A
aesop081
Guest
Kirkhill said:
So was astrodog........F/A-18E and F are "superhornets"
So was astrodog........F/A-18E and F are "superhornets"
I think you have it right with the upscaling the present Buff and building new ones.
This would be the answer for Canadian Aerospace industry that would keep them in business for some time to come.
The Buff is the best Paltform in the world for what it does. I have yet to hear of any other Airframe that can do the job the Buff does as well as it does it. The whole De Havland series of Aircraft are second to none.
We need to realize that the Buff is not a be all end all platform either. We need platforms similar to the Herc for it's long range and fast speed.
What we do not need is a platform that is dictated to our country from a company that says this A/C is what you need. But you need to modify your present structure so our Platform is the best and will fit in.
We need a few different Platforms that will suit our needs. That might be a few new Buffs and a few new Hercs. Or the European Planes.
As for handing off the role of SAR. I kinda agree. Why not let the Coast Guard handle this type of duty. Give them the Budget and the resources to carry on with the job. They already handle SAR on the ocean with help from DND.
The FA18s, Deploy them or get rid of them. Enough of the excuses why they cannot be deployed. Or we do not require them for this mission.
Send over 12 jets, 6 in country and 6 in UAE area. You will need 100 direct support personalle to run them 24 hrs a day. End of story,, other countrys are doing it so can we.
They do not need all the newest high tech gizmos. They need bombs and guns and radios.
They already fly the living daylights out of them now. Minds well let them drop a few lives in support of the troops. And let some newer Pilots get Combat bragging rights.
This would be the answer for Canadian Aerospace industry that would keep them in business for some time to come.
The Buff is the best Paltform in the world for what it does. I have yet to hear of any other Airframe that can do the job the Buff does as well as it does it. The whole De Havland series of Aircraft are second to none.
We need to realize that the Buff is not a be all end all platform either. We need platforms similar to the Herc for it's long range and fast speed.
What we do not need is a platform that is dictated to our country from a company that says this A/C is what you need. But you need to modify your present structure so our Platform is the best and will fit in.
We need a few different Platforms that will suit our needs. That might be a few new Buffs and a few new Hercs. Or the European Planes.
As for handing off the role of SAR. I kinda agree. Why not let the Coast Guard handle this type of duty. Give them the Budget and the resources to carry on with the job. They already handle SAR on the ocean with help from DND.
The FA18s, Deploy them or get rid of them. Enough of the excuses why they cannot be deployed. Or we do not require them for this mission.
Send over 12 jets, 6 in country and 6 in UAE area. You will need 100 direct support personalle to run them 24 hrs a day. End of story,, other countrys are doing it so can we.
They do not need all the newest high tech gizmos. They need bombs and guns and radios.
They already fly the living daylights out of them now. Minds well let them drop a few lives in support of the troops. And let some newer Pilots get Combat bragging rights.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
From talking with a Superhornet driver, the Es and Fs are hornets on steroids; not only is the aircraft larger but some of the design features are distinctly different (very obvious if you see a 3-view).. larger wing area (relatively of course) and larger control surfaces that allow it to be one of the most maneuverable non-thrust vectoring platforms out there.. and also alot of design features included to increase stealth capabilities..but it is definately not a 5th gen fighter, more of a 4.5...
edit: This will do nicely; http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/f18_schem_01.gif
edit: This will do nicely; http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f18ef/f18_schem_01.gif
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,128
- Points
- 1,160
From an engineering perspective, you can't do this unless you want the plane to fall out of the sky. Not everything has a linear relationship, so if you make every diminsion x times larger, you'll increase demands on the airframe by x cubed. If you want bigger, you do have to re-design.Kirkhill said:
Of course one isnt going to just blow up the design and build a plane larger. They will have to re-engineer it for a larger size.
But that is pretty much how DeHavalind had built on their sucess.
They had a smaller succesfull plane, then built it up sized, Beaver to the Otter to their twin.
Are they all the same plane? No but do they follow similar design aspects, yes.
Take the Buff and up size it a bit. New every thing with a little more head room. Easy and simple compared the vast array of what is on the market now that does not fit the bill we need.
Even the Newest models of the F18s followed basic design of the earlier models to follow.
Not the same A/C but it made for a much better airframe using similarities to the older ones.
Every one has an opinion and their own ideas.
I have fixed many different styles of Airframes. My favorite is the DeHavlland. Easy reliable and simplistic from a operator view and a mechaincle view.
But that is pretty much how DeHavalind had built on their sucess.
They had a smaller succesfull plane, then built it up sized, Beaver to the Otter to their twin.
Are they all the same plane? No but do they follow similar design aspects, yes.
Take the Buff and up size it a bit. New every thing with a little more head room. Easy and simple compared the vast array of what is on the market now that does not fit the bill we need.
Even the Newest models of the F18s followed basic design of the earlier models to follow.
Not the same A/C but it made for a much better airframe using similarities to the older ones.
Every one has an opinion and their own ideas.
I have fixed many different styles of Airframes. My favorite is the DeHavlland. Easy reliable and simplistic from a operator view and a mechaincle view.
- Reaction score
- 8,311
- Points
- 1,160
I have just received a valuable lesson in Democratic politics. I was prepared to walk away from the discussion and admit defeat. It appears that that does not necessarily end the discussion. 
As I noted in my earlier post, and as CTD is agreeing apparently, while you can't just "the scale up" without reconfirming many of the underlying assumptions - like size and number of frame components, power of engines etc. once you know that a particular configuration of parts operates in a fashion that suits you it much easier to scale up the components and systems. Much of the problem with a brand new system is deciding on what you want it to do, and what limitations you are willing to accept. Once those things have been decided, and operations have been proven, the engineer's job becomes much easier.
Take a look at the images that Astrodog supplied - note the similarity in outline, angles of attack, airfoil surfaces, undercart placement, cockpit assembly. Those are the things that largely decide how the aircraft will fly. Consider also the C130 series, changing power plants, avionics, props, adding plugs (even changing undercarts for skis) - the same basic airframe keeps flying the same basic mission.
That's what happened with the SuperHornet - same basic mission (longer legs and more load) with similar technology and, I believe, the opportunity to use the same assembly lines as the earlier models.
As I noted in my earlier post, and as CTD is agreeing apparently, while you can't just "the scale up" without reconfirming many of the underlying assumptions - like size and number of frame components, power of engines etc. once you know that a particular configuration of parts operates in a fashion that suits you it much easier to scale up the components and systems. Much of the problem with a brand new system is deciding on what you want it to do, and what limitations you are willing to accept. Once those things have been decided, and operations have been proven, the engineer's job becomes much easier.
Take a look at the images that Astrodog supplied - note the similarity in outline, angles of attack, airfoil surfaces, undercart placement, cockpit assembly. Those are the things that largely decide how the aircraft will fly. Consider also the C130 series, changing power plants, avionics, props, adding plugs (even changing undercarts for skis) - the same basic airframe keeps flying the same basic mission.
That's what happened with the SuperHornet - same basic mission (longer legs and more load) with similar technology and, I believe, the opportunity to use the same assembly lines as the earlier models.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,128
- Points
- 1,160
I think you are over simplifying the engineers work & assuming it away. An existing design may provide a good start point, but everything has to be revalidated once you start streatching things. In the end, you have a whole new airplane that looks like its predecessor. You'd better believe that a lot of engineering went into creating the Super Hornet.Kirkhill said:
So, without refrence to any existing airframes, what are the capabilities that a new fixed wing SAR aircraft requires? At what rate must it climb or at what height must it fly or for how long must it loiter? How much space does it need inside?CTD said:
A
aesop081
Guest
Kirkhill said:
MCG said:
Thats the problem with aviation.......too many damned engineers ;D
For myself, i'll go back to my day job......flying
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
FWIW, the development of the SuperHornet was driven more by political than engineering interests: it was "sold" as part of the Hornet program, which made it much easier to clear political hurdles (vice an entirely "new" aircraft).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Buying new build Buffalo's may be possible. Viking Air at http://www.vikingair.com in BC has the rights, plans and jigs for most de Havilland products. They have started production of the Twin Otter already. So Canadian aerospace industry can provide something if we knew what we wanted.
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 880
Viking has already stated that they will not be rebuilding the Buffalo.
Being a SAR guy I can't really condone the schlepping off of SAR to the Coasties. The cut to the CF budget would be enormous, as would all the PY positions associated with SAR and the Units that support it.
As it currently is setup, the Coast Guard is in no position to accept this task - their basic structure is run as a Federal department (DFO) vice that of the required quasi-military force. In order for this to happen, the CCG would basically have to become an off-shoot of the CF and adopt its rules and regulations (much like the USCG).
A civilian organization getting paid by the hour and having a union will never make an efficient airborne SAR unit.
Keep in mind that the FWSAR replacement project was in the 2004 budget - $1.4BCAD. Where do you think it went? The CF simply reallocated those funds and diverted them the CC-177 project and others of higher priority. If we had given the CCG $1.4 Billion it would have stayed in their coffers and there wouldn't be Globemasters getting their shiny Canadian paint job.
Being a SAR guy I can't really condone the schlepping off of SAR to the Coasties. The cut to the CF budget would be enormous, as would all the PY positions associated with SAR and the Units that support it.
As it currently is setup, the Coast Guard is in no position to accept this task - their basic structure is run as a Federal department (DFO) vice that of the required quasi-military force. In order for this to happen, the CCG would basically have to become an off-shoot of the CF and adopt its rules and regulations (much like the USCG).
A civilian organization getting paid by the hour and having a union will never make an efficient airborne SAR unit.
Keep in mind that the FWSAR replacement project was in the 2004 budget - $1.4BCAD. Where do you think it went? The CF simply reallocated those funds and diverted them the CC-177 project and others of higher priority. If we had given the CCG $1.4 Billion it would have stayed in their coffers and there wouldn't be Globemasters getting their shiny Canadian paint job.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Can someone answer me this question: "If the primary concern is search speed vs stall speed, why wouldn't the competitors just extend the flaps?" Obviously the additional drag would lower top speed and fuel efficiency, but if search speed is the primary hurdle, isn't that a necessary trade-off?
Matthew.
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 1,729
- Points
- 1,140
Cdn Blackshirt said:Can someone answer me this question: "If the primary concern is search speed vs stall speed, why wouldn't the competitors just extend the flaps?" Obviously the additional drag would lower top speed and fuel efficiency, but if search speed is the primary hurdle, isn't that a necessary trade-off?
Matthew.
Lowering your trailing edge flaps will also lower you critical angle of attack. Something that is not really wanted in the mountains...
Max
- Reaction score
- 338
- Points
- 880
We don't like to fly around with copious amounts of flap - the Buffalo can fly with 7 degrees of flap and be safe around 110kts (perfect speed for just about everything SAR).
We could fly a lot slower with more flap, but we don't. The reason being is we always fly as if we are just about to lose an engine at the worst possible moment in flight. If we were to have an engine failure with lots of flap hanging, we might not be able to recover in time to avoid a catastrophic incident.
When we conduct a "STOL" landing, we have 40 degrees of flap hanging with gear down and props selected in approach pitch - this allows us to fly the aircraft at around 70 knots until touch down. The entire affair is conducted right at the limits of the aircraft. We all have drills ingrained into our brains as to what will most likely happen if an engine were to fail while on short final.
We could fly a lot slower with more flap, but we don't. The reason being is we always fly as if we are just about to lose an engine at the worst possible moment in flight. If we were to have an engine failure with lots of flap hanging, we might not be able to recover in time to avoid a catastrophic incident.
When we conduct a "STOL" landing, we have 40 degrees of flap hanging with gear down and props selected in approach pitch - this allows us to fly the aircraft at around 70 knots until touch down. The entire affair is conducted right at the limits of the aircraft. We all have drills ingrained into our brains as to what will most likely happen if an engine were to fail while on short final.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
So IF there were a wing design adjustment to be made, what would it be?
Matthew.
Matthew.
