I know, this has to be the last thing that would ever come up as a justification for something like this. There's probably a Navy or AF aircraft dumping fuel over your house right now!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 00:24
|
|
|
fknlo posted:From the military/former military people I know, this has to be the last thing that would ever come up as a justification for something like this. There's probably a Navy or AF aircraft dumping fuel over your house right now! I can't speak to USAF, but from the Navy perspective starting from at least a year ago you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 04:13
|
|
|
fknlo posted:From the military/former military people I know, this has to be the last thing that would ever come up as a justification for something like this. There's probably a Navy or AF aircraft dumping fuel over your house right now! We dump so much fuel. Mmmmm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Here, have some A500... DSC_0120 by Ridge_Runner_5, on Flickr  DSC_0116 by Ridge_Runner_5, on Flickr  DSC_0102 by Ridge_Runner_5, on Flickr  DSC_0112 by Ridge_Runner_5, on Flickr  DSC_0108 by Ridge_Runner_5, on Flickr  DSC_0104 by Ridge_Runner_5, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
Well, thats certainly an answer to a question noone asked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 07:15
|
|
|
Post hot Burt Rutan designs and yap about mutton chops: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:Well, thats certainly an answer to a question noone asked. The idea is actually pretty good, but Adam messed up the execution pretty badly. Conventional twins can lose a massive amount of climb performance when an engine fails, and if the aircraft gets too slow with one engine out, it will roll towards the dead engine, probably resulting in an unrecoverable spin. By using a centerline thrust setup, an engine failure results in much less of a performance penalty, and makes the aircraft far easier to control in an engine-out situation, especially on takeoff or during the initial climb. Essentially, Adam managed to design an aircraft with the same passenger capacity as the Beech Baron, but with better performance, a larger interior, and much better safety if an engine failed. The originally listed price tag was also about $100k cheaper than a Baron, but I don't know what the five production aircraft actually sold for. Unfortunately, the finished A500 ended up being about 1,300lbs overweight, which meant that the full fuel payload was only 160lbs, or less than the pilot would weigh. Adam Aircraft went bankrupt after only five A500's were sold, and after the second set of owners also ran out of money, the new owners are redesigning the A500 to lose about 1,000lbs, and it's being turned into a turboprop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Simkin posted:Post hot Burt Rutan designs and yap about mutton chops: The Pond Racer has to be the inspiration for George Lucas' pod racer. Two I really like: Quickie:  Long-EZ in its sleeping position:  And in its natural habitat: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2011 10:47
|
|
