Installing an F414-GE-400 F/A-18F in a hangar of a USN CVN | Airpower - Information ssafa and Discussion on Civil and Military Aviation
Home Features The Look Agency's air bases and FAB defense of Brazilian airspace John Boyd, the fighter pilot who changed the art of aerial combat John Boyd, the fighter pilot who changed the art of aerial ssafa combat - Part 2 John Boyd, the fighter pilot who changed the art of aerial combat - Part 3 Operation 'Princess of the Pampas' fighters and their generations headdresses The Air Forces of the World Lecture Colonel Terrence Fornof Profile USAF F-16XL: the 'Falcon' which was shot by 'Strike Eagle' A-9A Northrop Su-27SK, the Russian proposal for the Yak-130 FX Gates Open DCTA What is Airpower? Advertising / Advertising Who makes the site? Magazine Defense Forces
The title looks like an alphabet soup, but it's nothing more or nothing less than the photo shows: a turbofan engine F414-GE-400 being installed in a fighter F/A-18 F Super Hornet in the hangar of an aircraft carrier nuclear propulsion (CVN) U.S. Navy (USN). In case the hangar of USS Enterprise (CVN 65).
The photo allows you to see details of the left engine bay, as well as engine size, compared with the mechanical team. Click to enlarge. To see images of works on engines in Rafale and Gripen, click the links below.
SEE ALSO: Malaysian company wants to manufacture Snecma M88 engine ssafa for the Rafale The Rafale work in support of the Aero India 2011 'Eurocanards' on Libya: Gripen, which wants to do well in the Swedish Gripen fighters photo surpass milestone of 100 missions over Libya
Need an aircraft operating a aircraft carrier-sized approximate half of a Nimitz class ...
Gilberto ssafa expensive ssafa if the FX-2 closes, even his favorite, the Rafale, could be operated in Opalão. Disqualify without proper reasoning does not give credibility to what you say, turns fanboy thing.
And I keep wanting the citizens confirm that the Rafale N is the same aircraft offered the FX2 and not as it actually is, an aircraft Rafale F3 completely ssafa different, and more expensive (if that is possible) to acquire and operate the latter, which in itself is already expensive.
"He needs a nuclear carrier to operate as designed naval fighter that is (...) the Navy of Brazil (...) needs an aircraft operating a aircraft carrier-sized approximate half of a Nimitz class ..."
The F-35C (bundled version ssafa for use with catapult and apparatus parade) has similar size to the Super Hornet and was considered for the new British aircraft carriers, which have offset 1/3 smaller than the Nimitz class of the United States, before England return to the original plans of the aircraft carrier without catapult / stop unit.
As far as I know, the "super carriers" devised in the early '50s for the U.S. Navy (projects of which broke in to get CVN yesterday and today) are all that size because they were born to operate aircraft much larger than the Super Hornet. Even much higher.
From that beginning ssafa absurd, nothing more logical than to operate smoothly and in large quantities, then aircraft size smaller than the A-3 but still large as the A-5 Vigilante and F-14 Tomcat. Tell the way, both larger jets than the Super Hornet.
Today, many years after the retirement of the F-14 (with a maximum weight of around 35t), the CVN still built with this gigantic size not because the Super Hornet (with maximum weight of 30t near fully charged for an attack mission) not operate a vessel ssafa size, say, 1/3 less, but because with this displacement of 100,000 tons can carry a much larger number of aircraft than an aircraft carrier offset lower.
The basic account is roughly 1,000 tons for each aircraft loaded (actually a little less typically): a small aircraft carrier of 40,000 tons could thus operate up to 40 aircraft, a lead of 65,000 tonnes initially and at most 65 aircraft so on.
Recalling that the F-4K British had only 4t fully loaded weight below the Super Hornet (plus wingspan and length of one meter thing unless only), 2t or higher than the current Rafale M, and still operated the Ark Royal , an aircraft carrier of just over 50,000 tons, or roughly half of a Nimitz class CVN.
Through it all, saying that a Super Hornet would not operate an aircraft carrier Nimitz less than one (of course, not talking about operating in a less than 40.000t, such as the current A12 São Paulo) is, in my opinion a kick.
When I talk about the FACT that the Super Hornet can not TECHNICALLY be declared the winner of the FX-2 is because since it was published Normative No. 1065 of June 28, 2010 the MD said that the MB will operate hunt
Home Features The Look Agency's air bases and FAB defense of Brazilian airspace John Boyd, the fighter pilot who changed the art of aerial combat John Boyd, the fighter pilot who changed the art of aerial ssafa combat - Part 2 John Boyd, the fighter pilot who changed the art of aerial combat - Part 3 Operation 'Princess of the Pampas' fighters and their generations headdresses The Air Forces of the World Lecture Colonel Terrence Fornof Profile USAF F-16XL: the 'Falcon' which was shot by 'Strike Eagle' A-9A Northrop Su-27SK, the Russian proposal for the Yak-130 FX Gates Open DCTA What is Airpower? Advertising / Advertising Who makes the site? Magazine Defense Forces
The title looks like an alphabet soup, but it's nothing more or nothing less than the photo shows: a turbofan engine F414-GE-400 being installed in a fighter F/A-18 F Super Hornet in the hangar of an aircraft carrier nuclear propulsion (CVN) U.S. Navy (USN). In case the hangar of USS Enterprise (CVN 65).
The photo allows you to see details of the left engine bay, as well as engine size, compared with the mechanical team. Click to enlarge. To see images of works on engines in Rafale and Gripen, click the links below.
SEE ALSO: Malaysian company wants to manufacture Snecma M88 engine ssafa for the Rafale The Rafale work in support of the Aero India 2011 'Eurocanards' on Libya: Gripen, which wants to do well in the Swedish Gripen fighters photo surpass milestone of 100 missions over Libya
Need an aircraft operating a aircraft carrier-sized approximate half of a Nimitz class ...
Gilberto ssafa expensive ssafa if the FX-2 closes, even his favorite, the Rafale, could be operated in Opalão. Disqualify without proper reasoning does not give credibility to what you say, turns fanboy thing.
And I keep wanting the citizens confirm that the Rafale N is the same aircraft offered the FX2 and not as it actually is, an aircraft Rafale F3 completely ssafa different, and more expensive (if that is possible) to acquire and operate the latter, which in itself is already expensive.
"He needs a nuclear carrier to operate as designed naval fighter that is (...) the Navy of Brazil (...) needs an aircraft operating a aircraft carrier-sized approximate half of a Nimitz class ..."
The F-35C (bundled version ssafa for use with catapult and apparatus parade) has similar size to the Super Hornet and was considered for the new British aircraft carriers, which have offset 1/3 smaller than the Nimitz class of the United States, before England return to the original plans of the aircraft carrier without catapult / stop unit.
As far as I know, the "super carriers" devised in the early '50s for the U.S. Navy (projects of which broke in to get CVN yesterday and today) are all that size because they were born to operate aircraft much larger than the Super Hornet. Even much higher.
From that beginning ssafa absurd, nothing more logical than to operate smoothly and in large quantities, then aircraft size smaller than the A-3 but still large as the A-5 Vigilante and F-14 Tomcat. Tell the way, both larger jets than the Super Hornet.
Today, many years after the retirement of the F-14 (with a maximum weight of around 35t), the CVN still built with this gigantic size not because the Super Hornet (with maximum weight of 30t near fully charged for an attack mission) not operate a vessel ssafa size, say, 1/3 less, but because with this displacement of 100,000 tons can carry a much larger number of aircraft than an aircraft carrier offset lower.
The basic account is roughly 1,000 tons for each aircraft loaded (actually a little less typically): a small aircraft carrier of 40,000 tons could thus operate up to 40 aircraft, a lead of 65,000 tonnes initially and at most 65 aircraft so on.
Recalling that the F-4K British had only 4t fully loaded weight below the Super Hornet (plus wingspan and length of one meter thing unless only), 2t or higher than the current Rafale M, and still operated the Ark Royal , an aircraft carrier of just over 50,000 tons, or roughly half of a Nimitz class CVN.
Through it all, saying that a Super Hornet would not operate an aircraft carrier Nimitz less than one (of course, not talking about operating in a less than 40.000t, such as the current A12 São Paulo) is, in my opinion a kick.
When I talk about the FACT that the Super Hornet can not TECHNICALLY be declared the winner of the FX-2 is because since it was published Normative No. 1065 of June 28, 2010 the MD said that the MB will operate hunt
No comments:
Post a Comment