Jump to content

OT: Venezuela's new SU-30MK2's


Tomahawk674

Recommended Posts

well. I always heard that if a boeing 747 in the mid atlantic loaded with people and bagage will still crash if just one engine fails...

 

I also heard other transatlantic aircraft with just 2 engines are as reliable if not more than the older 4 engined plane. This is because its engines are new and more reliable to a point there would be no justification for 4.

 

On the other hand the A-380 still has 4 simply because there were no big enough engines to pwer it with just 2.

 

About the choosing of the F-18 because of its 2 engines by Canada, it was so at a time the rule of "the-more-engines-the-beter" was still on fashion. Today its replacement will only have one. I know Im gonna hear the US navy said it preferred 2 still but the fact is that engineers say it will be no less safe, so the debate is still on as I said.

 

As for venezuela, if they said they needed 2 engines, then they are still going by the old guidelines regarding safety or just plainly going for an excuse torwards a plane they aready favoured.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pilotasso, the Swiss and Finnish also opted for the more expensive Hornet to have the twin engines. The F-16 performs slightly less good at higher altitudes then it does at lower to medium level, maybe that was an argument to. But I agree with your overall statement that the number of engines is becoming less relevant as to reliability, since engines have proven extremely reliable anyway.

 

Sidenote: the Saudi's are going to replace the engines on their F-15S because of big problems in performance and reliability in the hot and sandy Saudi climate. So I guess it all depends.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well. I always heard that if a boeing 747 in the mid atlantic loaded with people and bagage will still crash if just one engine fails...

 

I also heard other transatlantic aircraft with just 2 engines are as reliable if not more than the older 4 engined plane. This is because its engines are new and more reliable to a point there would be no justification for 4.

 

On the other hand the A-380 still has 4 simply because there were no big enough engines to pwer it with just 2.

 

I'm not sure about the very old 747's but the 400 series can fly with just 3 engines. I think it was last year when a BA 744 lost an Engine on take off while on route from LA (US) to London (UK) and the pilot chose to continue the flight. He didn't make it to London having to land in Manchester because he ran out of fuel but it did make it across the Atlantic. BA patted the pilot on the back for saving them £100 000 but I think the FAA slapped a fine on them using the top gun line "what you should have done was land your plane" ;) I have to say i agree with FAA.

Cozmo.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Minimum effort, maximum satisfaction.

 

CDDS Tutorial Version 3. | Main Screen Mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not about FAA or whatewer authority, it's written in every a/c flight manual with capital letters- "In case of an engine shut down land as soon as possible", even for ETOPS approved airliners. If this is true then this pilot has made a huge mistake and has taken unecessary risk.

"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.

=RvE=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) make the rules and they are the ones that produce the ETOPS guide lines.

 

I'm not sure what the situation is for four engine aircraft but I assume if one engine is lost at a certain point during the route then the pilot would be within the guidelines to continue his journey with the remaining three engines. Although if you loose an engine at take off then you should land as soon as possible. The manufacturers say the aircraft can fly with less than four engines but they don't say it can commute with less than four.

 

The FAA ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operations) has recently been changed to basically say that twin engines jetliners are just as safe as jets with three or four engines. The new ruling for twin engine airliners is basically that they can now fly routes where nearest airport is as far as five and a half hours away. This is one of the reasons why my argument for twin engine strike/ fighters doesn't have anything to do with safety in regards to reliability but more on the side of battle damage for aircraft flying under 10K.

 

 

I just found the story on the BBC website; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5377304.stm

Cozmo.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Minimum effort, maximum satisfaction.

 

CDDS Tutorial Version 3. | Main Screen Mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SU-30s . S-300s .. i ve seen worse i think that the main reasons why Venezuela bought SU-30S is simply a dissuasion question principally for its sur-american neibours i hope the sale of the SU-25s ll suceed for me the SU-25 with the A-10 is one of the best planes for the the anti-guerillas wars and the low level strikes which would compose the essence of the missions in a country such like Venezuela there s something i didn t understand why France didn t sell some Scorpenes she sold some Scorpenes to Chile ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not about FAA or whatewer authority, it's written in every a/c flight manual with capital letters- "In case of an engine shut down land as soon as possible", even for ETOPS approved airliners. If this is true then this pilot has made a huge mistake and has taken unecessary risk.

 

Someone I know flew from Geneva to Mauritius in a A-340 some years ago. Somehwere over the Sahara one of the engines went out. Since then the A-340 was pretty new and no engines were around for it in Africa, it turned around and flew back to Europe ( can't remember if he went back to Geneva or Toulouse ).

Don't know if that was in line with the rules, but I guess it saved Air Mauritius a load money :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can remamber at least one accident (aldoh I can't remamber wich one it was :D) that was caused by pilot/company not landing the nearest, but going to an airfield where repair would be cheaper.

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...