|
Madurai posted:Range 5,500 km? Shenanigans. That's max ferry range. Crated up in a Soviet rust bucket steaming for Cuba.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
Madurai posted:Range 5,500 km? Shenanigans. Bigass deltas have bigass fuel fractions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:We couldn't even if we wanted to. The whole "securing sales by spreading jobs" extends to partner countries as well. F-35 is a huge employer of engineers in Australia, Canada, UK and every other country that's buying it. That's why we're all buying it. Lock-Mart are evil, but they're not stupid. This wasn't LockMart's idea, it was built into the program requirements, the F-32 would've been the exact same and there's no reason to think we'll ever have another program on this scale that isn't also set up in this manner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:This wasn't LockMart's idea, it was built into the program requirements, the F-32 would've been the exact same and there's no reason to think we'll ever have another program on this scale that isn't also set up in this manner. Because there are only three companies left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Even if there were 500 companies left, that's just how it's done. When Congress spends money it wants to do so in a way that keeps Congressmen in office. It's not even a problem unique to Congress, it's true everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Yeah I've actually defended the PAK-FA in this thread (or the TFR one) before but putting it on the level of the F-22 is a major stretch because for the most part it's a Flanker+ with weapon bays right now. None of the major systems like the planned engine or the full radar suite are off the ground yet IIRC, and Russia is running into some real problems funding its buildup plans when oil prices are slipping under $80 a barrel. Look at this guy who stole my thunder. Pak-fa is still using loaner engines, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:"glides" Something tells me a V-22 glides like the space shuttle. Or a Leerjet with the thrust reversers on. They might be able to auto-rotate, but that's only useful if the gearboxes and driveshafts are intact. Something tells me if you need to auto-rotate, at least one of those gearboxes won't be functioning. Yeah but the likelihood of that happening is pretty small. In fact, an engine loss with an associated gear box loss has only happened once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey see the second 1992 incident) and it wasn't even a gearbox that was lost-- it was an associated driveshaft that is now fire protected. Its a pretty safe aircraft. It glides somewhere in between the space shuttle and a washing machine. Doesn't matter how far it can glide but what kind of landing it can make at the end-- which thankfully is a pretty normal approach/landing speed (115-120 knots in the flare). A Melted Tarp posted:There's no way that an auto in the V-22 does anything more than slow your crash slightly. Those rotor blades have like zero inertia. If you're caught in a situation where you have to auto then yeah you're pretty much dead. A successful auto takes like 2000 feet to enter. If you're that high in VTOL mode you're pretty much done. But flight time in that profile is tiny tiny tiny. And you have two engines so unless something goes terribly terribly bad and god wants you dead you'll be okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Yeah but the likelihood of that happening is pretty small. In fact, an engine loss with an associated gear box loss has only happened once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey see the second 1992 incident) and it wasn't even a gearbox that was lost-- it was an associated driveshaft that is now fire protected. Its a pretty safe aircraft. It glides somewhere in between the space shuttle and a washing machine. Doesn't matter how far it can glide but what kind of landing it can make at the end-- which thankfully is a pretty normal approach/landing speed (115-120 knots in the flare). I've probally not been clear. I don't hate the V-22, and it's the fastest cargo vtol around. It's just got a crapload of scary failure modes. The thing flys on computers, so it's hard to put it anywhere that's not safe. The approach and landing speed assumes the wings and flaps are blown.. I assume. The wings are quite tiny. It is fantasy to think that the thing might ever come in that way, but it's an interesting though to think about how that thing "might" glide to a landing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Look at this guy who stole my thunder. Pak-fa is still using loaner engines, right? As far as I've read it's still using some version of the Su-35 engines, with the follow up supposedly entering testing this year but not slated to be in production for 5+ years. The -35 engines are the ones that wrecked that one prototype. The last real news I can find is from the beginning of September about how the Indians were disappointed with the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:And you have two engines so unless something goes terribly terribly bad and god wants you dead you'll be okay. Well, it is a combat aircraft so think more in terms of eating a pair of SA-7s edit: also bird strikes
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Total power loss on most airplanes is "concerning" but not "really bad day." Partial power loss, say for example shutting down one engine out of four and idling the rest, is "concerning". Total power loss is a "really bad day", even if everyone survives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
I would frankly rather deal with full power loss in a helicopter than a fixed-wing aircraft. I would rather plop down on a surface of unknown quality than try to land on it at an already lethal speed. Fortunately, total power loss is a tremendously rare thing in any multi-engine aircraft, or any single-engine aircraft for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:
MrChips posted:I would frankly rather deal with full power loss in a helicopter than a fixed-wing aircraft. I would rather plop down on a surface of unknown quality than try to land on it at an already lethal speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Yeah I'll still take an autorotation in a heli in a boulder field instead of the ground speed on a fixed wing aircraft if I ever find myself in that hypothetical. It's a matter of it sucking-less at that point, but at least you'll get to pick what lovely spot you're sticking the heli in as opposed to whatever lovely strip of land you're trying to plop a cessna or whatever in to. e: late night grammar Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 09:30
|
|
|
Mazz posted:As far as I've read it's still using some version of the Su-35 engines, with the follow up supposedly entering testing this year but not slated to be in production for 5+ years. The -35 engines are the ones that wrecked that one prototype. There's no particular reason why they ( Russia / India ) can't build the thing from an engineering point of view, well, apart from timing before the tech is obsolete. I think it's more that, how the hell can they afford to field a plane like that in large numbers. You've got the biggest economy in the world and you're finding it tough on F22 numbers, in Western Europe, where we technically could afford it if we didn't argue all the time, we're all burning cash on the F35, and really don't know if we can afford to field that. I doubt if it gets completed there will ever be more than a few of them around. I'd really like to see a breakdown on exactly how the production / maintenance costs are so insane on stealthy planes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I would frankly rather deal with full power loss in a helicopter than a fixed-wing aircraft. I would rather plop down on a surface of unknown quality than try to land on it at an already lethal speed. This. An auto with flare at walking pace is going to be survivable, even if you land on a used car lot. The aircraft will flip over and destroy itself, but the G-forces will be pretty low at that point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:There's no particular reason why they ( Russia / India ) can't build the thing from an engineering point of view, well, apart from timing before the tech is obsolete. I think it's more that, how the hell can they afford to field a plane like that in large numbers. There's no real concern over them building a lot, because it's pretty clear they won't, at least not any time soon. It's more that it exists at all, and I don't mean in a combat sense specifically. While military planners certainly have to acknowledge it in the countries that will fly it, the deeper issue is that it's going to be up against the F-35 and other such aircraft on the export market. If it turns into a respectable aircraft at a respectable price, then there's potential for your Rafales, Gripens and F-35s to lose contracts to it. Exports tend to be very important for aircraft, especially smaller programs, because they keep the lines open and increase your maintenance and upgrade base by every additional plane sold. If say, in 2030, Brazil decides to buy 10 billion in front line aircraft, and the PAK-FA wins, that's 10 billion to Sukhoi and Russia that isn't going to the Swedes/US/France etc. That also could mean that in 2040 the Russians get incremental upgrades to their fleet that were partially paid for by that Brazil sale. As programs get ever more technical/expensive, and most military budgets constrict, I think this aspect only gets more and more important. EDIT: Also, on the engineering point, I don't discount Russian designs because since the beginning of WW2 they've put out many great designs in every category from small arms to ICBMs. If you had to point out weaknesses they tend to be on the manufacturing side, especially in areas of high tech and high precision (at least during the Soviet era). For them to falter on the new engine is not tremendously surprising, or damning. There's only a few companies in the world that can make good engines (and I'd probably include Saturn on that list given the Flankers success). Hell, the Chinese have been trying for a while and still only put out mediocre engines. And I don't think anyone is arguing with the Chinese industrial base. Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Big thumbs, small phone, Q =/= E.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I would frankly rather deal with full power loss in a helicopter than a fixed-wing aircraft. What about a total power loss in a motor glider?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Mazz posted:There's no real concern over them building a lot, because it's pretty clear they won't, at least not any time soon. It's more that it exists at all, and I don't mean in a combat sense specifically. While military planners certainly have to acknowledge it in the countries that will fly it, the deeper issue is that it's going to be up against the F-35 and other such aircraft on the export market. If it turns into a respectable aircraft at a respectable price, then there's potential for your Rafales, Gripens and F-35s to lose contracts to it. Nobody's making GBS threads on Russian R&D or manufacturing. But when someone strolls into the thread and makes the ridiculous claim that the Pak-Fa is on par with the F-22, it deserves to be resoundingly curb-stomped. The F-22 is a next-gen fighter that spent over two decades in development. The Pak-Fa is a dressed-up Flanker that's probably giving their engineers a field day in advanced systems development. The Pak-Fa is a stepping stone to better things; it's neither the ultimate product nor a peer competitor for the F-22.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
A while back I was bored during a flight, bullshitting with the pilots, and looked up the glide performance of the E-2 in the manual. Turns out that from 28k feet, with one prop feathered and one windmilling (required to provide emergency hydraulic power for the flight controls), it can allegedly glide 47 miles, for a glide ratio of about 8.8. That's assuming some kind of catastrophe that kills both engines simultaneously, like all our fuel spontaneously transmuting into Kool-Aid. Not bad, but to put it in context, for the overwater station we were flying at the time, that would have barely let us reach the nearest coastal airfield at our closest approach to shore. Since we were orbiting roughly perpendicular to the coast, the rest of the time we were too far away. In that situation you try to find a fishing boat or cruise ship (hopefully not Carnival) that you can ditch or bail out near.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Nobody's making GBS threads on Russian R&D or manufacturing. But when someone strolls into the thread and makes the ridiculous claim that the Pak-Fa is on par with the F-22, it deserves to be resoundingly curb-stomped. The F-22 is a next-gen fighter that spent over two decades in development. The Pak-Fa is a dressed-up Flanker that's probably giving their engineers a field day in advanced systems development. The Pak-Fa is a stepping stone to better things; it's neither the ultimate product nor a peer competitor for the F-22. Now that I'm thinking about it, the Russians seem to favor the incremental approach when trying to catch up. If you look at SSN submarines, the US has (concentrating on numbers) the Los Angels Class, and the improved Los Angels Class. On the USSR's roster you have a whole series of subs (Alfa, Victor, Victor II, Victor III, Akula etc.) All different classes, but clustered around the same target, getting better each generation. I assume the advantages are that it is cheaper and less risky to work this way, since you can work each innovation incrementally, and you are less likely to end up with some essential clusterfuck on your hands (like the F-35.) Of course, the downside is that if your opponent gets it right, like with the F-22, you gotta be conformable with the opponent having flat out better aircraft until you get to the same point. So, y'know, cost-befit etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Nobody's making GBS threads on Russian R&D or manufacturing. But when someone strolls into the thread and makes the ridiculous claim that the Pak-Fa is on par with the F-22, it deserves to be resoundingly curb-stomped. The F-22 is a next-gen fighter that spent over two decades in development. The Pak-Fa is a dressed-up Flanker that's probably giving their engineers a field day in advanced systems development. The Pak-Fa is a stepping stone to better things; it's neither the ultimate product nor a peer competitor for the F-22. Agreed, when I make comparisons I do so against the earlier flankers and against the F-35 in terms of projected performance. You want to play in the F-22s ball club, you gotta be a lot more then looking good on paper. It really is a shame they cut the program down so badly and we're stuck paying nearly the same for the F-35 with little hope of righting that. Mazz fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I miss the days when the Russians were into total secrecy and we had to guess and make up names for things. Now that they're blasting sales brochure bullshit numbers everywhere and rebranding everything with half a dozen designations, it's harder to keep up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Our ability or lack thereof to afford F-22 is not related to ship cost vs size of the general economy, and shouldn't be a thumbrule for any other country with different sorts of domestic commitments.Wingnut Ninja posted:A while back I was bored during a flight, bullshitting with the pilots, and looked up the glide performance of the E-2 in the manual. Turns out that from 28k feet, with one prop feathered and one windmilling (required to provide emergency hydraulic power for the flight controls), it can allegedly glide 47 miles, for a glide ratio of about 8.8. You're not counting lift from autorotating the saucer section Nebakenezzer posted:Now that I'm thinking about it, the Russians seem to favor the incremental approach when trying to catch up. If you look at SSN submarines, the US has (concentrating on numbers) the Los Angels Class, and the improved Los Angels Class. On the USSR's roster you have a whole series of subs (Alfa, Victor, Victor II, Victor III, Akula etc.) All different classes, but clustered around the same target, getting better each generation. I assume the advantages are that it is cheaper and less risky to work this way, since you can work each innovation incrementally, and you are less likely to end up with some essential clusterfuck on your hands (like the F-35.) Of course, the downside is that if your opponent gets it right, like with the F-22, you gotta be conformable with the opponent having flat out better aircraft until you get to the same point. This isn't the Cold War thread so briefly this is also a bad example; the Soviets tried big catchup jumps in sub tech but couldn't pull it off, and tried a lot of oddball solutions to get around deficiencies, throwing poo poo at the wall to see what could stick. Alfa, Mike IIRC, Typhoon being good examples. They had far more expensive failures than we did with this approach. Victor I and II projects straight up sucked and were abandoned when spies revealed to them how bad we knew they were. Similarly Victor III simply couldn't fix everything they knew was wrong so they had to restart with Akula. You can see a similar pattern with PLAN development / acquisitions where they're making huge strides between fairly low-hull-count classes. Also really there are three 688 subclasses (at least, depending how you count certain traits) and we're already on Block III of at least 5 for Virginia, so
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:A while back I was bored during a flight, bullshitting with the pilots, and looked up the glide performance of the E-2 in the manual. Turns out that from 28k feet, with one prop feathered and one windmilling (required to provide emergency hydraulic power for the flight controls), it can allegedly glide 47 miles, for a glide ratio of about 8.8. That's assuming some kind of catastrophe that kills both engines simultaneously, like all our fuel spontaneously transmuting into Kool-Aid. So could you trim it up at max range a/s, feather the prop, and then hope for the best? nevermind that probably wouldn't make for the safest landing hahaha
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:In that situation you try to find a fishing boat or cruise ship (hopefully not Carnival) that you can ditch or bail out near. "Great, I survived an ocean ditching only to get norovirus on the floating petri dish that saved me." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Anecdote of the day: Recruiter:  "Heeeyy we're Space X and we'd love to have you work with us!"Me:  "You had me at Space X.""Ok, I see from you're resume that you're in Canada. Do you have US citizenship or landed status?" *The sounds of heartbreak are audible at this point* 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Isn't SpaceX the one that's all ~*~silicon valley tech startup culture, but with ROCKETS~*~, which translates to 80 hour work weeks without overtime and rapid burnout? You probably dodged a bullet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Some insane aeronautics. Born just a hair too late...and tightly coweled Continental XI-1430 Hyper Engines liked to catch fire a bit too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Isn't SpaceX the one that's all ~*~silicon valley tech startup culture, but with ROCKETS~*~, which translates to 80 hour work weeks without overtime and rapid burnout? You probably dodged a bullet. No, because they pay poo poo in the first place, unlike Silicon Valley startups. Offered me $20k less than I was already making at the time, to move to a place where the price of living was 4x where I am. Southern California aerospace seems to pay poo poo across the board. Most places, contract aerospace manufacturing engineers are making $45-$55 an hour right now. Someone tried to recruit me earlier this week for a position in Huntington Beach for $35. I currently make $50 an hour and my rent is <$700 a month for a whole apartment to myself. They offered $15 an hour less, to move to a place where I could barely find a room with roommates with less than $1000 for my share. ...that hasn't actually been stopping me for searching for jobs out there, but only because I want to live closer to all the people I'm actually friends with. I'm mildly curious if Tesla pays any better, seeing as it's also an Elon Musk company.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Isn't SpaceX the one that's all ~*~silicon valley tech startup culture, but with ROCKETS~*~, which translates to 80 hour work weeks without overtime and rapid burnout? You probably dodged a bullet. Yeah, the work hours blow -- they chew through new grads pretty quick, unless you're willing to stick through it and try to move on up. Thought they paid slightly more than decent though, I guess that isn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Some insane aeronautics. Born just a hair too late...and tightly coweled Continental XI-1430 Hyper Engines liked to catch fire a bit too much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnbzMxEvJ5Q
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Crazy to see Lambert Field not all built up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:Some insane aeronautics. Born just a hair too late...and tightly coweled Continental XI-1430 Hyper Engines liked to catch fire a bit too much.  Gorgeous plane, terrible name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
BobHoward posted:Isn't SpaceX the one that's all ~*~silicon valley tech startup culture, but with ROCKETS~*~, which translates to 80 hour work weeks without overtime and rapid burnout? You probably dodged a bullet. I jokingly proposed to a friend in IL to gain status. Her price was diamonds or pearls. Working with space x would be nice on the resume though, and I've done 80hrs/week. It's even funnier when the recruiter condoned the proposal to an AMERICAN WOMAN.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:
Moonbat is awesome. Now you get things like the highly imaginative Lightning II, and even before, Eagle and Fighting Falcon (which everyone then calls the viper). The next plane regardless of role should be called Flameboar or whatever
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Moonbat is awesome. Now you get things like the highly imaginative Lightning II, and even before, Eagle and Fighting Falcon (which everyone then calls the viper). At that point you might as well call them "Emboar" and go full Pokemon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
ApathyGifted posted:No, because they pay poo poo in the first place, unlike Silicon Valley startups. Move to Palmdale. Make bank. Hate your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:27 |
|
|
simplefish posted:Moonbat is awesome. Now you get things like the highly imaginative Lightning II, and even before, Eagle and Fighting Falcon (which everyone then calls the viper). Okay I'll concede you that point but the original sentiment remains. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:50
|
|