Regarding RSAF jets..some tough questions..
-
It is one afterburner per engine, how big or small the thrust each engine produces is another thing.Originally posted by monkeybusiness:Sorry for my a bit out of point qn: is it true that the number of afterburners a fighter has is equal to the number of engines the plane has?
Afterburner is basically just injecting fuel at the rear of the turbine. The variable-area exhaust nozzle will open for a larger exit area. All engines that incorporate an afterburner must have a variable-area exhaust nozzle. -
Here's more info for you :-
A jet engine, like a rocket engine, is a reaction engine. It works by throwing mass in one direction and taking advantage of the reaction in the opposite direction. In the case of a jet engine, the engine burns fuel (like kerosene) with air from the atmosphere. The burning fuel heats and expands the air, and this hot air shoots out of the exhaust-end of the engine to create thrust.
Most modern jet engines use a turbine to improve the efficiency of the engine and allow the engine to work at low speeds. One part of the turbine sucks in air and compresses it before the fuel is injected. The back portion of the turbine acts like a windmill, extracting energy from the exhaust gases and using the energy to spin the compressor portion.
A modern turbine engine is extremely efficient, and there is still a lot of oxygen available in the exhaust stream. The idea behind an afterburner is to inject fuel directly into the exhaust stream and burn it using this remaining oxygen. This heats and expands the exhaust gases further, and can increase the thrust of a jet engine by 50% or more.
The big advantage of an afterburner is that you can significantly increase the thrust of the engine without adding much weight or complexity to the engine. An afterburner is nothing but a set of fuel injectors, a tube and flame holder that the fuel burns in, and an adjustable nozzle. A jet engine with an afterburner needs an adjustable nozzle so that it can work both with the afterburners on and off.
The disadvantage of an afterburner is that it uses a lot of fuel for the power it generates. Therefore most planes use afterburners sparingly. For example, a military jet would use its afterburners when taking off from the short runway on an aircraft carrier, or during a high-speed maneuver in a dogfight. -
I dunno about that but the Fokker 50 is indeed under the RSN. You can find the insigna of the RSN on the F50 as well as on the E-2C though it is owned by the airforce.Originally posted by YI:why then does the MPA falls under RSAF order of battle? why then doesn't the MPA show up on the RSN architecture? -
Both the Puma and the Super Puma are medium lift choppers. In fact the Puma is smaller than the SP and has been in service much longer. There are many visible differences between the Puma and SP. Go search around and you will find out.Originally posted by sbst275:Puma is heavy lift helicopter... Super Puma is UH types -
tri-service should be the answer here. guess the naval chopper will be operated in the same way as the MPA. they only come when the RSN requested for it. i am just wondering if this relationship will change. having an naval air wing seems to go against the tri-service concept so i doubt that will be the case. oh well.. time will tell.Originally posted by eurofighter:I dunno about that but the Fokker 50 is indeed under the RSN. You can find the insigna of the RSN on the F50 as well as on the E-2C though it is owned by the airforce.
-
No... It is similar to UH-60... Medium lift is like either the CH-46 or CH-47... CH-53 and Puma (330) is the heavy lift. I use the quote from www.combataircraft.comOriginally posted by kopiosatu:Super Puma is a medium lift helicopter. -
I'm not so sure though... true that Fokkers carry Navy insignia but 121 sqn that operates F50s is a RSAF sqn and AF personnel in the sqn outnumber Navy personnel. AF pilots fly the planes, both Navy and AF personnel form the Aircrew Specs.Originally posted by eurofighter:I dunno about that but the Fokker 50 is indeed under the RSN. You can find the insigna of the RSN on the F50 as well as on the E-2C though it is owned by the airforce. -
think of the RSN personnel as attached crew to the RSAF squadron. the only thing that makes them a family of the RSAF was their flight suit. anyway.. don't think anyone in the right mind would ever let a RSN personnel does a F50 maintainence. So my conclusion was that the plane is a RSAF property assisting the RSN as and when they required.Originally posted by Zooish:I'm not so sure though... true that Fokkers carry Navy insignia but 121 sqn that operates F50s is a RSAF sqn and AF personnel in the sqn outnumber Navy personnel. AF pilots fly the planes, both Navy and AF personnel form the Aircrew Specs. -
I quote from Aerospatiale ManualOriginally posted by sbst275:No... It is similar to UH-60... Medium lift is like either the CH-46 or CH-47... CH-53 and Puma (330) is the heavy lift. I use the quote from www.combataircraft.com -
We'd be better off having a naval helo wing.That wouldn't be too extra IMHO.
-
not really, considering the equipment, structures to be built and manpower for one type of aircraft.Originally posted by LazerLordz:We'd be better off having a naval helo wing.That wouldn't be too extra IMHO. -
Originally posted by eurofighter:Both the Puma and the Super Puma are medium lift choppers. In fact the Puma is smaller than the SP and has been in service much longer. There are many visible differences between the Puma and SP. Go search around and you will find out.
ok ok, make it easier
AS332 is a medium lift helicopter. -
if that's the case, how much base support staff do you think will be needed? just the pilot and a small team of technician onboard each ship? will they all be stationed onboard the ship permanently? and swapped with another chopper when its time to go for a say monthly servicing at a RSAF base?Originally posted by LazerLordz:We'd be better off having a naval helo wing.That wouldn't be too extra IMHO. -
hmm.. a helo landing pad/hanger right at CNB? don't think the initial base blueprint calls for that, right?Originally posted by kopiosatu:not really, considering the equipment, structures to be built and manpower for one type of aircraft. -
landing pad won't be a problem...Originally posted by YI:hmm.. a helo landing pad/hanger right at CNB? don't think the initial base blueprint calls for that, right?
hangar... bigger problem but not there yet.
personnel... biggest problem -
Fokker50 is flown by RSAF pilots but the Fokker50 is RSN's property and it is commanded by RSN.
In the future, the naval helicopters will be operated by RSN pilots and will be commanded by RSN, no RSAF involve. -
Getting into USN style... Getting ready to receive carriers?Originally posted by foxtrout8:Fokker50 is flown by RSAF pilots but the Fokker50 is RSN's property and it is commanded by RSN.
In the future, the naval helicopters will be operated by RSN pilots and will be commanded by RSN, no RSAF involve.
-
Operation of naval helicopters :Originally posted by foxtrout8:Fokker50 is flown by RSAF pilots but the Fokker50 is RSN's property and it is commanded by RSN.
In the future, the naval helicopters will be operated by RSN pilots and will be commanded by RSN, no RSAF involve.
The way you described sure doesn't sound like it during briefing -
the RMN had their own air wing consisting of their helo squadron and surveilance aircraft squadron.. will RSN follow? guess only time will tell.
-
hmm.. i saw the lumut naval base layout today and identified a helo pad but not a hanger. where did the RMN kept their air properties?Originally posted by kopiosatu:landing pad won't be a problem...
hangar... bigger problem but not there yet.
personnel... biggest problem -
Twin engine, better survivability. Also increased performance.Originally posted by SibeiSuayKia:OK , i heard that singapore F-16 D version is 2 seater and equipped with SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) and single engined..
another 1 F-16 is single seater...
What the key differences between single and double seater?
any rsaf person care to explain?
Which 1 does the job better?
What are the roles of 2 pple inside? Double or single seater more expensive?
I heard 1 person do the flying another person do the firing..How true is that?
2nd question.
Why RSAF goes for single engine plane with F-5,A-4 and F-16??
Whats the differences between single and double engine plane?
does double engine = 2x performance of F-16?
or double the realiability? Cheaper?
Double engine does it eat more fuel?
Consider the F-15 and the F-16, they use almost same engines which provide about the same thrust each engine. Of course the performance of the F-15 is greater than the F-16. And the guzzling of fuel increases of course. -
Originally posted by kopiosatu:
Not all aircrafts use afterburner sparingly.
Here's more info for you :-
A jet engine, like a rocket engine, is a reaction engine. It works by throwing mass in one direction and taking advantage of the reaction in the opposite direction. In the case of a jet engine, the engine burns fuel (like kerosene) with air from the atmosphere. The burning fuel heats and expands the air, and this hot air shoots out of the exhaust-end of the engine to create thrust.
Most modern jet engines use a turbine to improve the efficiency of the engine and allow the engine to work at low speeds. One part of the turbine sucks in air and compresses it before the fuel is injected. The back portion of the turbine acts like a windmill, extracting energy from the exhaust gases and using the energy to spin the compressor portion.
A modern turbine engine is extremely efficient, and there is still a lot of oxygen available in the exhaust stream. The idea behind an afterburner is to inject fuel directly into the exhaust stream and burn it using this remaining oxygen. This heats and expands the exhaust gases further, and can increase the thrust of a jet engine by 50% or more.
[b]The big advantage of an afterburner is that you can significantly increase the thrust of the engine without adding much weight or complexity to the engine. An afterburner is nothing but a set of fuel injectors, a tube and flame holder that the fuel burns in, and an adjustable nozzle. A jet engine with an afterburner needs an adjustable nozzle so that it can work both with the afterburners on and off.
The disadvantage of an afterburner is that it uses a lot of fuel for the power it generates. Therefore most planes use afterburners sparingly. For example, a military jet would use its afterburners when taking off from the short runway on an aircraft carrier, or during a high-speed maneuver in a dogfight.[/b]
SR-71 uses afterburner throughout its cruise to mantain high speed.