The Airplane thread

   #62  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/11/22/Crashed-Russian-MiG-29-ran-out-of-fuel-awaiting-repairs-officials-say/2691479842178/



Crashed Russian MiG-29 ran out of fuel awaiting repairs, officials say
By Doug G. Ware | Nov. 22, 2016 at 3:29 PM Follow @upi

MOSCOW, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- A $30 million Russian fighter jet crashed into the Mediterranean Sea earlier this month because it ran out of fuel while it waited for an aircraft carrier to fix its landing equipment, U.S. naval officials said.

The Soviet-era Mikoyan MiG-29K crashed Nov. 13 off the coast of Syria after its first attempt to land on the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov failed, the United States Naval Institute said Tuesday, based on the translation of a Russian report.

The MiG-29K was flying a sortie with two other aircraft in the area near Syria and was the last that attempted to land. When the aircraft ahead of the MiG broke the landing cable on the carrier, the pilot had to fly out over the Mediterranean and wait for the cable to be repaired, the Russian report said.

While the aircraft was awaiting the repairs, it ran out of fuel and dropped into the sea.

"While in the holding area, both of the fighter's engines shut down," the translation of the Russian report said. "A preliminary explanation is that they were no longer receiving fuel. ln such situations, a fighter falls like a rock, and the pilot has only one option -- to eject."

The MiG pilot did eject and was rescued by helicopter a short time later.

NATO ships in the area offered to assist, but the Russians refused, a NATO official told USNI News last week.

The MiG-29K was developed and made its first flight in the 1980s but didn't enter Russian service until 2010. Each jet costs about $30 million.
 
   #63  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,330
Reaction score
21,645
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
The MiG-29K was flying a sortie with two other aircraft in the area near Syria and was the last that attempted to land. When the aircraft ahead of the MiG broke the landing cable on the carrier, the pilot had to fly out over the Mediterranean and wait for the cable to be repaired
A US carrier would have sent a tanker up to refuel the guy.

ln such situations, a fighter falls like a rock, and the pilot has only one option -- to eject."
F16 drivers would disagree.
 
   #64  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
F16 drivers would disagree.
Let's see him do that dead stick landing on a carrier deck!

Got to love the "Carrier" mini series, especially the parts that show how young and inexperienced the enlisted persons crew is. Take them all to Captain's Mast! :) One of the best programs PBS ever produced, and well worth a binge watch on your streaming service du jour if you haven't seen it yet.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #65  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,330
Reaction score
21,645
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Let's see him do that dead stick landing on a carrier deck!
I suppose that would increase the pucker factor. Especially with no arresting cables. In an airplane that wasn't designed to land on a carrier to begin with. :eek:

But that's beside the point, which was that the statement, "a fighter falls like a rock" without engine power isn't correct.

Got to love the "Carrier" mini series, especially the parts that show how young and inexperienced the enlisted persons crew is. Take them all to Captain's Mast! :) One of the best programs PBS ever produced, and well worth a binge watch on your streaming service du jour if you haven't seen it yet.....
+1.

-Uwe-
 
   #66  

Flaps10

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
509
Reaction score
940
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=219700
Yeah, the LAST plane to land in a US Navy flight operation is a tanker, followed by a chopper with swimmers. And this is why
 
   #68  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Here's the missing half of the above story.....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/30/satellite-images-highlight-potential-problems-with-russias-lone-aircraft-carrier/


Satellite images highlight potential problems with Russia’s lone aircraft carrier

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff
November 30


The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov passes within a few miles of Dover, in the southeast of England, as a fleet of Russian warships sail through the North Sea, and the English Channel on Oct. 21. (Gareth Fuller/PA Wire)

Recently released satellite images of the airfield Russia uses in Syria suggest that a contingent of jets from Russia’s lone aircraft carrier, which is floating off Syria’s coast, have been moved inland.

The pictures taken Nov. 20 and released to the defense analysis company IHS Janes, show nine jets adjacent to the tarmac at Khmeimim air base in northern Syria. They are the same types as those flown off the Admiral Kuznetsov, an aging, Soviet-era heavy-aircraft-carrying missile cruiser that began launching jets into Syrian airspace earlier this month.

If confirmed, the transfer of the aircraft from ship to shore is just one more wrinkle in the Kuznetsov’s very public insertion into the Syria campaign, an action that began in October when the 1,000-foot hulk steamed through the English Channel on its way to Syria and continued earlier this month when a carrier-based jet crashed into the Mediterranean before landing.

Critics have derided the Kutznetsov — with its myriad mechanical problems and propensity to belch black smoke — for being nothing more than a propaganda tool for the Kremlin. Others point to the Soviet-era ship and its small detachment of trained pilots and aircraft as a modest attempt to field a maritime task force capable — at least on some levels — of mimicking its U.S. supercarrier counterparts.


Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery shows Su-33 jets parked among Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft at Khmeimim air base in Syria on Nov. 20. (Courtesy of IHS Janes)

The nine aircraft in the satellite images include eight Russian navy Su-33s and one MiG-29K, parked alongside Russia’s normal array of Su-34s, Su-35s and Su-24s. When Russia began its air campaign in Syria, about a dozen Su-25 ground-attack jets were stationed at Khmeimim but returned to Russia following President Vladimir Putin’s March announcement that he was withdrawing some of his forces.

On Nov. 14, a Russian Mig-29K from the Kuznetsov crashed in the Mediterranean. Citing the Russian news outlet Gazeta, IHS reported that the crash was the result of a problem with one of the Kuznetsov’s arrestor cables, forcing the jet to circle the carrier. Arrestor cables are spread across the flight decks of aircraft carriers to catch jets as they land at high speeds, and unlike U.S. carriers, the Kuznetsov does not have a catapult to launch its aircraft; it relies on a ramped deck to help get the jets aloft.

While in its holding pattern, the MiG’s engines failed and the jet went down several miles from the carrier. The pilot, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, was recovered without incident. Despite the Nov. 14 crash, the Russian Interfax news agency reported that the Kuznetsov was participating in strikes in Syria the next day, as Russian and Syrian government forces began their renewed blitz on eastern Aleppo. The Kuznetsov first deployed with about 20 fighters aboard — a mixture of Su-33s and a small number of Mig-29Ks — as well as a number of helicopters that provide search-and-rescue capabilities and air traffic control.

The MiG-29K is a multi-role fighter capable of attacking both targets in the air and on the ground, and is a newer, carrier-based variant of the traditional MiG-29. The Su-33, on the other hand, is designed to primarily go after other fighters. Videos posted on social media have shown both aircraft in the skies over Syria.
 
   #69  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-travel-briefcase-supersonic-20161203-story.html

Supersonic passenger planes may begin test flights next year


Virgin Group founder Richard Branson is teaming up with a Denver company to build a supersonic passenger jet. (Boom Supersonic)


The time it takes to fly from New York to London may be cut by more than half if Virgin Group founder Richard Branson and a Denver start-up are successful in their effort to create a new supersonic passenger plane.

The manufacturing team for Branson’s Virgin Galactic company is working with Boom Supersonic to test a prototype next year of a passenger plane that can fly at Mach 2.2, more than twice the speed of a typical commercial jet.

Supersonic flights came to a halt after the July 25, 2000, crash of an Air France Concorde outside Paris that killed 113 people, and the downturn in the aviation industry after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Blake Scholl, chief executive of Boom, said safety concerns were not the reason the Concorde jets were taken offline. Instead, he said the planes were too expensive to operate.

“Today, we are sitting on 50 years of progress on aerodynamics, fuel economy, design,” he said.

Instead of spending seven hours and paying up to $5,500 for a flight from New York to London on a Boeing 747, travelers can spend about $2,500 for a three-hour flight to cross the Atlantic on a supersonic jet, according to Boom.

“Supersonic travel for both cargo and humans will result in many exciting benefits,” Branson said in a video statement. Under the partnership, Branson is expected to fly the Boom jets in his Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Australia airlines.

The idea has the support of the travel industry.

A survey of more than 2,000 travel boards and tourism industry groups taken last month found that 63% of senior travel executives expect supersonic flying to become a mainstream form of commercial transportation.
 
   #70  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,330
Reaction score
21,645
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
   #71  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Nice looking airplane.

But color me skeptical, especially considering that it's a startup company.
Branson throws away a lot of his money on pie-in-the-sky projects, including that sub-orbital space plane thingy. I wouldn't put it past them to succeed with him as the venture capital, especially when he already has the route selected and owns his own trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific airlines.....
 
   #72  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
The Russian Navy just lost *another* MiG in the water due to a mechanical problem on their only remaining garbage scow^H^H^H aircraft carrier!!!!! :facepalm:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-just-lost-its-second-warplane-in-a-month-of-syria/2016/12/05/f8353be8-bad8-11e6-817f-e3b588251d1e_story.html

Russia just lost its second warplane in a month off Syria


A Russian Su-33 fighter jet, like the one reported crashed, stands on the flight deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. (AP/AP)


By Andrew Roth and David Filipov
December 5 at 6:24 AM

MOSCOW — A Russian warplane crashed off the coast of Syria, Russian state news agencies reported Monday, the second plane in less than a month to plunge into the Mediterranean Sea while attempting to land on Russia’s Soviet-era Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.

The Russian Su-33 Flanker crashed after flying a combat mission, Russia’s Ministry of Defense announced Monday, but it said the cause of the accident was a mechanical malfunction aboard the aircraft carrier.

“After carrying out its military activity in the skies over Syria, an Su-33 fighter fell off the deck of the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov on landing because a cable in the arresting gear snapped,” the ministry said in an official statement carried by the Interfax news agency.

The pilot ejected and was saved by a search-and-rescue team, the statement added. The pilot was not injured.

Last month, a Russian MiG-29K fighter jet crashed while attempting to make an emergency landing on the aircraft carrier shortly after takeoff.

The Admiral Kuznetsov, launched in 1985, has a history of on-board accidents during training missions. The Syrian conflict is its first combat deployment. Unlike other modern aircraft carriers, it does not have a catapult system, and the jets it carries must launch off a ramp, limiting the load of fuel and weapons that they can carry.
 
   #73  

Flaps10

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
509
Reaction score
940
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=219700
Branson throws away a lot of his money on pie-in-the-sky projects, including that sub-orbital space plane thingy. I wouldn't put it past them to succeed with him as the venture capital, especially when he already has the route selected and owns his own trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific airlines.....
That plane is "We're going to do exactly what they did 40 years ago and expect different results". Don't get me wrong, supersonic planes give me wood. But the Concord was economically doomed because it had no cargo capacity.

And unless I need to hand you a briefcase full of untraceable bills or stolen artifacts, I can beat you across the ocean with a WebEx.

And 65% of execs would travel supersonic for the same reason my dog licks himself.
 
   #74  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
That plane is "We're going to do exactly what they did 40 years ago and expect different results". Don't get me wrong, supersonic planes give me wood. But the Concord was economically doomed because it had no cargo capacity.

And unless I need to hand you a briefcase full of untraceable bills or stolen artifacts, I can beat you across the ocean with a WebEx.
From somebody who has beaten a single-engine airplane from New Jersey to Florida in my GTI 16V, you will get no argument from me that flying is obsolete.

I do believe that their argument does hold a lot of weight regarding the costs of running the older technology versus today's technology. The Concorde was designed during a time when fuel was cheap and jumbo jets were still expensive to fly on. I have no doubt that they could trim 50% from the Concorde's former operating costs, by using computers to optimize the lift/drag and using modern sandwich-core composite materials to build the airframe.

I'm rooting for them to pull this off, since I don't think I'll ever see Europe again without a supersonic option to cross Atlantic. Guess I'm spoiled from my first crossing.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
   #75  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Another thing that I forgot to point out is that the jumbo jets have undergone a continuous evolution since the first 747 took off in 1969 or so. Engines have been upgraded, the planes got larger, and the expanded upper deck on the later 747's is adding additional first class seat revenue at negligible incremental costs. Once Concorde production wrapped up, did they even update the engines again? I don't know the answer, but suspect that with such a small production run of Concordes the answer is probably no.....
 
   #76  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
   #77  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
That doesn't look like a 747-200 to me..... :facepalm:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-air-force-one-too-costly-cancel-153508238.html

Trump says new Air Force One too costly: 'Cancel order!'

AFP
December 6, 2016


The current double-decker 747-200s used as Air Force One, first ordered by Ronald Reagan and put into service in 1990, are getting old (AFP Photo/BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI)


Washington (AFP) - President-elect Donald Trump called Tuesday for the cancellation of a multi-billion dollar Boeing contract to build the next Air Force One, calling the ballooning costs "ridiculous."

"Boeing is building a brand new 747 Air Force One for future presidents, but costs are out of control, more than $4 billion. Cancel order!" Trump tweeted.

Converting a pair of 747-8 jumbo jets to state-of-the-art luxury command centers by 2024 had been estimated to cost $3 billion when Boeing was picked for the job in January 2015.

The legendary light blue and white liveried jets -- "United States of America" emblazoned on the fuselage and an American flag on the tail -- are a powerful symbol of US might.

But the current double-decker 747-200s, first ordered by Ronald Reagan and put into service in 1990, are getting old.

Earlier this year, the Air Force issued the first of a series of contracts for the project to build new ones.

Ironically, it was a $25.7 million effort to look at ways to cut the costs of fielding the next presidential aircraft.

Instead, cost projections have apparently ballooned, prompting Trump's outburst.

"I think Boeing is doing a little bit of a number. We want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not that much money," the president-elect told reporters at Trump Tower, his Manhattan headquarters.

He said the estimated $4 billion cost was "totally out of control" and "ridiculous."

Boeing had no immediate comment.

Prestige items like Air Force One have been targeted before because of spiralling costs.

In 2009, President Barack Obama halted a project to replace the Marine One helicopters that ferry the president.

Costs had soared to nearly $11.5 billion after the 28 helicopters were ordered in 2005.
 
   #78  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,330
Reaction score
21,645
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
That doesn't look like a 747-200 to me..... :facepalm:
Yeah, editor FAIL.

But the current double-decker 747-200s, first ordered by Ronald Reagan and put into service in 1990, are getting old.
Sure, they're getting old, but I bet they don't have a whole lot of hours or cycles on them. In commercial service, airliners fly 12 or more hours a day and get several cycles on them every day and they still last 30 years. These two airplanes are probably the best-maintaned hangar queens on the planet. So what exactly is wrong with the existing VC-25s, and what would brand-new replacements do better?
 
   #79  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,502
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
So what exactly is wrong with the existing VC-25s, and what would brand-new replacements do better?
IIRC, Boeing has announced that they want to cease production of the 747 line in the near future. Unless you want to see Air Force One as a Boeing 787 or 767, they need to order replacements for the current 200-series now so that the new airplanes have an additional 25 year of air life. That was the justification used by the Air Force when I started bidding the project with both Boeing and Scarebus.

Speaking of Air Force One, I bet that Trump's private pilot is drooling right now with thoughts of getting to use the Air Force One callsign in a few weeks..... :D
 
   #80  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
30,330
Reaction score
21,645
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
IIRC, Boeing has announced that they want to cease production of the 747 line in the near future. Unless you want to see Air Force One as a Boeing 787 or 767, they need to order replacements for the current 200-series now so that the new airplanes have an additional 25 year of air life.
Tell me again why the existing VC25s can't continue to be used indefinitely? Again, these are low-hour, low cycle-count airframes.

As far as the other options I never understood why the POTUS needs a behemoth 747 to begin with.

Speaking of Air Force One, I bet that Trump's private pilot is drooling right now with thoughts of getting to use the Air Force One callsign in a few weeks..... :D
My understanding is you only get to use that call sign if you're flying a plane that's owned & operated by the US Air Force, that happens to be carrying the President.

That said, I wonder if he's already using "Trumpforce 1" now? :D
 
Top