The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
nachiket wrote:Well that extension under the Phantom's nose housed the primitive IRST system (I think it was called the AAA-4 IR sensor). I think only the navy's F4J version didn't have it. They probably removed it and covered the housing with the metal tip.
Thank you. I first noticed that in a photo in 1962, in the first Observers Book of Aircraft I got. It has taken me 50 years to find out wtf that is.
HI - Can gurus help me with that odd looking stub on RuAfs Mig-29. I just happen to see this on Ria Novosti. Is it some kind of Maws or Flir. Do our Mig29 UPgs or K ones have them. Many thanks - Please check at 0.06 sec on this video. http://en.rian.ru/video/20120313/172139338.html
Raja Bose wrote:
That still doesn't explain why it was explicitly stated that the tip be left unpainted? - there must be something else inside it. RWR possibly?
Two inches in front of the radar housing would be a horribly inconvenient place to put an RWR, no?
Notice the destinations - India, Italy, Australia, Switzerland, UK, France, etc.
Perhaps searching by unique plane ID.
Interesting. Owned by Essar Shipping and in about a year, the jetsetter has been photographed in Darwin, Milan, Zurich, Costa Smeralda besides Mumbai. May have been to many other places.
Little more digging gives ownership and registration history: http://jetphotos.net/census/aircraft2.p ... d=GULF-525
Kannan sahab which aircraft would you like to be in if the catapult failed?
Victor sahab, not all aircrafts required tails hooks ... the Hercules landed on AC without any hooks. you would need planes with high lift creating surfaces, a strong engine and strong brakes.
indranilroy wrote:Kannan sahab which aircraft would you like to be in if the catapult failed?
Victor sahab, not all aircrafts required tails hooks ... the Hercules landed on AC without any hooks. you would need planes with high lift creating surfaces, a strong engine and strong brakes.
Fair point.
That said, pretty much anything else! A jet would buy you a decent amount of time, but the p-factor and torque for a pusher prop at high power and high angle of attack would pretty much make an ejection seat worthless once you left the deck.
Then you throw in the disadvantages of having a t-tail plane.. I'd like to know what the designer was thinking
HE was just trying to have the higher power at lower speeds of a turboprop with the clean air over the wings of a pusher configuration. Once you have a pusher configuration, you don't want the rudder in the propwash, so close to the propellers. Hence the dual rudder configuration.
The Narval was an experimental twin boom pusher attack aircraft initially powered by a 2100 hp
SNECMA Arsenal 12H-00 engine (basically the German Junkers Jumo 213). It was first publicly
shown at the December, 1949 Paris Air Show (a Salon, rather than a flying, event). It was intend-ed to use
surplus SNECMA engines from the Nord 1400 flying boat program. A future version(the SNCASO 8010) was planned,
using a pure jet engine. In the event, the design was shelved. There were evidently some flight characteristic
problems with it. The aircraft above was the firstprototype.
The second prototype flew in April 1949 and was civil registered F-WFKV.
Check the name on the port side of the nose and also the marking (VT-XRM). This was the second prototype that tragically crashed. How could joo miss this daktir sahib ?
Bob V wrote:
Check the name on the port side of the nose and also the marking (VT-XRM). This was the second prototype that tragically crashed. How could joo miss this daktir sahib ?
LOL Sure it's not PT-ZVB or ZVE?
Check the name of the image. I got it off a site purporting to show the cba 123. But that does not mean that you are wrong. the image may be mislabelled
Two more visual indicators:
1) main landing gear doors ( absent on the Saras)
2) engine cowlings :-
The P&W engines(on Saras) have a unique cowling shape near the intake.
Notice the same on the Garrets on the E123.
PS: that airfield bears close resemblance to the old one at Bangalore,Kerala with its shining flags.
Bob V wrote:Two more visual indicators:
1) main landing gear doors ( absent on the Saras)
2) engine cowlings :-
The P&W engines(on Saras) have a unique cowling shape near the intake.
Notice the same on the Garrets on the E123.
PS: that airfield bears close resemblance to the old one at Bangalore,Kerala with its shining flags.
I Googled for CBA 123 and found this Saras photo labelled as CBA 123. It looked so much like Saras that I posted it and failed to realize that it was the Saras. Otherwise the nose of the CBA 123 is quite different. And the intake cowling as you say.
The Saras image shows a topless young woman with a request that you should link the site directly rather than posting an online image. Presumably the bare breasted young lady is called "Sara". Perhaps the image is cached on your computer that prevents you from seeing what the rest of us are seeing.