MILITARY AIRPLANES
Are you fond of planes?
Do you have substantial information about
the performances and drawbacks of different
types of planes?
Do you want to work for the Romanian
Defense Ministry?
Do you want to get a job that offers you a
lot of responsibility, gives you much freedom
to take important decisions and is also very
rewarding?
You’ve come to the right place. But first, you
must prove that you’ve got the right qualities.
TASK
As part of the Romanian Air Force, you will deal with military
planes every day. Now you have the chance to study Romanian and
other types of military airplanes and to compare them.
Your job is to make up a report about Romanian military
airplanes comparing the performances of different types of planes,
and eventually to make suggestions for acquiring new types of
planes which are more updated or more efficient in certain
situation.
You will work in groups of three, each group having at least one
member who is a pilot and one member who has some experience in
using the computer and the internet.
At the end of your study you will have to present to a board or
committee a comparative presentation of two airplanes – one used by the
Romanian Air force and one used by a foreign force. You must present
the advantages and possible drawbacks of each one and eventually
decide on purchasing a new type of plane for the Romanian Air force. In
order to achieve that you will have to follow some steps:
First, analyze the use of certain airplanes and try to work out a
classification of military airplanes.
Compare you classification with the ones realized by the other
groups and produce a poster with the most complete classification of the
military airplanes. Then compare this poster with the classification
made on www.encarta.com – see the link above.
Choose one of the categories and compare a Romanian and a USA
military plane which belong to the same category
In order to make the presentation of your work you will have to
produce, in pairs or groups, posters of the two planes, which you will
have to present to the class.
PROCESS
STEP 1
Make up the groups. Make sure in each group there is at least one Air
force officer and one person who is familiar with the use of the
computer and of the internet
Look at the following pictures and try to identify the planes and
match the pictures with the names:
Mig-21
An-24
Boeing C-17
C-130B Hercules
Iak-52
Try to group the types of planes to make a classification.
Compare you classification with the ones realized by the other
groups and produce a poster with the most complete classification of the
military airplanes.
Give other examples of planes included in each category. What
other types of planes are used by the Romanian Air force?
! The following sight might be useful for your task:
http://www.roaf.ro/ro/dotare/dotare.htm
Compare your result with the classification made on
www.encarta.com – see the link above.
STEP 2
Look at the following map of an airplane and see if you are
familiar with the names of different parts of an airplane. If you
don’t feel very confident about it, and need more information
check the following web page:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556643/Airplane.html
In case some of the words are still unfamiliar check the meaning
of the words in a Webster
Parts of an Airplane
You should also be familiar with words such as:
missile
mach number
air-to-air
air-to-ground
bomber
fighter
cargo
Read the following description of a MIG-21 and look for
adjectives and adverbs. Pay attention to the degrees of comparison.
They will prove useful during your own presentation.
In groups, make up a list of these adjectives and adverbs and
share your conclusions with the other groups.
GROUP WORK CAN BE VERY REWARDING AND
USEFUL
! This is just part of the presentation of the MIG-21. If you
want to see all of it, check this link:
http://www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/kraft/mig1.htm
The MiG-21 is the most built jet ever. Fast, small, agile dependable
(performance data), and above all simple, it could be turned out in
prodigious numbers, and was. It flooded the skies above Europe,
Asia, Africa, and even Central America with literally thousands of
modern, deadly fighters. It has flown in more wars than any other
airplane in the world. The MiG-21 is not known for its radar or
hauling capabilities, nor for its target acquisition equipment or range,
but its known that in many ways it was a pilot's plane. It doesn't have
any computers or fancy navigation equipment. It very much depends
on the pilot and his (hopefully) good training and experience.
The first type built in substantial numbers was the MiG-21F-13
(Soviet AF Type 74, NATO Fishbed C). It had an enlarged ventral
fin, a different canopy, only one cannon, two hard points under the
wing, a KAP-2 autopilot, radio compass, radio altimeter, multi-channel
radio, radio beacon receiver, IFF and radar warning receiver. It
could accept one 490 liter (129 gal) drop tank, two R-13 (NATO AA-
2 Atoll) IR AAM's or two rocket pods of up to 16 57mm unguided
AGM each.
The next generation of MiG-21 featured a number of modifications
intended to extend its endurance and give the fighter a better all
weather capability. It was done through enlarging. The nose section
was completely redesigned. A larger nose cone was able to house the
first generation of MiG-21 radar. The ventral fin was enlarged again
to hold more fuel. The landing gear was modified to deal with the
higher gross weight which required bigger wheel and bulges in the
fairings. The speed brakes were modified, too. From just two in
tandem under the fuselage, they replaced the forward one by two
speed brakes which were higher on the fuselage sides and retaining
the rear belly speed brake.
Besides the MiG-21R/S/and SM, the more famous third generation
MiG-21's are the M's and MF's. The MiG-21M was the export version
of the SM and had the older R-11F2S-300 engine and still the RP-21
radar as opposed to the more sophisticated Soviet SM variant. The
MiG-21M (NATO Fishbed H) probably was the most unliked version
(by pilots) of the MiG-21. It now could carry 2650 liters (700 gal) of
internal fuel as well as three 490 liter drop tanks, or one 800 liter
(211 gal), and two AAM's (four AAM's with the 800 liter drop tank)
on four under wing hard points. It also had an internal GSch-23 twin-
barrel cannon with 250 rounds. It now was a considerably heavier
aircraft with serious performance shortages.
STEP 3
Start working on your presentation.
Choose the class of airplane you want to describe and start work in
the same group. Chose two planes in the same class to describe in
parallel: one used by the Romanian Air force and one used by a foreign
Air force.
When you compare them don’t forget to mention:
☺ the name of the airplane
☺ the type of airplane
☺ the country that uses it
☺ its length
☺ its width
☺ its speed
☺ the armament it uses
☺ its crew
☺ the height it can reach
☺ other specifications
! Take notes carefully. They are very important for an oral
presentation. The success of your speech may depend on the quality of
your notes
During your presentation you might need to use
comparatives such as:
Fast – faster than – the fastest
Long – longer than – the longest
big –bigger than – the biggest
good – better than – the best
As…..as…
Not as…..as
More useful than….
or other phrases such as:
After analyzing…
It is able to…..
It can// can’t……
It is also….
Besides the…..
We have come to the conclusion that…
The following sites will help you decide on the planes you want to
compare
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?front=yes&maxres=500&k
eywords=military
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556643_5/Airplane.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/
http://www.fighter-planes.com/
http://www.scalecraft.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Catego
ry=273
http://www.scalecraft.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdI
D=391
EVALUATION
I. SELF EVALUATION
Individually, answer the following questions by ticking the right
column:
Questions Not much Satisfactory Very much
How effectively did I
contribute to all the steps
of the web quest?
How well do I master the
vocabulary concerning
planes at the end of all
the tasks?
How much did I learn
about using the internet?
How much did my
grammar improve
(degrees of comparison
of adjectives and
adverbs)?
II. TEACHER EVALUATION
Fill in the following form after listening to your
students’ oral presentations:
Not Satisfactory Very good
satisfactory
Research
Has difficulty in Can find links Knows how to get
searching the easily following to the links without
web; the instructions; further
Hints are not Understands the instructions;
clearly understood task quite well Understands tasks
very well;
Comes up with
ideas concerning
new links, finds
additional
information
Group work
Doesn’t contribute Contributes to the Brings effective
much to the task; group work only personal
Is not able to with general contribution to the
support his ideas, without tasks;
opinion in the much personal Has clear, well
group input; structured ideas;
Communication is Shows creativity,
successful but not fluency in
very effective communication
and a clear insight
of the matter
Note taking Notes are not Notes are not well Notes are very
clear or not to the organized or too clear and to the
point; general; point;
Answers are Has grammar or Doesn’t have
mostly incorrect; vocabulary grammar or
Has many mistakes but they vocabulary
grammar or don’t hinder mistakes – at least
vocabulary understanding none concerning
mistakes that the specific
make it difficult to vocabulary and
understand the degrees of
comparison of
adjectives and
adverbs
Oral
presentation Reads the notes Speaks slowly, but Speaks fluently
rather than clearly and doesn’t
speaking; Depends much on depend on the
Has many the notes, notes;
grammar, Ideas are well The notes are
vocabulary and organized, with main ideas and
pronunciation comprehensive arguments and he
mistakes, so that it information and in successful in
is difficult to effective turning them into
understand arguments whole meaningful
Ideas are not sentences;
fluent Doesn’t make
vocabulary,
grammar or
pronunciation
mistakes