Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
The Bar / Re: Nostalgia is not what it used to be
« Last post by uk 75 on Yesterday at 01:16:31 pm »
Thank you all for some fascinating insights
and thoughts.
This site performs a similar function to the old fashioned
clubs where enthusiasts can swap tales and info.
With thr advantage that old themes can be revisited at a few
key strokes. The information held here would certainly have amazed me when I was young.
22
Naval Projects / Re: HMS Eagle with Phantoms
« Last post by uk 75 on Yesterday at 01:10:19 pm »
Thanks Geoff
The radar fit might have been changed, though Hermes also
had the big 3d radar, so I suppose they would stay.
Would make a good looking model with a full air group.
With Hermes in tandem, with her Buccaneers and perhaps 2 Phantom squadrons on Eagle as the AD carrier.
23
Aerospace / MIG fifth generation light fighter
« Last post by T-50 on Yesterday at 01:00:41 pm »
 Hi everyone Im courious what the current status is of the so called LMFI or light multirole fighter of the MIG design buro.
 I know the Mikoyan designing buro is working on two new aircraft types,one project is a new type interceptor to replace the MIG-31
 this type is certainly ordered by the Russian airforce.
 But they are also rumours that they also planned a second project named the LMFI an light weight multirole combat aircraft to succeed
 the MIG-35 4++ generation fighter.
 Ill hope somebody can inform of this project will be serously developed or not
24
Naval Projects / never realized projects of Japanese destroyers ww2
« Last post by T-50 on Yesterday at 12:44:02 pm »
Hi dear people I know that the Japanese navy was testing the IJN Shimakaze destroyer it stayed by one example, so she was one of a kind.
 Does somebody know there were more paper project destroyers or a further developed version of the IJN Shimakaze?
25
Propulsion / Re: Rolls-Royce Liftjets from RB82 to XJ-99
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 12:44:01 pm »


And on a more general note, i was trying to find out who really invented the 3BSN as we know it ?



How about  Jack Britt, Rolls-Royce? (patent filed June 1954)  U.S. Patent  2,933,891, "Jet pipe arrangements for jet propulsion engines". He even has an arrangement for reversing thrust. http://www.google.com/patents/US2933891
[/quote]

IIRC this one was also before US efforts:

26
Propulsion / Re: Rolls-Royce Liftjets from RB82 to XJ-99
« Last post by charleybarley on Yesterday at 12:31:35 pm »

And on a more general note, i was trying to find out who really invented the 3BSN as we know it ?



How about  Jack Britt, Rolls-Royce? (patent filed June 1954)  U.S. Patent  2,933,891, "Jet pipe arrangements for jet propulsion engines". He even has an arrangement for reversing thrust. http://www.google.com/patents/US2933891

There is also a drawing of a 3BSN, Fig 21-8, in "The Jet Engine" RR Limited, 3rd edition dated July 1969.

And, filed May 1967, a P&W cooling scheme for an afterburner 3BSN. http://www.google.com/patents/US3429509

The first to fly? Perhaps this is a 3BSN on the YAK38 http://scalemodels.ru/modules/photo/viewcat.php?id=4223&cid=170&min=60&orderby=dateA&show=12
27
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 11:47:24 am »
Yes, I assert that the few weak nukes NK has could be overcome with conventional force.
Still, any war is extremely messy, and inevitably produces war crimes. One should simply not wage a war of aggression, period.

Is it aggression when a known lunatic has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against you?  Are you saying that one isn't justified in taking action until they've been attacked?  This sounds like you would argue the Osirak attack was bad but not doing anything about a threat until one is nuked is good.  Is that not what you're saying?  (Not arguing, I'm honestly looking for clarification to your statement.)
28
Pic here :)

Thats interesting,

How many variants of the D4Y4 were there? Its been on my mind for a short time now, as in the following pictures, all D4Y4s are different...

I also do not think, based on assumption of the aircraft layout, that the initial batch of D4Y4s were purpose built special attack aircraft. Can anyone clarify this?
29
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by lastdingo on Yesterday at 11:24:11 am »
Your hyperbole is misplaced. One should not state falsehoods when one argues against keeping peace.

Thousands of KIA were predicted before ODS, in part because of the assumption that Saddam would use nerve gasses.
NK is threatening Seoul with long range arty and nerve gas shells/rockets. They have a pretty good ability to kill thousands within hours.

I myself think that NK could be defeated and the PRC could be kept out of the war (especially if it's allowed to occupy most of NK and thus get a bargaining chip for Korean reunification talks that guarantees a neutral Korea without Western troops presence). The total casualty count could be kept below the qty of people the NK regime would murder in a decade.
I don't think the kind of politicians that's necessary to pull this off exists in the West, though. There's no von Bismarck in sight.
THAT is why any talk of violent solutions to difficult problems is nonsense these days.
Some problems could be solved through violence or the threat thereof, but only if said violence was guided by extremely competent politicians - of whom there is simply no evidence anywhere. The generals are useless for this - they have a too low pay grade to get stuff done for real. They are tools at best, though rarely of the needed size and shape.


Yes, I assert that the few weak nukes NK has could be overcome with conventional force.
Still, any war is extremely messy, and inevitably produces war crimes. One should simply not wage a war of aggression, period.
30
Aerospace / Re: F-X -- NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) -- F/A-XX
« Last post by bring_it_on on Yesterday at 11:10:30 am »
They terminated JDRADM primarily for cost reasons as part of the trades the had to make to accommodate the budget cuts that came due to the BCA. The reason the T3 survived was likely because it was with DARPA (hence somewhat protected) and because it did not consume a lot of money in the test phase. Going forward they likely want to study the requirements to determine what the capability needs are likely to be for the late 2020s and beyond. There are programs funded that will help mature some of the technology areas already that are independent of this particular program but I guess it will grow to encompass all of those once it is up and running. It is a relatively young effort so we'll need a bit of time to develop some clarity on where the AF is headed with this and whether it is something the AF wants to jointly pursue.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10