|
Post by madmac on Oct 30, 2008 17:52:55 GMT 12
I had heard that it was the students 3rd approach and that he just torched down too far down the runway. Can any body conferm whatthe wind direction was. The 172 was dripping all over aeromotive's hangar floor yesterday (No it wasn't rain water). I don't envy aeromotive's most junior engineer.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 29, 2008 18:54:47 GMT 12
A big scissor mechanism in the bomb bay and some electrical hooliganism involving a second seek head bolted to the aircraft could get them launched from the bomb bay (it would be a fun project).
Even if one launched a maverick or even a harpoon is there much hope that it would get to the target without being taken out by the air defense systems.
Do these types of missiles carry any ECM capabilitys?
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 29, 2008 18:45:25 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 20, 2008 16:13:55 GMT 12
They are not know as Mike Pervan's Kitchens and Bathrooms for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 12, 2008 22:52:41 GMT 12
A rapid respond gives a force weight all of its own. An airfield is only required to recover equipment, which leaves you more options than trying to running ashore. An aircraft can come back in a day with equipment that is needed due to changes in force requirements. Its a few big bites verses a lot of little bites, we not capable of delivering a knock out blow but a death by a 1000 cuts is possible (though that would require the staff offices to hang out with services other than western ones).
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 12, 2008 22:34:51 GMT 12
So does any one know what the racks on the hard points are for ?
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 12, 2008 19:07:19 GMT 12
Why did we need a heavy sea transport anyway nothing the NZDF has wont fit in a AN124, I76 or C17. for the same operating cost we could run a pair of AN124 and get the same tonne of gear any were in the world in 1/2 the time. Its currently trading the quick response of a small service with light equipment the long response time associated with heavy equipment which we don't have.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Aug 4, 2008 20:19:33 GMT 12
I have never seen good photos of the Hudson at Aspins.
Does any one know what the probe on NZ2032 & in the last photo is & if its a pitot why did they move it.
Denys Jones probably knows
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Jun 22, 2008 10:36:47 GMT 12
If Thielert hadn't gone bust there would have been a 350 Hp diesel Fletcher by the end of the year & it was expected t out performance the IO-720.
I understand that SuperAir is going back to the IO-720 from the Walter due to the fuel costs. Also LTP 101-700 might making a come back on the Cresco's as engine life is now the same & the fuel burn is better.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on May 8, 2008 20:26:10 GMT 12
My understanding is that they not that great. In general they have the same power as the unarmored one (which don't go very fast anyway with a 2.7 diesel).
I have also been told that they break axles , have wheel nuts fall out & the steering arms have specially designed to protect the axle & regularly end up bent.
When the TF brought 6 (i think) up from linton 4 of they stopped or wouldn't start. They are not allowed to callout the AA & the army maintenance contractors don't answers phones in the weekend. The fixes for the 3 of them consisted of belting them with blocks of wood & a hammer in the right places
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 30, 2008 22:28:28 GMT 12
Slight side track, has there ever been any statement has to the performance of the F22 & F35 if deprived of their stealth i.e. as the result of the introduction of new senor system.
I suspect that the F22 performance is quite good but the F35 is possible no better than a F16.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 22, 2008 18:48:53 GMT 12
Of course they spec'ed Turbomeca, they have to go back to France to be overhaul. They couldn't buy any thing that could be overhauled in NZ.
Should have combined tacical lift with tactical transport role brought 20 x MV22 to get critical mass (maintenance & support) and wet leasing 1/2 to Aussie, they would be broke about the same amount of time (assuming Focker as been able to stop the horizontal stab falling off).
But dreams are free
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 22, 2008 18:40:38 GMT 12
It is possibly out off ZK-BCF or a donor frame used to rebuild it after its crash (it later went missing as ZK-BGS).
Would like to know who was the owner of ZK-BGS when it went missing.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 20, 2008 21:53:55 GMT 12
The hopper after a wash. Also got a bit of the center section steel frame ( the tubes are mostly gone & the clusters a lumps of rust. The hopper boxs is also somewhat intact
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 16, 2008 18:46:52 GMT 12
Its aluminum with solid rivets, its recutanglar with the bottom half the tapering in, are distinctly different angles (this feature was noted by Ozzie James in a speech he gave to RAeS in the 90"s). The top is curved, with a cutout shaped like a cockpit cutout, with a approximate 1/2" diameter edge trim. These also other tiger bits in the dump.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 14, 2008 22:14:04 GMT 12
I don't have any pics yet
will return next weekend with a saw to remove offendingl tree so I can get it out. Then I might be able to post something
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 13, 2008 18:25:22 GMT 12
HI
Does any one have photos of the Tiger moth hopper
I think I have found one but would like to see what it should look like
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 8, 2008 20:16:08 GMT 12
The CT4C was for Thai requirement, to replace the fantrainer which was a bit of a failure. But a revolution removed, killed or promoted to government the backers of the program and in doing so killed the requirement.
I understand it was completely uncertifiable in the as flown configuration due to stability issues (it needed larger tail feathers) this is also why it was limited to 350 hp. But it was apparently a hell of a lot of fun for aero's.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Sept 20, 2007 20:06:59 GMT 12
Even the paints in the modern airliners interiors are fire rated.
The really scary way of breaking carbon fibre structures is low velocity impact. These don't mark the surface but tends to crack the backside which is not normally inspectable. This gets worse with thicker sections (so luckily doesn't tend to apply to the home build aircraft). The impact is on the level of a person dropping a duty free gin bottle on the wing (Although the catering trucks will no doubt try hard to do greater amounts of damage without leaving a mark ). This also applies to the NH90 (Fokker currently has major issues with this on the tail boom assembly). Personally I think that carbon fibre is greatly overrated.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Mar 24, 2007 20:20:27 GMT 12
From my understanding of the CT4 crash was that if you read the appropriate report (don't know which) covering this element the conclusions regarding the change to the seat belt bear no connection to the rest of the report. Its been suggested that the conclusion was required to be different from that intended by the report writer. The crash was unsurvivable ( you can only hit the ground so hard regardless of how you are attached to the airframe) the miracle is that one of them survived.
Seat belts are designed to stretch by about 50% to 100%. For an inertia reel it would be closer to the lower figure. The seat belts were changed to American scientific I think ( at $20,000 a pop) for very little gain.
|
|