Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

RuAF News and development Thread part 15

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TR1
    TR1
    http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
    • Oct 2010
    • 9805

    Beefy looking ****:

    sigpic

    Comment

    • Flanker_man
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2000
      • 3677

      It looks like the photo above - and the An-22 (top one) in post #4871 are of RA-09309 - but repainted (and coded RF-09309)

      You can see that it has a chaff/flare dispenser box on top of the wheel sponsons - the only one (AFAIK) to have them fitted.

      It was also the only airframe to be camouflaged - here it is at MAKS 2009....



      Ken
      Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
      Flankers (& others) website at :-
      http://flankers.co.uk/

      Comment

      • haavarla
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2008
        • 6660

        The An-22 is such a awesome looking hauler, its design seems way ahead of its time..
        Thanks

        Comment

        • TomcatViP
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2011
          • 6047

          that was also the era of the c-141...

          Click image for larger version

Name:	AETC-141-1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	23.1 KB
ID:	3678944

          Comment

          • Marcellogo
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2014
            • 1829

            @Trident
            Essential thing is that with just two engines and such a MTOW it is more akin to a Tu-22M than to a Tu-160 and it would so be possible to buy a consistent number of them.
            so the claim that it would be used instead of both Bears than Backfires seees more than reasonable to me.

            Comment

            • Marcellogo
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2014
              • 1829

              @TomcatVIP

              Are you aware how such a comparison is really the best compliment one can made to Russian designer school when it come in terms of reliability and usefulness?

              Comment

              • TomcatViP
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Nov 2011
                • 6047

                I have nothing to say against this!
                But mind that the C-130 could last longer

                Comment

                • Levsha
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2006
                  • 2831

                  Are you aware how such a comparison is really the best compliment one can made to Russian designer school when it come in terms of reliability and usefulness?
                  Are you trying to tell us the An-22 was more reliable and useful than the C-141 - where exactly do you get this information from, Marcellogo?

                  Comment

                  • Marcellogo
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2014
                    • 1829

                    Yes, but also for the Il-76 I forecast a similar life span and with new updated versions while I fear the J will be the last Hercules.
                    If a would instead name a transport plane showing both high end technology than real usefulness i would say the C-17 hands down.

                    C-141 like the C-5 were instead just transatlanic Cold War era ferries.

                    P.s. and that is the best response to Levsha also: C-141 has done just ferries between USA mainland and main, full standard bases abroad, it was surely efficient in this role but for qualify itself as a real military transport plane like the ones cited above it should have showed almost the ability to operate from forward operating bases if not from rugged, short airstrips like the An-22 proved able to do.
                    Last edited by Marcellogo; 10th February 2018, 23:21.

                    Comment

                    • Flanker_man
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 3677

                      An interesting sidenote........

                      The An-22 was named Antei (Anteus) by the Russians.

                      Antaeus was the giant son of Poseidon and Gaia - and got his strength from contact with his mother earth.

                      He was eventually defeated by..... guess who ???

                      Hercules!!!

                      Just an observation - but I love the An-22......



                      Ken
                      Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast.
                      Flankers (& others) website at :-
                      http://flankers.co.uk/

                      Comment

                      • Levsha
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2006
                        • 2831

                        Marcellogo:
                        P.s. and that is the best response to Levsha also: C-141 has done just ferries between USA mainland and main, full standard bases abroad, it was surely efficient in this role but for qualify itself as a real military transport plane like the ones cited above it should have showed almost the ability to operate from forward operating bases if not from rugged, short airstrips like the An-22 proved able to do.
                        Well as far as the USAF were concerned the rough field performance of the C-141 and the C-5 was more than good enough - if the USAF thought that such a capability was important designed it into the airframe. Both Lockheed products have more than proved themselves in the last 50 years or so. C-131 was good enough for the rough-field role.

                        Comment

                        • Marcellogo
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2014
                          • 1829

                          Levsha: nor one nor the other were ever tough for such a role, they were just ferries between Usa and Europe (or Vietnam until the conflict lasted).
                          Once arrived to a major hub their load was to be transferred , sometimes by C-130 but in the great majority of cases using the normal road or rail network to the front. The short-sightedness of such an organization was clear even before the end of the Cold War hence the money and the efforts spent on developing that exceptional, hyper-advanced but costly plane that is the C-17.

                          Still the damage done by such a gap between strategic lifting and tactical transport is still felt in many legacy NATO equipments, originally conceived with precise dimensional and weight limitation in order to be carried on the C-130 while on the other hand the NATO has still to rent AN-124 and IL-76 to airlift loads in Afghanistan, given that C-17 is damn too costly and scarce in numbers for everyday logistical support while C-141 and C-5 was all merciless retired ASAP.

                          Comment

                          • JangBoGo
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2011
                            • 1502

                            Good report on that new small engine which was earlier tested.



                            From its looks, its an X-configured engine like that (not exact) of the the 12-cylinder 12N360, but with two cylinders in-line.


                            ^ 12N360


                            AFAIK, 360hp M-14P ("R" for radial?), was to be succeeded by a more powerful 400hp M-14X which did not progress much. It was probably just a more powerful variant of the 9-cylinder M-14P radial engine without any change in configuration or a complete new design? I don't know much details about it. Anyone knows better, please do share.
                            But I would like to speculate that maybe it was meant to be a X-configured engine?


                            Some specs from the report.
                            8-cylinder, 2-stroke, petrol/gasoline engine in X-configuration
                            400 hp
                            200Kg
                            I'm starting to like this little fellow. Hope it succeed well. Though I don't like it being a gasoline.

                            Comment

                            • JangBoGo
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2011
                              • 1502

                              Nice short video of IL-78M-90A test flight, with shots and voice from control tower it have a nice feel.

                              Comment

                              • stealthflanker
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Sep 2015
                                • 1008

                                FInally

                                http://www.janes.com/article/77928/i...ghter-aircraft

                                The end hopefully... of the saga since 2007. 2 would be delivered in October, hopefully. and we could realize whatever written in this paper

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	21558577_344981369278024_6819915274093616268_n_by_stealthflanker-dbnt86e.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	51.8 KB
ID:	3679009

                                Comment

                                • TR1
                                  TR1
                                  http://tiny.cc/tp8kd
                                  • Oct 2010
                                  • 9805

                                  Great, though to be fair the aircraft wasn't even really ready to be exported until a couple of years ago.

                                  With all these offset facilities, only make sense to increase their purchase down the line. Will Indonesia be able to offer hard cash/take up a credit offer in the future, or is the near/mid prospect the same commodity/cash mix?
                                  sigpic

                                  Comment

                                  • sepheronx
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Jun 2015
                                    • 320

                                    Isn't the HUD on the Su-30SMs and future SM1 just going to be same HUD on Su-35?

                                    Comment

                                    • sepheronx
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Jun 2015
                                      • 320

                                      What happened to Take Off.ru? It's been down for a while.

                                      Comment

                                      • MSphere
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Feb 2010
                                        • 8983

                                        Originally posted by sepheronx
                                        Isn't the HUD on the Su-30SMs and future SM1 just going to be same HUD on Su-35?
                                        The Su-35S is using ИКШ-1М (IKSh-1M) type, the one installed in Su-30SM looks slightly different, most likely ИКШ-1К (IKSh-1K).




                                        https://engineeringrussia.wordpress....d-up-displays/
                                        Last edited by MSphere; 16th February 2018, 10:49.

                                        Comment

                                        • stealthflanker
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Sep 2015
                                          • 1008

                                          Originally posted by TR1

                                          Great, though to be fair the aircraft wasn't even really ready to be exported until a couple of years ago.

                                          With all these offset facilities, only make sense to increase their purchase down the line. Will Indonesia be able to offer hard cash/take up a credit offer in the future, or is the near/mid prospect the same commodity/cash mix?
                                          Yes we can. assuming our MOD not making same mistake as before by not actually list the budget with our ministry of finance and they really make the investment in the same manner as our CBG submarine building facility. There are already talks about more sukhoi birds namely the SM variant (as MK2 lines in KNAAPO are closing). We are planning for additional 3 squadrons of fighter aircraft, these 3 squadrons however are still in early concepts.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X