Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
one million may not be realistic, but with a cheap avionics package, 4 should be within reason.
P.S. I'd like to see 4x 20m M39 Cannon or 2x30mm M230 cannon armament.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
one million may not be realistic, but with a cheap avionics package, 4 should be within reason.Sure they will. Any number of "mass produced" aircraft is going to drive the cost down. 24 instead of 5 is going to drive the cost down, no matter how miniscule or not.
Sure they will. Any number of "mass produced" aircraft is going to drive the cost down. 24 instead of 5 is going to drive the cost down, no matter how miniscule or not.
It would so long as you can trick it out enough to bring enough hurt and still arrive at speed.Very true. Development costs are lowered as they are spread over the production run instead of all on a couple of aircraft. Development cost would probably be considered a fixed cost after some point.
Gotta wonder what the point would be in developing a whole new airframe where there are so many other options out there for a COIN aircraft that are close to the present design requirements. While not perfect, it would save money to buy the Texan or some other similar bird tricked out for the requirements.
It would so long as you can trick it out enough to bring enough hurt and still arrive at speed.
I'd love to see a Super Texan (as tricked out as the Super Tucano) with cheaper avionics and heavier armament.
You know way more about the industry than I do, why does the cost of aircraft balloon way beyond inflation? The cost of the P-51 was $50,985 in 1945 ($603,685 in today's dollars), now if you put it back into production we are looking at 6 million easy, right? That's ten times the rate of inflation. It's absurd and there must be some fix for it.Personally I don't think you don't want to skimp on avionics no matter where the aircraft is going to be operated.
I think if a country was to approach a manufacturer like Embrair, the "cheaper avionics" would probably be readily available. The customer usually dictates what avionics suite they want in their aircraft and if the manufacturer won't support an avionics suite, a mod center is usually called upon to complete the requirement. Right now the Brazilians are using a suite developed by an Israeli company; in many cases the suites found in aircraft like Super Tucano are not much more expensive than avionics you'll find in a newer GA high performance single or corporate jet. the biggest add on you may see are NVGs.
The avionics are one part of it but at the same time you have avionics that weigh one tenth of what you were dealing with say in the early 1950s doing 100 times more. But there are a lot of costs added on because of additional requirements, specifications, engineering and development costs becasue of increased analytical requirements and accountability. You also have to consider employee wages and the unions.You know way more about the industry than I do, why does the cost of aircraft balloon way beyond inflation? The cost of the P-51 was $50,985 in 1945 ($603,685 in today's dollars), now if you put it back into production we are looking at 6 million easy, right? That's ten times the rate of inflation. It's absurd and there must be some fix for it.
The cost of the F-86 in today's dollars would also be under 2 million.
Just drop a Garmin 1000 in the thing for the no-military end of the application. The package is very slick. Does most of what you need for getting there and back. Especially when you look at the SVT option. Stands for "Synthetic Vision Technology". Slick as snot Man, just off the board good.
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=6420
But once you get there, all the things that go "bang" (or help stuff get to the right point to go "bang") are another matter. Need another flat screen for that, most likely. In truth, I don't know much about the avionics at that level.
What I meant to say, is that the A-10 was designed to have it's wheels in contact with the ground in either "gear up" or "gear down" position. So if both of it's hydraulics were shot out, and the gear wouldn't extend, it will be capable of a minimal damage landing (as seen above) and not a "belly in".
What? you mean the A-10 has something in common with......something that might have been taken from........the FAIREY BATTLE!
I went throuth the certification process for ISO before we shut down our machine shop.My back ground is quality assurance. I could tell you that compared to the 1980s there's about 10x more QA requirements placed on contractors, one of the biggest farces is ISO 9001.
I went throuth the certification process for ISO before we shut down our machine shop.
Lots of paperwork for no gain in efficiency or quality.
Wheels
That sounds like a good assesment of what I ran into when I was implementing it.Yep - IMO ISO is like a big "good ole boys" club. It's supposed to tell the world that "we have these standardized processes that ensure top quality" when in essence it's an excuse for a lack of common sense. It also brings in a bunch of analytical "know-nothings" that are going to tell you how to do your job when in essence they couldn't do your job. I ran into this at a place I worked at about 6 years ago. the Director of QA was always trying to micro manage based on charts and graphs when in essence he didn't know the first thing about the product line or how to produce it.
AGREE 100%!!!!I personally have never seen a piece of paper make a good part.
Again 100% on the money!!!!The main problem with all Quality Assurance programs is that they are only as good as the individuals using them.
Naval Reactors (the group that audits Navy Nuclear Reactors) is just like that. They work an 8 hour day and try to pick on people who work an 18 hour day about how they aren't spit and polish enough without having any idea what the Nukes actually do.Yep - IMO ISO is like a big "good ole boys" club. It's supposed to tell the world that "we have these standardized processes that ensure top quality" when in essence it's an excuse for a lack of common sense. It also brings in a bunch of analytical "know-nothings" that are going to tell you how to do your job when in essence they couldn't do your job. I ran into this at a place I worked at about 6 years ago. the Director of QA was always trying to micro manage based on charts and graphs when in essence he didn't know the first thing about the product line or how to produce it.
TQM started the boondoggle; ISO took it out of control.