John B (Sc)

Bucket o' Bolts Mk1 ?

Impressive - but also terrifying, since all it needs is a hiccup from one engine and you will have an uncontrollable yaw/roll into an impressive tent peg. I expect he thought he'd be able to pitch over if it all went pearshaped. Note the eventual pitch over to recover. No acceleration, and quite slow. I expect he was a rather surprised pilot, with, yes, a 'Caps On' interview with his boss soon after I hope. This was 1991 incidentally - an old new item ! Mr c smith, I'm with you. Rather a tight margin, and definitely NOT any on Vmca, I suspect. Richard, I think the funny noise is beacuse the system was foxed by surounding noise and crowd masking. Very simpe mic adn siound recording, typically, on machines at that date. Given the date, very possibly not digital recirding initially. Wow. A lucky crew. John B

Yes, good outcome. Question - especially for those like Iain who have also done some of this - It seemed to me that he slightly overshot the field he intended to touchdown in - the one with the track across the approach end, then he jinked slightly right, finally maybe just striking the top of the dyke at the margin of the field he did end up in. Which would help explan the very rapid stop. What do you think? It was hard to tell early on which field he was going for - most interesting to see how the head moves around and seldom settles for long. I should explain - I am most certainly not trying to be critical here - a good result to walk away from that. I'm trying to figure out the last few seconds. (And put myself into his mind) Dead easy to be an armchair critic. Great work to manage to nurse the machine away from the Lakes area which is darned hard to land in. As a glider pilot I've landed in quite a few fields, some better than others. I've also had to do precautionary landings with partial engine failure, though never yet total (Touch wood), except by deliberate choice. It concentrates the mind. We tend to use the continuous curve approach which looks to me what this pilot is doing. He so nearly aces it into the first field too! I was wondering about those last few moments. I'd be trying to keep wings level for a clean touchdown. That last wee jink seemed to me to be to try to aim for the best remaining option. Which worked, whew. And is what I hope I'd have done too. I was taught long ago it was better to step out of the wreckage at the far end than get dug out at the near end. Like this. I wonder if he took up smoking again after that ? That's a darn long time sitting planning, wondering, hoping it will work out as the altimeter winds down inexorably. And whistling Dixie...... John B

I seem to recall that chap got fired once that practice came to light. James H - well said. I agree. Incidentally I know of others who do the same as you - pass material onto help good causes where appropriate. Good plan. John B

Good luck roys. As a glider pilot who has owned several Slingsby machines over the years - and flown quite a few more, anything which keeps the memory of Slingsby Sailplanes alive is worth knowing more about. There were some interesting stories told, around the gliding world, and I've no doubt your father knows many more. I see you mention Project Sigma. We thought it a terrific idea. Seen with hindsight it was probably a step too far at the time. Still a very dramatic concept. Both Nick and Tony Goodhart brothers were well known inventors as well as very accomplished naval and glider pilots. I believe Sigma ended up in North America - is that correct? John B

Superb pictures Antoine, and some beautiful aircraft. Merci beaucoup. John B

I agree Graham. That is as accurate a date as is possible. At Leuchars on Monday - there was a Light Aircraft Fly-In Day - the brief was that 111(F) Sqn is expected to stand down on Tornado F3 in March 2011. They are the last F3 Squadron. There will be one or two F3s continuing for a short time, with Boscombe and ETPS. No 6 Sqn will start arriving in Early September - around about the 6th is the date I recall, with up to four aircraft suggested as arriving then. They will work up to take over the QRA task over the following few months. Exact handover date of that commitment from 111Sqn to 6Sqn will depend on work up progress, no doubt. 111 Sqn have a few extra F3 airframes available now, as the last active unit. So this year's Air Show will be the last chance to see the Tornado F3. (Monday was super fun incidentally - and to see the machines properly without a large crowd around was terrific. Very friendly, helpful crew of folk. I hope it happens again. Must send a thank you note) John B

I believe that " piddle off Biggles" sign is well known as having worked exactly opposite to intention. So many fast jet jockeys heard about it - they all wanted to fly past, see it and if possible have their picture taken with that sign in view. Somewhere I have a copy of a shot a friend gave me which he had taken from a Buccaneer I think, quite a few years back. So it seems the chap ended up making it worse not better. He probably then left it since it had become so famous! We used to get lots of low level activity up here in Northern Scotland. Much quieter now. They were seldom a problem - they were well below our operating heights. John B

Super shots. And the caption - " So that's where the **** ground crew park their gum."

It's a very long time since I last had any BOAC VCTenderness, (happy memories) but my recollection, since I was a keen modeller then, is that the fin and tailplane bullet were gloss white and the tailplane horizontal areas were pale grey - Though I could only see the underside of that ! Somewhere I should have slides of a BOAC VC10 at Cairo, with burnt out Egyptian aeroplanes sitting behind it. John B

I built one of their Pitts a while back. A really hard kit to build. I preferred the older 1/72 version of the Pitts - can't remember now who made it. I aslo have an AZ Zlin Z50 'on the stocks' now. It looks good so far, still a limited run kit but good detail, seems accurate. The two Zlin 50 kits appear to be identical except for decals - mine has parts for both the IO-540 powered version and the Avia powered 'Baby Fifty'. As a GA pilot too I'd love to see an Edge modelled. Heck, any more aerobatic machines - even the classics, say the Jungmann, Jungmeister and Stampe, aren't well served.

My understanding was that the pilot bellied her in successfully in shallow water, so not too fast a touchdown. That water is tidal, yes though I haven't checked on tide range. Hopefully the main visible damage is to undersurface skinning. Snag is that any magnesium alloys used in the engine or structure will require replacement and unless very rapid inhibition is done, much of the aluminium will be dubious too. A total engine replacement certainly, along witn all electrics & electronics. Fingers crossed for a quick rebuild. John B

Didn't that also happen at least a generation ago, to someone working on a ? Hunter ? seat. Maybe this chap's Dad ! Does anyone know what the technical fault was that caused this accident - it looks as if it might be a partial hydraulic failure and/or some elevator restriction? Hence the attempted ~conventional approach without enough round out ability left , as it appeared. I don't know enough about the systems on the new build Harrier !

I believe the Army has existed for so long that there was no need to add 'Royal' to the title. Elements of the Army hold the Royal title, granted at various times, and something of which they are all proud. ay back armies were raised temporarily by nobles at the King's behest, and the King also controlled armies raised by the state's funding - in England at least, not Scotland. So no need to call it Royal. Latee after the English Civil War, Parliament was careful not to allow the King to directly control the Army or appear to - it is an organ of state, although allegiance is sworn to the Crown, to make it less likely that a Government can retain power in a putsch, supposedly. So the title Royal would have sent the wrong signals. (This is also said to be why Army officers very seldom appear in Londoninuniform, except on special guard and parade duties. Is that still true? It may have died out.) It has always amused that ours are simply 'THE Royal Navy and Royal Air Force'. Everyone else's force says which country - we just assume ours are THE one and only ! From the days when we were top dog.... John B

Yes, that would be a tad annoying. Slightly cropped propellers ! I do recall seeing an overshoot from a totally messed up effort which had both some very odd engine & prop noises, thanks to a certain amount of low level 'cropping', and an ominously flapping outer wing tip section which had got severely clouted on the ricochet - only word for it - from the first arrival. There were some very quiet people watching the subsequent tight circuit and successful second attempt. Much later the pilot admitted his go around WAS a mistake ! (Not a Herc, I hasten to say.) That Hercules emergency gear lowering process sounds impressive ! And lengthy.

Thanks folks. So almost all three options! Since I'm tempted to use Republican markings - more colourful (?), perhaps that strange arrangement of what look like scaffolding poles out the windows will be appropriate! Cheers, John B

True. Russia uses a slightly wider gauge than 'standard', at 1/6th inch under 5 foot. (Confusingly not a sixteenth of an inch as I'd thought ! ). Originally it was 5ft exactly. I believe this was viewed as a good thing bythe Russians since it inhibited German use of their system in wartime. Now usually described as 1519mm to 1524mm gauge.There is a proposal, to build a 1520mm gauge railway to Austria.

I'm building a Fokker F. VII, miltary version. Both sides in the Spanish Civil War used this aircraft as a bomber, as did a few other services. How? The civil version had seating for six passengers and side doors. Did the bomber - (a) have bomb shackles fitted under the fuselage or wing, ( have a bomb bay fited or © simply roll/throw small bomblets out through the fuselage side doors? (a) or © seem most likely options to me. Anyone got clear information ? John B

If the circuit breaker comment is correct - ah, oops clang. I sympathise - having nearly done a similar thing in a much smaller plane. Old saying " There are two types of pilot - those who have landed wheels up and those who are going to", so few of us will be too damning in our comments! " My word, what tall firemen they have here." Or " Needing a lot of power to taxy today, skipper." John B

Wonderful photos. Yes, Ian is right. That is Admiral Mountbatten in picture 26. Presumably as First Sea Lord, a post which he held till late '59. He then became Chief of the Defence Staff. (No longer Imperial Defence Staff by then!) In picture 27, the chap in the centre is Lord Hailsham. He was First Lord of the Admiralty in 1957, later Lord President of the Council (by '59). Essentially number 2 to MacMillan for all practical purposes. I think those shots have to be 1960-ish. The Buccaneers are development batch machines. Probably 1960, since the name Buccaneer was given in August 1960. That is most likely XL488 your Grandad is in front of, given the colour scheme. I guess he was there because of the DH Gyron Junior engines powering her. XL488 was used for Gyron Junior development work by DH. Could be XL489. The Whirlwind is I think the first Gnome turbine conversion. The Vulcan is a Mk1, later variant since it has the kinked wing. Single seat Lightning is a late Development batch machine, preliminary to the F MK1 production run. No name shown, strange. It first flew in 1959. The Lightning was christened at Farnborough 1959. I think the two seater may be the second machine, XL629. The first , XL628, only appeared at Farnborough '59 before going in to the Irish Sea after a supersonic roll caused the fin to depart. It had a black spine, lightning flash and the name on the nose. That means the shot was taken at Farnborough 1960 or later. The famous Hunter two seater G-APUX was at Farnborough in both '59 and '60. I see a BEA Dart Herald in the background. They used three, ex- South American demo machines on the Scottish Highlands and Islands services. So they spent much time at our local airfield, Dyce.. Thanks a great deal Chris. Very evocative shots. I saw one or two of these machines a few years later in the Sixties at Farnborough as a youngster. And yes, shows in those days were that casual. You could walk right up to the machines especially on the Trade days, talk to designers and test pilots, even senior people from buyer nations sometimes. Had I only known, I should have had an autograph album ! John B

Interesting & insightful comments from ghb180658. Personally I'd certainly rather have two brains at work in a complex environment than one - its not the eyes that matter so much! In 'simple' air-to air one brain/pair of eyes may be cost effective with the help of today's fancy kit but I still suspect that as soon as things get gnarly the multi crew option has an edge - as the first post commented. Costly, true, but worthwhile defence capability is expensive, and second best may well turn out to be a false economy. ( The "Pound for pound I'd rather have the fuel" view of navigators always seemed to me rather too churlish! A brave bunch, trusting their 'drivers airframe'. ) As far as I'm aware the Navy still operate their helicopters with a pilot and Observer, who is often (usually?) the aircraft commander, since he can keep situational awareness on the tactical scene without having to worry about operating the 'cab'. That makes sense to me, especially when you think of operations at night in bad weather at low level etc. Piloting is a very fulltime job then. Hmmm. John

You may well be irght Jon. I started buying SAM at Issue No1 & had a subscription for a lot of years. While I stopped buying it every month a while back, it still has run over 50% purchase rate. Not any more I think, while this sort of negativity and poor editing (IMO) goes on. Ah well. Things will change again, no doubt. Mutatis mutandis. John

more critical I tend to agree Bill. A brief caveat in the article would have covered it. Artwork errors do seem to be hard to eliminate and tend to have a lasting impact - though I guess you are right that is bound to be hard to get a verifiable 'expert' to review material in time before print date. Jon may not like the kit , but this e-mail trail got me curious, so I've had a bit of a look around. I haven't found many folk quite as upset as Jon, though things like the intake trunking point is mentioned several times. Doubts about nose shape are mentioned, amongst evident Tornado fans. For that price, like Jon, I'd hope for a better kit and perhaps a more sharply focussed review or build article. Meantime, thanks all. You've got me looking again at Tornados, asking myself what the difference IS between a GR1 and a GR1a, and thinking abiout what I want in a model. Somethiing with the 'look and feel' of the real thing for a sensible price; something I can work on if need be to improve - not necessarily with aftermarket bits. Oh, and my enthusiasm for the slab sided old Tornado has been raised again, paradoxically! ( After seeing a superbly built Mach 2 Valiant yesterday at the Perth show, I'm amazed again at what some modellers can make out of the most difficult challenges. Though it is nice to know about that sort of challenge before purchase! ) John

Sean/Pigsty, I quite agree with your analysis. Useful to have the theoretical capabilty to lob the occasional 'bucket of instant sunshine' around, however the need for a major SLBM deterrent seems past. While I agree that the submarine is a secure platform, the lack of obvious threat detracts. Having aircraft loiter around your borders, or a nice big aircraft carrier lurking just over your horizon is rather more visible. The carrier gains too as a diplomatic tool and a threat because you can have it visit ports. Those nice friendly (for now) sailors spend money, make friends. Then they disappear over the horizon, or do they? ...and lurk..... After all it's more about credible threat than actually delivering the brutes. If we do that, we've all lost. Hence all those years of being ready but not going too far. Incidentally, quite a few V - force folk I met approved of CND in a theoretical way. They just didn't see how we could make it work when we didn't trust the other guys. So stay prepared and hope like h**l the day would never come. I think the WE177 etc saga is more complex than is being discussed. Recall that we supplied enriched plutonium to the USA, they supplied us with tritium etc. A two way process and some complex arrangements were involved. No doubt much still being classified. We still had WE177 after the US had withdrawn its NATO MDAP supplied stores from us and others. I'd guess the Nimrod stuff was one or other variety of nuclear depth bomb? Was the requirement to carry WE177 the reason that Sea Harriers had the inner wing pylons hard wired - they could not be removed ?