|
Post by madmac on Jan 13, 2013 21:25:03 GMT 12
Given the A109 have only sufficient payload to carry the flight crew and a couple of VIP's, it would swim rather than fly.
If we had any brains we would ensure that Kaman give a full IP & rights release as a way of ensuring that they offer good aftermarket support. As it would allow us make all the parts if they don't. Done correctly it could start a rotorcraft manufacturing capability in nz.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jan 13, 2013 21:05:07 GMT 12
My understanding is that BAe Systems is likely release the mosquito design data IF approached by a Design Organization.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 17, 2012 21:04:54 GMT 12
It was 1998, march or April I think.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Dec 4, 2012 21:20:21 GMT 12
This gets really interesting when viewed in terms of having a detrimental effect on aviation safety. The classic being how are we going to pot dumbass student pilots doing stupid but not illegal activities.
One Wonders if a good lawyer blow the Privacy Act argument away on safety grounds.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 26, 2012 19:58:13 GMT 12
I read a trade mag, at work today, that quoted an individuals risk of dying in a aircraft due to a terrorist attack as being the same as the increase in cancer risk due to the radiation associated with the security checks.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 19, 2012 22:14:09 GMT 12
So what does "unique and efficient Hawker-developed Hybrid Airworthiness" mean? Is it military or civil, it can't both Airworthiness Systems
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 28, 2012 20:31:25 GMT 12
NOA arn't going to make it!!!
but fitted with the spray system for moth spraying would have been the most interesting scheme /config.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 25, 2012 20:50:46 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 17, 2011 18:15:04 GMT 12
So does anyone know what the fairing on the top of the fin of VP-BRT contains?
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jul 9, 2011 22:19:30 GMT 12
So who is "New Zealand Aerospace"
the others are all known (Sora is a flight structures off shoot)
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 31, 2011 8:37:55 GMT 12
Great friction, by 2030 the F35 will need to be on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 30, 2011 9:09:48 GMT 12
I understand that it has fly by wire control system. There is what i suppose is best described as a landing bar that has a shock absorber function, as there is no way human knees can take the impact load from 200 kgs. So knees bent just like a parachutist i suppose.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 29, 2011 23:01:17 GMT 12
Actually it needs a wing to get forward speed. has anyone seen a listed max forward speed there doesn't seen to be any element that would provide lift (other than engine thrust), so it can't transition to forward flight.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 29, 2011 18:02:42 GMT 12
I am not sure its crew making poor decisions rather poor training.
Given the quality of the article I vote we save the chickens and use journalists for bird strike testing.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 10, 2011 21:36:10 GMT 12
Interesting to see in the photo the registration on the wing is ZK-ACS.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 27, 2011 12:45:45 GMT 12
The question should be what is an acceptable accident rate, & it can't none, ever.
The road toll is about the same as 50 years ago, but the population has doubled, the average road speed may have doubled & distances travelled a year have increased by maybe a factor 20 to 100 times. Or in plane English it has never, ever, been safer to travel, of course, that is good news. But you can't sell ticketing on good news (not to mention, numerous people might have to find new jobs).
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 12, 2011 8:55:10 GMT 12
While I couldn’t find the quote I was looking for (about the USN considering space based weapons being THE threat against carriers in the next 50 years) I did find this quote from page 73 of www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209.htmlFor example, a regional power in the vicinity of the Indian subcontinent might acquire space-based conventional or kinetic weapons in response to local threats, such as the land-based ballistic missiles of a neighboring power, and later find the space weapons convenient for keeping U.S. carriers away from the Indian Ocean should the United States attempt to use its surface navy to project power there.This is equally applicable to Oz. A number of points: Wasn't there a line about the armour of battleships and how could an aircraft sink one! Fixed bases are screwed but they have been since fat boy was dropped. Orbital strike is a hyperawar concept and it doe push a first strike methodology. Carrier groups cannot be hidden from space tracking systems for very long. Israel with a population of 8 million have their own satellite manufacturing and launch capability (they also launch the wrong way costing them a 1/3 of their payload). The general life of a carrier is considered 50 years, given the large volumes of cash being spent on reducing the cost of lifting stuff into space that leaves a lot of scope for weapons. Does ozz build much civil stuff with its current ship yards, building a carrier would require lots of new infrastructure but is unlikely to add capability that would increase civil construction. While a lunch vehicle is dual use & would add scope for building civil satellites. How do we know there are no stealth satellites the US DOD black budget for space is bigger than European Space Agency budget.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 11, 2011 11:23:26 GMT 12
For maritime force projection Carriers in their current form are getting past their use by date. It is relatively easy to hit ships from space, and the cost of getting the weapons up there is only going to get cheaper. A good satellite warfare capability (stealth orbital strike and a satellite kill capability) would provide more capability for the same cost.
There can be no such thing as a superpower without population unless you can get a 50 year technology jump on the rest of the world (that normally requires a large population).
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 8, 2011 21:35:50 GMT 12
The change to a PT6 was 20 years ago, LTP101 have improved. The thing holding back the LTP101 is Honeywell is focused on the LTS101 & doesn't push the LTP101.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 7, 2011 20:22:12 GMT 12
The XL750 ag that got replaced with a Cresco, was a PAL ag conversion. The Falcon ag conversion looks to be significantly better (the installation is more like the Cresco one). The Walter turbines are a bigger fuel leak than a PT-6, I understand that some are looking at going back to the LTP101 due to the reduced fuel burn (& they make the overhaul hours these days).
|
|