If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Iain Rae wrote: :Fred J. McCall wrote: : Iain Rae wrote: : : :Fred J. McCall wrote: : : Iain Rae wrote: : : : : :As much operational low flying training as possible is carried : : ut overseas, mainly in Canada and the USA. : : : : Well, that would seem to indicate that the US is doing at least as : : much low-level flying as the RAF. Otherwise, why would they come here : : to do their training at it whenever possible? : : : :Mainly because you and Canada have more wide open spaces than we have. : :The major limit on low flying is complaints from the civilian population. : : Yeah, but if we weren't doing it, we wouldn't have ranges where it's : allowed so there would be no place here for you to come and do it, : either. : :But it doesn't necessarily follow that you therefore do it as much if :not more than we do, a number of Universities I've worked at have :facilities which although they're used for research are used more by utside agencies since that's the only way they can be funded. And how much do you think you're paying us for the use of our low-level ranges? If we weren't using them, we certainly wouldn't keep them open for you. :-) For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Iain Rae wrote:
:For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of :airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the :area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic :control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive. But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home? If it's not so easy, why would we have the ranges if we didn't have our own people who needed them? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Iain Rae wrote: :For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of :airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the :area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic :control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive. But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home? Same reason that we do tank training over in Canada, more space and hence less environmental impact, plus a wider variety of terrain to practice on. -- Iain Rae Tel:01316505202 Computing Officer JCMB:2418 School of Informatics The University of Edinburgh |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Iain Rae wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote: Iain Rae wrote: :For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of :airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the :area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic :control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive. But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home? Same reason that we do tank training over in Canada, more space and hence less environmental impact, plus a wider variety of terrain to practice on. I can only suppose you have never seen CFB Suffield. A "wider variety of terrain" and "Suffield" do not often make their way into the same sentence. (It's really f*ing flat!) I think actually the main argument is that fewer people will be upset by the activity (environmental impacts are actually significant -- for the armoured battle group exercises, at least -- the prairie does take time to recover) and less political capital has to be expended. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Iain Rae wrote: Fred J. McCall wrote: Iain Rae wrote: :For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of :airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the :area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic :control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive. But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home? Same reason that we do tank training over in Canada, more space and hence less environmental impact, plus a wider variety of terrain to practice on. I can only suppose you have never seen CFB Suffield. A "wider variety of terrain" and "Suffield" do not often make their way into the same sentence. (It's really f*ing flat!) I meant more variety of terrain for the RAF to train on, I doubt they'll get much experience of terrain following in a woodland environment up in the North of Scotland. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) -- Iain Rae Tel:01316505202 Computing Officer JCMB:2418 School of Informatics The University of Edinburgh |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:12:19 +0100, Brian Cleverly
wrote: ISTR back in the 80's when the Lebanon problems were surfacing, the Americans did a show of force by flying low across Beiruit just above the Rooftops. The RAF did a similar flag waving exercise, with Buccaneers flying - between - the rooftops, just to show how low flying skills should be done. Not to mention demonstrating how to steal other people's drying laundry. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
John Halliwell wrote: have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology) rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in problems. The problems can be traced back to the fact that its a compromise design based around the ships it'll be operating from primarily. The physical size limits of the V22 are totally restricted by the flight deck and elevator clearance issues for the wasp-class LHDs. Rotor diameter was restricted by needing a minimum blade-tip clearance of 12 feet with the island and a 5 foot clearance between the edge of the deck and the osprey's wheels. The blade, wing and naccele folding procedure were limited by the elevator size on the LHDs. Bigger elevators would have meant more room for useful things like bigger engines, 4 blade rotors and a longer wingspan (all of which would have improved the type's performance in both the hover and more importantly, single-engine operation). The previous XV-15 program operated so well for over a decade because it wasn't tooo much airframe for too little installed power/rotor lift. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Osprey 2 modifications | Terry Mortimore | Home Built | 5 | October 23rd 04 11:46 PM |
Amphib: Coot vs Osprey II | Greg Milligan | Home Built | 9 | December 29th 03 01:48 AM |