Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Possible northrop wind tunnel model.

https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/643_Models:H-P
2
Military / Re: The Famous 40mm Bofors Family
« Last post by Artie Bob on Today at 01:47:01 pm »
Just nostalgia, my memories of being a first loader on a 40mm quad mount during my first USN training cruise on the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) in 1955.  It was a lot of fun during our live fire training , shooting at aircraft towed sleeves. In later years, I was a first loader on a 3"/50 twin mount. Not nearly as much fun, strong muzzle blast, more noise, a single round that was much heavier than the 40mm clip, and a very awkward, crowded loading position.

Best regards,

ArtieBob
3
Unless things have changed, the US NASM policy and resulting execution in restoring aircraft has been somewhat more demanding and complex than many other museums.  Displaying the aircraft is somewhat secondary to making certain that the aircraft is returned to the condition of when it was built as an icon or perhaps a better term might be a "time capsule" of the technology incorporated in that aircraft. The restored aircraft in essentially all respects could be flown and all systems, materials and components, as much as possible are functional duplicates of the original.  Insuring that concept is expensive and perhaps difficult to monitor in a remote location.  The Do 335 situation was perhaps unique in some respects relative to it's restoration.

Best respects,

ArtieBob
4
Aerospace / Re: Tempest - UK Future fighter programme
« Last post by Jackonicko on Today at 01:26:18 pm »
On the first page of this thread, Hood said:

Quote
I'd be wary of reading too much into a plastic mock-up. I must admit, I was expecting an announcement of joining the Franco-German effort rather than an attempt to revive a home-grown design.
The media are jumping all over this as Britain's new fighter, but if you listen to what Gavin Williamson says, its actually only a concept and is a shrewd political move to show willingness to collaborate. The mock-up is a nice PR item but I feel we'll look back on this in 20 years the same as the BAe P.110 mock-up back in the 80s.

It's a concept representing where Team Tempest's thinking was at long enough ago for them to have been able to build a couple of fibreglass mock-ups. One week before Farnborough, BAE Systems showed a group of journalists a slide showing a quartet of FCAS concepts, and AFM have made a pretty good stab at showing these on page 96 of the issue that came out yesterday (the September issue). Might one of these be more likely to become FCAS? Who knows - we're still a way from defining the eventual vehicle.
5
Aerospace / Re: Special Ops Hughes 500.
« Last post by quellish on Today at 01:23:08 pm »
I came across a photo a few days ago of a very interesting Hughes 500 that might have been operated by the most secretive of C.I.A. units, codenamed Seaspray. I started up a thread on ARC and it has a link to the photo in question. This unit has existed since around 1980 but I think this might be the very first photo of one of their Hughes 500s to come into the public domain. Have a look if you like exotic helicopters;


http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=242326


I hope this is of interest. Thanks.


500 Fan.

There were photos published in the 1980s in either Newsweek or US news and World report as part of the reporting on Yellow Fruit. One photo showed a white civilian 500 with planks in a banked turn.

Fun fact: SEASPRAY was the black unit, TF160 was the cover!
6
Naval Projects / Re: 1973-74 Spansh Guided Missile Destroyer Project
« Last post by Arjen on Today at 01:22:11 pm »
Conway's All the World Fighting Ships 1947-1995 (a later edition) states these destroyers were part of a package with the other parts being a light cruiser, two corvettes and some PF craft. This package was deferred to 1977-1978, the cruiser morphed into the light carrier Principe de Asturias with the rest materializing as six modified long-hulled FFG-7 frigates with extra beam to allow more top-weight, all built in Ferrol:
- Numancia
- Reina Sofia
- Santa Maria
- Victoria
- Navarra
- Canarias

Asturias laid down in 1979, completed in 1988.
The first FFG-7, Santa Maria, was laid down in 1982, completed in 1986.
The last FFG-7, Canarias, was laid down in 1992, completed in 1994.
7
Aerospace / Re: Bell V-280 Valor
« Last post by F-14D on Today at 01:15:43 pm »
Part of the reason that the USMC has not been able to develop VTOL recently is that by law the Army is responsible for rotorcraft Science and Technology when the USAF elected not to invest in "useless helicopters" in the 1950's.  Because the USMC is part of the USN (much to their dismay) they are restricted by Title 10 to what they can develop on their own.  This is why the USMC has been holding its breath regarding the FVL technologies that would be moved forward.  The USMC announced today its H-1 helicopter replacement requirements.  Currently their is only one flying aircraft that has a chance of meeting their requirements, with some modification.

I thought that division of duties applied just to USAF/Army?

USMC is part of Navy, so their funding is controlled by USN and it isn't often the Navy let them go off on their own. 
8
Naval Projects / Re: 1973-74 Spansh Guided Missile Destroyer Project
« Last post by pometablava on Today at 01:04:12 pm »
According to el grancapitan.org forum 3 fleet destroyers were considered under Naval Plan Barbudo (1971), but the project never progressed into a detailed proposal. In 1973, Admiral Pita da Veiga proposed a new plan based on 1DDG Class Kidd and 3 FFG Class Perry.
9

To the extent NGAD benefits from stable funding...
reportedly the first time it was signed before the start of the fiscal year in over 20 years.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-earliest-signing-the-ndaa-40-years-giant-step-rebuilding-the-military
10
old old news but still no answers

“In the year 2054,” Norman R. Augustine wrote in his book Augustine’s Laws, “the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3 1/2 days each week, except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

That's because it costs a lot to build bad products.   ::)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10