|
Colonial Air Force posted:Now, but the Army flew them in Viet Nam (and apparently up through the 1990s), and the Army National Guard still does, don't they? I think they stopped a few years ago. Still, there are a few Cobras left with other countries, as well as the modernized Marine versions (and a couple of demilitarized surplus examples used by state forestry departments. That's something I'd like to see sometime.)
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
Eej posted:I thought the Airacobra and Kingcobra were quite successful in the USSR. They were already used to aircraft that liked to spin: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Did the Soviets/Russia ever ponder replacing the turboprops on the Bear? It seems like the landing gear are already pretty tall so maybe a gigantic modern turbofan would fit? Does Russia even make any suitable engines for a hypothetical replacement? (I assume no Western engines would be considered)
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
david_a posted:Did the Soviets/Russia ever ponder replacing the turboprops on the Bear? It seems like the landing gear are already pretty tall so maybe a gigantic modern turbofan would fit? Does Russia even make any suitable engines for a hypothetical replacement? (I assume no Western engines would be considered) Tu-95 is fine now. Why change?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
I realize it would never happen for a variety of reasons. There were plans to replace those ancient engines on the B-52; I was just curious if the Russians even daydreamed about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
david_a posted:I realize it would never happen for a variety of reasons. There were plans to replace those ancient engines on the B-52; I was just curious if the Russians even daydreamed about it. Can't find any references to any such projects. Although I'm sure there were probably some what-if rough proposals scrawled on napkins by Tupolev engineers during meetings and lunches and the like, nothing seems to have come of them in any major way. Anyway part of the reason for the turboprops in the first place was to get the maximum operational range out of the plane. Russian jet bombers of the Bear's era were either short-ranged like the Tu-16 or disasters good for propaganda but not war, like the M-4. By the time better jet engines are available, there's ICBMs to do the heavy nuke-throwing work and no particular need to fiddle with the turboprops because they're already Good Enough for whatever else the Bear does that needs doing. Any proposals to that effect would've been met with "Da, we could comrade, but why bother? Spend on vodka instead." and shoved either into the trash or into archives where they haven't been seen or heard from since. EDIT: Watch, I'll be proved completely wrong on this by someone. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
david_a posted:I realize it would never happen for a variety of reasons. There were plans to replace those ancient engines on the B-52; I was just curious if the Russians even daydreamed about it. Well it's worth mentioning that we did replace the original engines on the BUFF...the -H's (only variant still in service) were also the only model to be equipped with the TF33s. All the other models that came before were flying on J57s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
And the BUFFs will never be re-engined again because there are literal mountains of TF-33 engine cores sitting around. Thousands of the fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:EDIT: Watch, I'll be proved completely wrong on this by someone. quote:The next stage in the development of a nuclear-powered bomber would have been the Tupolev Tu-119, a modified Tu-95, which would have been powered by both kerosene fueled and nuclear fueled turboprop engines; two Kuznetsov NK-14A nuclear fueled engines inboard fed with heat from a fuselage mounted reactor and two Kuznetsov NK-12 turboprops outboard. The Tu-119 was never completed due to the nuclear-powered bomber project being cancelled, on grounds of cost and the dire environmental impact of possible mishaps and accidents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
When the soviets are worried about "dire environmental impact" that's saying something!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:And the BUFFs will never be re-engined again because there are literal mountains of TF-33 engine cores sitting around. Thousands of the fuckers. There's about 2000 left at last count and they're each rated for something like 4,000 hours?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Nuclear doesn't count. We were talking about replacing the turboprops with jets. Also note that the nuclear-powered Bear would still be using turboprops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Anyway part of the reason for the turboprops in the first place was to get the maximum operational range out of the plane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:There's about 2000 left at last count and they're each rated for something like 4,000 hours? Dude there are active TF-33 engines with well over 30,000 hours on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
The number of TF33's in storage has come up several times in this thread. I want to say the first number cited was something like 3500. Now its around 2000. At this rate we may run out before this thread hits the goldmine... edit: this thread and the airpower thread, i guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Dude there are active TF-33 engines with well over 30,000 hours on them. TF-33s of Thesus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
My mom is a slut posted:The number of TF33's in storage has come up several times in this thread. I want to say the first number cited was something like 3500. Now its around 2000. At this rate we may run out before this thread hits the goldmine... http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11837&page=41 There are 2,600 engines as of 2006, there were about 3500 in the late 90s. That whole book is pretty good at reading about the issues the TF-33 has. 70 times the shutdown rate of other engines is pretty  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Holy gently caress with friends like that
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
I've shut down one TF-33 and that's because the electric generator couldn't disconnect from the gearing. MX forgot to put oil in it. The thing caught fire mid-flight. It burned so hot that the mechanical linkage connecting it to the - 33 gearing fused together. Boeing/P&W didn't think of that one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:MX forgot to put oil in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I've shut down one TF-33 and that's because the electric generator couldn't disconnect from the gearing. MX forgot to put oil in it. The thing caught fire mid-flight. It burned so hot that the mechanical linkage connecting it to the - 33 gearing fused together. Boeing/P&W didn't think of that one. I've been on plenty of flights with engine shutdowns, but as far as I know there was never a goddamn fire in one of them. Seems like something that would've come up in the debrief. My last 3 flights on the E-3 were all IFEs. One was a shutdown, and the last was a landing gear problem (in the middle of that big string of gear problems in 2011). Can't remember the other. On the last one, they couldn't get the nose gear (at least) to lower so we circled while the FE did it manually. Landed, stopped on the runway so maintenance could pin them in place. We taxied about 10 feet and stopped abruptly. The pilot called the MCC and explained that we had to deplane on the runway because there was no steering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I've been on plenty of flights with engine shutdowns, but as far as I know there was never a goddamn fire in one of them. Seems like something that would've come up in the debrief. Electrical generator problems are fairly common. Usually the FE can just punch off the generator from the turbine. In this instance, the generator and mechanical linkages just burned so badly. The book does suggest to turn off the engine when it doubt that the generator is offline, but there isn't anything (that I can recall) about poo poo fusing together from heat. I want to say that manually dropping the gear already implies that there will be no nosewheel steering. I could be wrong, but there is a landing gear gotcha where that comes into play. Something with pneumatic brakes being used.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Yeah, generator problems were pretty common, especially in the desert (since we could get CENTCOM to pay to fix them easier than ACC). I don't recall hearing about engines being shut down for generators, though...seems like something that would've stuck in my head. It seems strange that poo poo is still being discovered on this airframe. I don't know poo poo about the systems, but that was the second time I've had an FE have to do the gear manually, but the first time I think we were able to taxi. Maybe we got towed in before deplaning? I dunno. I remember the pilot sounded distinctly annoyed/surprised though. Is it a crank like in Memphis Belle, or what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Is it a crank like in Memphis Belle, or what? It's a Johnson bar on Civvie 707s/720s. I've seen one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Sucks to not be able to steer with power, huh
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Electrical generator problems are fairly common. Usually the FE can just punch off the generator from the turbine. In this instance, the generator and mechanical linkages just burned so badly. The book does suggest to turn off the engine when it doubt that the generator is offline, but there isn't anything (that I can recall) about poo poo fusing together from heat. I don't know about the specific aircraft type you're talking about, but generally you're going to do a manual drop when you've lost a hydraulic system. If you've lost a hydraulic system, that usually means no nosewheel steering either. Call mtce and get a tow (if you're good, you can at least get it off the runway with differential braking and thrust and rudder).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
joat mon posted:They were already used to aircraft that liked to spin: The I-16 was apparently much less prone to spins than its predecessors, the I-15 and I-153, so there's that Godholio posted:deplane This is not a loving word
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The I-16 was apparently much less prone to spins than its predecessors, the I-15 and I-153, so there's that Yes it is. It's a stupid word, but it is a word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
Dear China: I'm perfectly willing to defend similar designs, and even straight up copying poo poo in aviation terms, but even I've got a loving limit. It's not the 1960s anymore, try something loving new for once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The I-16 was apparently much less prone to spins than its predecessors, the I-15 and I-153, so there's that It is an industry accepted, universally and internationally understood word, and has been for nearly as long as there have been planes from which to deplane. I mean, hell, do you take issue with deicing too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
sofullofhate posted:Yes it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMTadkoWG9k 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
If you really want to have a war of pedantry over words, try getting in an argument (one sided, mind you, when the boss's boss says change the wording, you change it) about the word "damage". Apparently its highly esoteric definition can only be accurately understood by people two pay grades above me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTs3uzChx8k
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Linedance posted:It is an industry accepted, universally and internationally understood word, and has been for nearly as long as there have been planes from which to deplane. I mean, hell, do you take issue with deicing too? The opposite of deicing is icing. What is the opposite of "deplane"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
aquaplane
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The opposite of deicing is icing. What is the opposite of "deplane"? The opposite of "left" is? The opposite of "on" is? The opposite of "yes" is? English is internally inconsistent. Live with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
sofullofhate posted:The opposite of "left" is? remembered, beneath, no
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:The opposite of deicing is icing. What is the opposite of "deplane"? Enplane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:44 |
|
|
E- nm
Finger Prince fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Nov 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:24
|
|