Northrop F-5E Tiger II RMAF

CREDIT TO: Wolodymir Nelowkin, Airliners.net

Type: Light Fighter/Bomber

Specifications:

• Length: 14.68m
• Span: 8.13m
• Height: 4.01m
• Weight (maximun take off): 11 193kg

Max Speed: Mach 1.63 (about 1 735km/h)

Service Ceiling: 51 800 ft (15.79km)

Range: max fuel, 2 863 km

Armament:

• Two 20mm Pontiac M-39A2 gun with 280 rounds
• Max up to 3 175 kg of external ordinance and tank.
• One centreline and four underwing pylons.

Powerplant: 2 5 000 lbs (2 268kg) General Electric J85-GE21 augmented turbojets.

TRIVIA

1. Three Northrop F-5F double-seaters were purchased in 1978, enabling to operate similar aircrafts as the single-seaters; the earlier Northrop F-5B were sold to Thailand and delivered on 18-09-82.
2. TUDM posesses a pair of RF-5E camera equipped jets. Also flown by 12 Skuadron at Butterworth, the TigerEyes provide the Malaysian Air Force with a useful reconnaisance capability.
   
3. Three stored Tigers flew for the first time in August 2003, another in September 2004 and almost all foreseen aircrafts were reactivated by 2003.
4. Latest pic of F5E Tiger II (28/05/08)

Credit to: http://home.eblcom.ch/f5enthusiast/AirForces/MalaysiaAF.html

Sources: Richardson D. (1982) Modern Warplane, http://www.cavok-aviation-photos.net/RMAF.html

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS A4PTM SKYHAWK

Oleh kerana daku tercabar melihat Saudara otai dengan jaya nya mengeluarkn artikel mengenai SU 30 MKM, maka aku dengan rendah diri nk share dengan geng2 semua sedikit info tentang..................

Credit goes to: http://www.mamboccv.com/A4PTM_M32-29_071207.jpg

· This aircraft was originally operated by the US Navy (October 1956 – 2003).

• In 1980, Malaysia purchased 88 surplus Skyhawks airframes (25 A-4C, 63 A-4L) for refurbishment, redesignaton as A-4PTM (Peculiar To Malaysia), and assignment to the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).
• However, inflationary costs eventually reduced the buy to 40 airframes.
• Upgrading of the A-4PTMs by the Grumman Aerospace facility at St. Augustine, FL, included rewiring; addition of two ordnance wing stations; rework of the J65 engines; and installation of improved avionics and ordnance gear, the enarged A-4M canopy, and a drag chute.
• An undetermined number of the single-seat PTM Skyhawks were rebuilt into two-seat TA-4PTM configuration similar to the TA-4.
• The PTM Skyhawks were delivered to the RMAF in late 1985 and early 1986, and had a relatively short service life. Except for six TA-4PTMs retained for aerial tanker duty, the Malaysian Skyhawks were all retired by late 1994.

TRIVIA

· The Skyhawks were purchased as part of the Armed Forces "Perista" development programme, to provide the RMAF with strength in numbers.

· Maintenance and spares problems soon plagued the aircraft with a few falling off the sky.

Sources: http://www.skyhawk.org/2c/productionhistory.htm

http://www.malaysian-museums.org/rmaf/exhibits/aircraft/skyhawk.htm

p/s: thanks Otai, your article had inspired me to write this simple article. walah

My opinion regarding CLIL or PPSMI in Malaysia.

I found out that Khairy Jamaluddin or best known as KJ has able to voiced out genuine and brilliant opinion regarding to the science and math in English issues in Malaysia. Some of his point of view is true and it is something for the people in Malaysia to ponder. I believe that blaming others will not solve this issue. Instead, we should sit together and try to find the best solution for the problems arise from this policy (CLIL). At first, I am also among people who believe that CLIL strategy is not the best choice for Malaysian education system. It is due to my understanding that CLIL will actually impaired students' understanding especially those who are coming from the rural areas. My observation of how teacher integrated CLIL in their lesson also convince me that CLIL is actually hazardous to Malaysia education. At that time I believe that English should not be mixed up with other subject especially science and math. But after, I come here (MARJON) I discover that CLIL is possible to be implemented and it is one of the best ways for students to acquire the language. Starting from that moment, I try to understand what CLIL really is and why it so mess up in Malaysia.

When I read this letter, I somehow agree with most of KJ view about Malaysian CLIL. He says that CLIL policy in Malaysia is half-baked and the attempt to fix the problem is not a permanent solution but a temporary one. So from my point of view, I believe that KJ voice about this matter is relevant and people the authority should try to seek help or advice from the other nation that has successfully integrated CLIL in their education. I also agreed with KJ view that and extensive research should be done before the government decide to implement any policy in the future. As for the CLIL problem in Malaysia, I suggest that the authority should try to revise the syllabus and try to come up with the better one so that teacher can use it to maximize CLIL’s benefit in class.

Besides, I am thinking that the government should try to give an active support rather that passive support for the teacher to improve their teaching in English language. The support program that we have right now is not that effective as not many teachers can really get the benefit from it. Instead, I believe that teacher should be given active support such as by providing them more opportunities to use English at least during the school hours. For example, nowadays the English day in school is only one day, why not we extend the periods into two or three days. This will provide teacher and students to practice their English and will eventually help to improve their proficiency.

However, I do not agree with some point made by KJ as I seen it is not coherent with what I have learned. For instance, KJ state that CLIL will actually hampered students’ ability to master the science and math subject. This is not true, as this problem can be traced way back to the times before CLIL is implemented. I think the cause for this problem is actually embedded in how Malaysian classroom is conducted. Most of teachers favor traditional approach in learning which limit student contribution for their own learning and will eventually tampered with their ability to acquire the knowledge. Based on this argument, I believe that CLIL should not be the scapegoat for this old problem. CLIL is actually designed and intended to help students to master English by providing them with the mean to learn the language and the opportunity to practice the language.

I also disagree with KJ opinion that CLIL policy should be abandoned after a lot of money and resources has been used. Instead, I think the authority should try to identify the flaw in the policy and take more serious action and long term solution for the matter. Overall, I believe that CLIL is a good thing to be implemented in Malaysia education system but research should be done extensively to ensure it will actually benefit the students.

p/s: this is actually a piece of my reflection task. Just want to share it with people out there. Please feel free to comment.