Izbrani forum: Glavni forum

Izbrana tema: članek Putin je Rusom prepovedal letenje v Gruzijo

Prikaz samo enega sporočila - znotraj teme...

anon-178149 sporočil: 4.311
[Glavni forum] Tema: Putin je Rusom prepovedal letenje v Gruzijo
[#2781105] 26.06.19 07:57 · odgovor na: PyotrNovak (#2781068)
Odgovori   +    0
[PyotrNovak]
Ne vem, no, toda meni se zdi da tole dela paro na črn premog:

afloat.ie/media/k2/i...97ac_L.jpg
Ladje na klasični pogon kurijo mazut, in če ne izgoreva popolne se pač saji. Črni premog lahko gori povsem lepo, lahko pa daje bolj ali manj črn dim, saje, odvisno od izgorevanja, kakor tudi lignit etc... In v dimu je, ne boš verjel največ nevarnega dihidrogen oksida kot produk izgorevanja vodika in seveda CO2 kot produkt izgorevanja ogljika.
Russian jets keep crashing, and it may be an aircraft carrier's fault ...
www.washingtonpost.c...ad8-11e6-8

Dec 5, 2016 - “It's a very old ship with very old technologies. ... [An advanced Russian jet just crashed during its debut off the Syrian coast]. Unlike modern aircraft carriers, the Kuznetsov does not have a catapult system, and the jets it carries ...
Mnoge manjše letalonosilke imajo rampo za uporabo VTOL/STOL letal, in v svoji ne vednosti boš zaprepaščen, najnovejša letanosolika Združenega kraljestva ima tudi rampo, uporabljala pa naj bi najnovejša leta F35 za STOL/VTOL vzlet, ki jih sicer še nima in bodo stala, če sploh bodo dobavljena toliko kot sama letalonisilka, torej nekaj miljard.

DALEEEEEEČ so še od US tehnologije, pa še denarja ni, niti ustreznih mornariških letal.

Če ne znaš prebrati originala, ti dam link na Google translate. Rad pomagam ubogim.
Se zahvaljujem, vendar tvojih linkov res ne potrebujem, recimo da se na tehniko nekoliko spoznam, angleščina mi pa tudi, vsaj tehnična ni preveč tuja. Ti si pa le oglej sliko letalonosilke Queen Elisabeth, ponos mornarice ZK
www.google.com/searc...UBmgL-L2M:

Med brati rečeno, samo ZDA ima letalonosilke s katapulti, a so njihova letala toliko slaba, da ne morejo vzletet s ploščatokrovke?

Neposredni odgovori na sporočilo št. 2781105

Strani: 1

PyotrNovak sporočil: 5.775
Sure, Bwana.
PyotrNovak sporočil: 5.775
Sure, Bwana. You know it ALL.

rusnavy.com/science/...carrier/5/

At first glance, a ski-ramp really has a huge number of advantages. It is inexpensive and doesn't need steam-generating plant, maintenance and repairs. Finally, it saves effective capacities and weight, which affects a carrier's displacement and cost.

However, all those advantages of ski-ramp are pale in comparison with its drawbacks. First and foremost advantage of catapult is its low threshold of sensitivity to takeoff conditions. Roughly speaking, a catapult-equipped aircraft carrier can continue takeoff operations in such ship's motion/wind/sea disturbance conditions when ramp-equipped carrier can not.

The second essential advantage of catapult is higher takeoff rate. Let us assume that maximum amount of planes must be in the air as soon as possible. With its four catapults, a US carrier is capable to shoot one aircraft in every 15 seconds. Kuznetsov has only three takeoff tracks. Moreover, two bow tracks are not intended for fully-loaded aircrafts! They can take off Kuznetsov only from one track which starts far behind the midship, i.e. an aircraft must run almost the whole flight deck! Comparing to catapult, takeoff rate of ski-ramp is at least twice lower.

It must be kept in mind that ski-ramp takeoff implies high requirements to thrust/weight ratio. Engines start working at full-thrust (afterburner) mode before an aircraft runs out; this leads to premature end of service life and increased fuel consumption. Besides, lower takeoff rate makes aircrafts wait longer in assembly point, which also means waste of fuel, reduction of operational radius etc.

Pametnjakovič napihnjeni.

Strani: 1