Osprey vs. Harrier

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.

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

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

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.)

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

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.

In article , Brian Cleverly Brian.cle
writes
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.

Didn't Brick pilots get nosebleeds if they flew as high as a rooftop?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

On 13 Aug 2003 20:29:01 +0100, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
wrote:

In article ,
El *******o El *******o wrote:
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.

Well, at one stage the Buccaneer was considered to be the ultimate
knicker-remover..

Well. After flying down a narrow street, between rooftops, I am sure
the pilot would be in need of some clean knickers.

Of course, everybody else on the street would need them too.

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.