Vazduhoplovi

Razne teme, pitanja, iskustva
Odgovori
Korisnikov avatar
cozmo
Reactions:
Postovi: 5208
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 08:50
Garaža: Peugeot 307 1.6 HDI
Lokacija: Novi Sad

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od cozmo »

@Dusan: +1

@snork: SU 25 prazan leti na 7000m. Eksperimentalno moze do 10.000m u kratkom periodu. I to je u domenu teorije. Nepresurizovan je. I sporiji od B777. R-60 ima domet u idealnim uslovima oko 8km, u borbenim 3-5km. Cak ni teoretski SU-25 nije mogo da ga nacilja. Osim sto steta na avionu NE potice od tog projektila :)

Evo albuma sa hi res slikama. Obratite paznju na album 4. po redu sa slikama kokpita i ostecenjima od SAM rakete.

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroen ... 790319631/

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroen ... 416293108/

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroen ... 853477595/

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroen ... 471359080/

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroen ... 908125941/

Google mapa sa obelezenim mestima pada delova (kad kliknete otvaraju se fotke). PAZNJA - Uznemirujuci prizori!:

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewe ... CKhCqNDe94
"This is Chief Inspector Clouseau’s residence. This is Chief Inspector Clouseau speaking on the pheun.”
Korisnikov avatar
snork
Reactions:
Postovi: 4940
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 07:50
Lokacija: Beograd

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od snork »

Ja mislim da je akciju izvela Ukrajina, na svoju ruku i bez znanja Amerike.

A možda nije ni Ukrajina, ni proruski separatisti, ni Rusija, ni Amerika... Kome trenutno odgovara da se pažnja usmeri na Ukrajinu, a ne na druge krajeve sveta? Pa još ni manje ni više nego malezijski avion... ;)


EDIT:
cozmo napisao:@snork: SU 25 prazan leti na 7000m. Eksperimentalno moze do 10.000m u kratkom periodu. I to je u domenu teorije. Nepresurizovan je. I sporiji od B777. R-60 ima domet u idealnim uslovima oko 8km, u borbenim 3-5km. Cak ni teoretski SU-25 nije mogo da ga nacilja. Osim sto steta na avionu NE potice od tog projektila :)
Za ciljem nije morao da juri, mogao je i da mu dođe u susret. Takođe, mogao je da ispali raketu sa manje visine od one na kojoj se nalazi cilj. Dalje, mogao je i da ga izrešeta topovima prilikom pada, taman da bude puno rupa pa da podseća na dejstvo neke veće rakete. Što se presurizacije tiče, pa valjda nijedan borbeni avion nije presurizovan, zato piloti i nose maske s kiseonikom?
Poslednja izmena od snork u 28 Jul 2014, 19:55, izmenjeno 1 put ukupno.
Ђенерал Јанковић
Korisnikov avatar
Uroš S.
Reactions:
Postovi: 11000
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 01:17
Garaža: BMW X1 X-Line | Yamaha X-Max 300 TechMax | Polar Forester
Lokacija: BGD

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od Uroš S. »

Misliš na Jevreje? Pala mi je ta ideja na pamet pre neki dan.
Korisnikov avatar
snork
Reactions:
Postovi: 4940
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 07:50
Lokacija: Beograd

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od snork »

Ne mislim na Jevreje, nego na Izrael. :mrgreen:
Ђенерал Јанковић
Korisnikov avatar
Paja
Reactions:
Postovi: 14752
Pridružio se: 08 Jan 2012, 11:36
Garaža: Superb
Lokacija: Beograd, Zvezdara

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od Paja »

Dusan napisao:Da ameri nemaju problem sa tim da bilo sta urade zarad propagande svi vec znamo. Meni nije samo jasno kako ljudi ne razmisle, da su stvarno ameri ili cia oborili ovaj avion mi bi vec imali sve dokaze predocene i sve bi bilo jasno da su rusi krivi za pad.
Toliko ste zaslepljeni ljubavlju prema Rusiji da je iskljucena mogucnost da je avion greskom oboren. Do juce su padali ukrajinski avioni ko kruske i to je sve bilo normalno sad odjednom je cudno sto je ovaj greskom oboren. Smesan smo narod. Voleo bih da nas zagrle braca rusi, kao sto su grlili Poljake, Madjare, Rumune i ostale. Pa bi vas onda pitao. :D
:goodpost:
Korisnikov avatar
cozmo
Reactions:
Postovi: 5208
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 08:50
Garaža: Peugeot 307 1.6 HDI
Lokacija: Novi Sad

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od cozmo »

snork napisao:Takođe, mogao je da ispali raketu sa manje visine od one na kojoj se nalazi cilj. Dalje, mogao je i da ga izrešeta topovima prilikom pada, taman da bude puno rupa pa da podseća na dejstvo neke veće rakete. Što se presurizacije tiče, pa valjda nijedan borbeni avion nije presurizovan, zato piloti i nose maske s kiseonikom?
Nije mogao da ga obori tako :) Pogledaj koliko su se namucili kod obaranja KAL 007 a imali su direktnu vidljivost sa lovcem koji je namenjen obaranju :) Jednostavno da su hteli mogli su da ga obore sa SU 27. Sa ovim ne.

Zasto sam pomenuo da je nepresurizovan? Zato sto mu je operativni domet 7000m. Nije projektovan za nepresurizovani let na vecoj visini a da ne bude opasno po pilota u tom modelu. Nista drugo.

Resetanje topom dok padaju delovi? Al ti gledas filmove :)

Ovo su srapneli od SAM projektila. Ako ne verujes, ima i slika srapnela:

https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroen ... 5908125941

Everyone agrees that the Boeing 777-200ER was flying over the separatist region at 33,000 feet. A Boeing 777′s cruising speed is about 560mph or Mach 0.84. Its mass is about 500,000 pounds, and it has a wingspan and length of about 200 feet each. The MH17 was flying from West to East, more or less.

The Su-25 Frogfoot is a ground attack aircraft; a modern Sturmovik or, if you like, a Rooskie version of the A-10 Warthog. The wingspan and length of the Su-25 is about 50 feet each, and the mass is about 38,000lbs with a combat load. The ceiling of an unladen Su-25 is about 23,000 feet. With full combat load, an Su-25 can only make it to 16,000 feet. This low combat ceiling was actually a problem in the Soviet-Afghanistan war; the hot air and the tall mountains made it less useful than it could have been. At altitude, the maximum speed of the unladen Su-25 is Mach 0.82; probably considerably lower with combat loads. For air to air armament, it has a pair of 30mm cannons and carries the R-60 missile. The Su-25 is also capable of carrying the Kh-13, though it is not clear that the Ukrainians deploy this missile on their Su-25s. For the sake of argument, we’ll talk about it anyway.

Since it was a Ukrainian Su-25, we can also assume it was heading West to East; more or less the same trajectory as flight MH17. It could have been traveling in some other trajectory, but we can already see the problem with an Su-25 intercepting a 777; it’s too low, and too slow. If you want to believe the crackpot idea that Ukrainian government were a bunch of sinister schemers who shot down MH17 on purpose, an Su-25 is pretty much the worst armed military aircraft you can imagine for such a task. The Ukrainian air force has a dozen Su-27s and two-dozen Mig-29s perfectly capable of intercepting and shooting down a 777. They also have the Buk missile, and are capable of placing it somewhere near the Donetsk separatists if they wanted to make them look bad. So, the theory that the evil Ukrainians shot down a 777 with a Su-25 on purpose is … extremely unlikely.

Could an Su-25 have shot down a 777 by accident? Fog of war and all that? Perhaps they thought it was a Russian plane? Well, let’s see how likely that is. The weapons of the Su-25 capable of doing this are the cannons, the R-60 missile (and its later evolutions, such as the R-73E) and the K-13 missile.

Cannons: impossible. The Su-25 was at minimum 10,000 feet below the 777. This means simply pointing the cannon at the 777 without stalling would have been a challenge. The ballistic trajectory of the cannon fire would have made this worse. The Gsh-30-2 cannon fires a round which travels at only 2800 feet per second, significantly lower than, say, the round fired by a 338 Lapua sniper rifle. Imagine trying to shoot down an airplane with a rifle, from 2-3 miles away using your eyeball, in a plane, at a ballistic angle. If the MH17 was somehow taken out by cannon fire, it will have obvious 30mm holes in the fuselage. None have been spotted so far.

K-13 missile: extremely unlikely. The K-13 is a Soviet copy of the 50s era AIM-9 sidewinder; an infrared homing missile. Amusingly, the Soviets obtained the AIM-9 design during a skirmish between China and Taiwan in 1958; a dud got stuck in a Mig-17. It is not clear that the Ukrainian air force fields these weapons with their Su-25′s; they’re out of date, and mostly considered useless. Worse, the effective range of a K-13 is only about 1.2 miles, putting the 777 out of effective range. Sure, a K-13 miiiight have made it to a big lumbering 777 with its two big, hot turbofans, but it seems pretty unlikely; a lucky shot. The 16lb of the K-13 warhead is certainly capable of doing harm to a 777′s engines. Maybe it would have even taken out the whole airliner. Doubtful though.

R-60 missile: extremely unlikely. If a Su-25 was firing missiles at a 777, this is probably what it was using. The R-60 is also an IR guided missile, though some of the later models use radar proximity fuzing. Unlike the K-13, this is a modern missile, and it is more likely to have hit its target if fired. Why is it unlikely? Well, first off, it is unlikely the Ukrainian Su-25s were armed with them in the first place: these are ground attack planes, fighting in a region where the enemy has no aircraft. More importantly, the R-60 has a tiny little 6lb warhead, which is only really dangerous to fragile fighter aircraft. In 1988, an R-60 was fired at a BAe-125 in Botswana. The BAe-125 being a sort of Limey Lear jet, which weighs a mere 25,000lbs; this aircraft is 20 times smaller than a 777 by mass. The BAe-125 was inconvenienced by the R-60, which knocked one of its engines off, but it wasn’t shot down; it landed without further incident. A 777 is vastly larger and more sturdy than any Limey Lear jet. People may recall the KAL007 incident where an airliner was shot down by a Soviet interceptor. The Su-15 flagon interceptor which accomplished this used a brobdingnagian K-8 missile, with an 88lb warhead, which was designed to take out large aircraft. Not a shrimpy little R-60. The R-60 is such a pipsqueak of a missile, it is referred to as the “aphid.”

Malo o BUK-u:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html
Poslednja izmena od cozmo u 28 Jul 2014, 20:24, izmenjeno 1 put ukupno.
"This is Chief Inspector Clouseau’s residence. This is Chief Inspector Clouseau speaking on the pheun.”
zuzazu
Reactions:
Postovi: 4641
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 15:13

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od zuzazu »

Smorili ste za medalju :ccc:

Pitanje za razmisljanje, primam svaku sugestiju.

Nosni tocak nema kocnice, njime se samo upravlja.

Diskovi su na glavnom trapu. Asimetricno kocenje u principu nije dozvoljeno. Knjige ne kazu zasto.

Ako bi ipak odlucili da smanjite brzinu u krivini, a da pomognete nosnom tocku, da li bi kocili unutrasnjim ili spoljnim tockom?

Ja imam svoju teoriju, tj. iskustvo koje kaze unutrasnji tocak a vidim da dobar deo kolega koristi spoljni.

Sta mislite, sta daje veci efekat, uzeti u obzir i grejanje...
Korisnikov avatar
McGruja
Site Admin
Reactions:
Postovi: 13449
Pridružio se: 06 Jan 2012, 13:48
Garaža: Suzuki Vitara 1.6 16v AT

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od McGruja »

Rastereceniji tocak kliza, ovaj drugi sr pregreje
Korisnikov avatar
Laki021
Reactions:
Postovi: 13095
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 01:41
Garaža: BMW 540i xDrive
Lokacija: Zurich

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od Laki021 »

Kako naopako spoljnim??!
Korisnikov avatar
Paja
Reactions:
Postovi: 14752
Pridružio se: 08 Jan 2012, 11:36
Garaža: Superb
Lokacija: Beograd, Zvezdara

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od Paja »

Unutrašnjim. Tako on postaje i osa rotacije. Ako kočiš spoljnim koji ne sme da postane osa rotacije potrebno je kontrirati motorom ili prednjim trapom ili kako to već radite.
Korisnikov avatar
McGruja
Site Admin
Reactions:
Postovi: 13449
Pridružio se: 06 Jan 2012, 13:48
Garaža: Suzuki Vitara 1.6 16v AT

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od McGruja »

Ja bih spoljnim ipak, ili sa oba
Korisnikov avatar
Laki021
Reactions:
Postovi: 13095
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 01:41
Garaža: BMW 540i xDrive
Lokacija: Zurich

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od Laki021 »

Aj pojasni molim te?
Jos uvek ne kontam da li je trik pitanje ili ne.
Korisnikov avatar
McGruja
Site Admin
Reactions:
Postovi: 13449
Pridružio se: 06 Jan 2012, 13:48
Garaža: Suzuki Vitara 1.6 16v AT

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od McGruja »

Pa unutrasnji (desni, ako skrecem desno) ce lakse klizati u slucaju naglog kocenja, ili neceg naglog

Spoljni (levi tocak, ako skrecem desno) nosi vecu tezinu, i efikasnije koci

Spoljni takodje radi oversteer
Korisnikov avatar
Laki021
Reactions:
Postovi: 13095
Pridružio se: 13 Jan 2012, 01:41
Garaža: BMW 540i xDrive
Lokacija: Zurich

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od Laki021 »

Ti bi ga vala zarotirao na suprotnu stranu :)
Uzmi neki autic ili bilo sta pa koci jednu stranu i vidi sta se desava.
Pride pricamo o avionu, pa nije to trkacko skretanje :)
Korisnikov avatar
McGruja
Site Admin
Reactions:
Postovi: 13449
Pridružio se: 06 Jan 2012, 13:48
Garaža: Suzuki Vitara 1.6 16v AT

Re: Vazduhoplovi

Post od McGruja »

U extremnim situacijama si u pravu
Ali, treba samo pomoci prednjem tocku
Odgovori