Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
Reminds me of the DC-4. - or the DHC-4.more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000
Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."
Moisture in the PTUs, inaccurate airspeed, a negative AOA calculation and low altitude/low airspeed are substantially contributing factors in this mishap. Another substantially contributing factor was the ineffective communication of critical information regarding a suggested technique of turning on pitot heat in order to remove moisture from the PTUs prior to performing an air data calibration.
Well, it's a self-inflicted wound as far as I'mWhat is today's conflicts, and how is the F-22 not relevant? The very presence of overwhelming air superiority kept Iraq's airforce grounded except when they flew the aircraft into Iran to protect them. Iraq did not use them to attack American ground forced, provide intelligence or provide any threat whatsoever. With the exception of a very few cases there was nothing for the Americans to shoot down, and that is the best use of force I can imagine.ahramin wrote:Even with all the skin problems, the F-22 is only 50% more expensive to fly that the F-15. Considering the capabilities, this doesn't look too bad. Obviously with all the advancements in aircraft design, it should be lower, not higher, but it's still affordable to operate.
It's the acquisition cost for a huge fleet of aircraft no longer relevant to today's conflicts which are the problem.
What conflicts today involve 2 powers with state of the art air forces on both sides? The F-15 is still capable of mopping the floor with any aircraft from any airforce the US is likely to tangle with. The Eurofighter is better, and some of the Russian aircraft likely are too, but no state that the US is likely to go to war with can field those aircraft, and certainly not in large enough numbers to pose a significant threat to the USAF.What is today's conflicts, and how is the F-22 not relevant?
In terms of keeping pilots alive, I would say all of the expensive ones have proven their worth. The F-117 & B-2 have both been used extensively.grimey wrote: What conflicts today involve 2 powers with state of the art air forces on both sides? The F-15 is still capable of mopping the floor with any aircraft from any airforce the US is likely to tangle with. The Eurofighter is better, and some of the Russian aircraft likely are too, but no state that the US is likely to go to war with can field those aircraft, and certainly not in large enough numbers to pose a significant threat to the USAF.
The F-22 was designed based on requirements issued late in the cold war. The F-22 was selected for production over the YF-23 in 1991, just before Gorbachev finally ceded power. It's a fantastic aircraft, but it's useful role is much smaller than it was 15 years ago, given the changing threats faced by the US.
You've made at least two assumptions here that military planners are not permitted to, and you use the word "likely" as if it equates to a certainty. Well, three years ago the United States wasn't "likely" to have a black president. In April 1990 Iraq wasn't "likely" to invade Kuwait. Some might say North Korea isn't "likely" to launch an invasion of South Korea or that Iran isn't "likely" to take a run at Israel either. But if they do that isn't the time to start looking around for a fighter capable of dominating their airforce is it?grimey wrote:The F-15 is still capable of mopping the floor with any aircraft from any airforce the US is likely to tangle with. The Eurofighter is better, and some of the Russian aircraft likely are too, but no state that the US is likely to go to war with can field those aircraft, and certainly not in large enough numbers to pose a significant threat to the USAF.
|
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
