John B (Sc)

Ah - thanks Scarlet.

Apologies for being out of touch - why is Leuchars out of action for JW - are there runway works in progress ?

No, neither do I. I was simply making the point that while there are an infinite number of possible threats, its only the probable ones we have the resource to think about sensibly countering - and practicing for. It is the job of the senior 'wheels' to decide to which threats we put our efforts. Recognising that there are risks in any realistic training/practice. These have to be justified. I think in that as well as fairly basic supervision, they failed. I quite agree with Doug that low level skills degrade fast. An interceptor needs to be able to get down, ident and shoot, not faff around playing escort style low level interdiction. Against Argentina I'd have thought an ability to pick up targets at low level against the sea was rather more important. Something the Tornado F3 was relatively good at. If they are already overland in the Falklalnds then the massive & highly expensive effort expended by the RAF down there has already failed, hasn't it? It is interesting that it may well be that the apparently simple amd logical decsion by the formation to swap the tasks ratehr than delay take-off, to do the low level nav element first, may have ultimately caused the crash. Those much heavier loaded aeroplanes did not maneouvre well - something the Tornado has never been terrific at anyway. Seems like No 2 only just escaped the same fate. Lucky for them, but a sobering thought all round.

I think most parts of the force practice low level navigation occasionally. It's become something the RAF presume is always required. Like you, I don't really see the relevance for the Tornado F3 fleet, especially when it is being run down anyway. Low level interception yes, but that is a different skill set. Plainly it makes it easier to carry out an intercept low level if you are also current and ~happy operating at low level, however what threats are we looking at in the short to medium term that requre the F3 guys to remain current at low level overland? This again comes done to management - who should think about what they are asking their team to do, and whether it is worthwhile taking those risks for that purpose. No,. I'm not saying keep everyone wrapped in cotton wool, just that more thought is needed to ensure the risks gladly taken by these crews are worthwhile. Anyone wants to see how serious low level currency can be maintained, look at the Swedish Air Force,. They train faster lower and scheduling fewer hours per pilot per year than the RAF. And a bunch of their folk are part- timers/auxiliaries. They also seem to manage to do it a deal cheaper than our force. It would be useful for our folk to go spend some time with them I think. Might save a few lives and improve effectiveness? Anyway, all a bit off topic now. End.

An interesting report into a very sad loss. Shows how a series of separately minor events can build towards an accident. Salutary lesson for any pilot. I feel that the comments made by the Convening Authority and the Reviewing Authority are notably poor however. They completely miss the point, well made in the Inquiry, that the failure of supervision and the gaps in established checking and oversight procedures were significant. In short , the 'older wiser heads' didn't do their job adequately. Regrettably, this is not the only instance recently in which the RAF has been seen to fail in this area of basic management. The two 'Authorities' involved seem to my mind to doing a certain amount of ducking those truths or grasping at diversionary straws, no doubt because adressing them would be uncomfortable. That is not in the interests of Flight Safety, imo. Neither is having confusing, contradictory documentation ! Easy to criticise with hindsight I know, but the panel's comments seem clear and straightforward. And so near and yet so far for the navigator, perhaps. Horrible.

I agree with you Haggis. It is well past time to disband the Red Arrows, sadly. More urgent things to do with the money. Good grief, let's not lower the tone with that moustachioed character ! John B

Although the reduction in bending loads under G with those tanks must have helped a bit.... I expect there were clear limits to G load with those tanks on. On the Hunter equipped with 230 gallon tanks the max allowable g loads were markedly reduced. Whereas using 100 gallon tanks there were effectively no combat restrictions as far as I'm aware. 'fat albert' - On the subject of one drop tank or two, one old friend commented that he once had to ferry a Hunter back to RAFG from a Mediterranean base with only one 100gal drop tank fitted. His wing man, flying loose gaggle only, had two as was normal. To their surprise, when they refuelled after landing the wingman's plane required just under 100gallons more fuel. Hmm. So the contents of the second tank only just compensated for its extra drag.... They did ask themselves why they bothered.

Thanks folks, some very good advice. (Sorry for delay in returning - was doing a little flying for real (whee)) By blobbing, yes I do mean that once the spray lands it tends to blob up - not drying out, though I have had that problem with poster paint. I have primed with matt white (Allcote rtaher then Halford's - similar stuff.) I have also washed the surfaces lightly with soapy water in case of grease build up following delays after priming. The possibility of having over-thinned is also likely, Shall try a slightly thicker mix and reduce pressure further. Better whiff coating - indeed I may be overdoing the first sessions, too aggressive as Mike said. Hah - I should know that, standard cellulose habit. All part of the practice I need. The flow aid and windscreen fluid comments intrigue me. I used IPA to change the surface tension - surface contact angle or wetting. Shall try your suggestion too at some point. Interesting comment about Model Color too - I shall try some other paint makes, see if that helps. Shal investigate acrylics thinners. I've tended to assume I can use water plus surface tension agent. Maybe not ! Cheers, John B

Hmm - Service ceiling something over 52,000 feet ? Fairly impressive - as you say, it had to be good for something.

Help - advice please. I am trying spraying acrylics. Have sprayed enamels and cellulose for a few years. Every time I spray acrylic onto a plastic model, it blobs. Doesn't seem to want to smooth out. I'm using Model Color, thinned with water and a little IPA. The models are washed lightly with soapy water to ensure no grease, allowed to air dry. Air brush is an Iwata HP-BS. Using about 25 psi. Any suggestions folks ? Is there a thread on this already?

Not bad for a 104 fully loaded. Those tip tanks were fairly low drag. Possibly even helped in some flight modes. You should look at the speed & range for a Tornado with all the gubbins hanging down below. It's why the ex-Bucc boys still laugh. Real bombers have bomb bays. Also why the Tornado crews are happy the VC10 is going out soon. It has a higher econ cruise speed, goes faster, further. Now there's embarrassing. Their ground crew get home before the pilots sometimes.

Interesting. I'd agree about the evacuation. I wonder if they felt that since there was no sign of fire, they were better to stay put unitl the fire trucks had damped/cooled things down? That way they'd know which side to open & leave from if things did go bad later. Hmm. Nicely done landing, with a fine touch of hold off on one main until speed dropped a bit. Handy to have those large underslung podded engines - slides quite well on those! I don;t suppose that starboard engine was going to be doing anything until at least a major overhaul so shooting it full of foam wouldn't make any difference by then. A lot of foam for certainty? John B

Hi. Does anyone have any information on the Ontos kit which Academy are said to be releasing this year? When is it due, likely price, expected availability etc? (eg is it worldwide release or Far East only?) This is one I have to do for old times' sake. Long ago I had a Renwal version, along with most of the other long gone, lamented Renwal armour and oddities. John B

While that was true enough, and yet again a demonstration of why sloppy forward planning and parsimony in defence thinking costs lives and assets, that wasn't down to the SHAR which was superb in the event. Just not in enough numbers and without the back-up - like AEW - that it needed for full effect. Even when scrapped, it was still the best air defence fighter we had, capable in the right hands of seriously upsetting even the F-15 boys. Haggis is right. We are still an island, we need naval power. The ONLY means by which we can reliably project power at a distance. The concentration on the current debacle is typical. Always planning for the last conflict, not thinking ahead and not maintaining flexibility. And underequipping worryingly. And at the risk of going political, strange we can dso easily cut back on our defences yet can't even rein in a bunch of greedy bonuis loving (b)ankers we just baled out. Using the money which should have bought our defences..... JSF sadly appears to be a mess. Committee designed. I'd cut our losses and change to Rafale. Off the shelf, proven, effective. OK, carrier mods neded, once.

Thanks Julien. A most interesting article. They used the Spit to some good effect ! A general question. Someone mentioned they'd seen this comment about the Hurricane in Francis K Masion's book. Which one? I have his excellent Macdonald Aircraft Monograph on the Hurricane - datyed 1962 - I can't find any mention there. John B

Did the USSR get any Spitfires? They certainly had Hurris so that would add another theatre?

Yep. Normal practice for early test flights since a good static source is hard to be sure of. I always wondered how vulnerable they were - thanks for that !

I believe the Botha was the aircraft about which the test pilot's report form ?Martlesham ? said - rather like the Douglas pilot's comment about rivetting the canopy closed - "Entry into this aircraft is difficult. It should be made impossible" The Hunter. Very short ranged. But the higher speed of opposing aircraft is a red herring. As are (were) the missiles. Missiles in those days only worked against an unsuspecting prey who obligingly flew straight and level. And only when launched from behind. Even then the acquire and light up rate was fairly poor. The slightly later Firestreak on our Lightnings had a poor record even against Jindiviks. Missiles of the Fifties were completely useless against anyone who saw and manoeuvred. So, the faster aircraft could carry out a slashing attack. Fine, but Russian aircraft had slow firing heavy cannon, so the fast pass run wasn't likely to work. A tail chase and turning contest was likely if you wanyted to achieve anything. The Hunter had fair manoeuvrability and one heck of a punch. 4 x 30 mm Adens would ruin anyone's day very quickly. Not such a bad machine at all, actually, once they put some tanks on it to give it a wee bit of endurance. Oh, and worked out how to keep the Avons going when they fired the guns ! Ruddy Rolls Royce - a much over-rated company, at times more interested in winning by politics and nasty business than by good engineering. The Sapphire was a much better engine in many ways. And not everyone had a bad record with Starfighters. Some nations lost very few, and used them effectively within the constraints of the day. There were a lot of fairly hairy aeroplanes around then. High speed flight was new, dangerous and not well understood. Also we hadn't the blasted 'Elf n Safety loonies making everything impossible. Incidentally the RAF loss rate on the Lightning was as bad as the Luftwaffe on the Starfigherre. It's just that the ejection seats worked better, we didn't asphyxiate pilots witn an oxygen system which had a fatal flaw and Lightnings didn't do so much low flying in grotty weather, being a ~pure fighter.

Nice one Tony

That's useful to know Graham, thanks. Next time, park & ride !

Ouch. Bad news for someone if true. Thoughy I wonder. Out of curiosity, just now I checked the local East Fife news sites, as well as BBC Radio etc. Not a cheep. Hmm. Not like our media friends to miss a story - and often the emergency services tip them the wink, quietly.

Yep, A beautiful day, and a rather disappointing static line- up. I think there must have been a few late drop-outs, given the gaps left. Nice to see the Gnat being manhandled at mid-morning to where the enthusiasts could see it. Noticeably little from the base itself - in either static or display. Are we that short of Tornadoes now? I thought the comparison between the German ans RAF Tornadoes for appearance and cleanliness spoke volumes. The Harrier was also very grubby. Not the way they'd have been displayed a few years ago. In fact the contrast between the foreign aircraft presentation standard and the RAF front line machines was so marked as to be worrying - is morale that poor or are we completely overstretched? The parking ticket was checked as we came through the baggage check area. Maybe you just got missed, Pilgrim ? Lovely weather and fine set of flying displays. We were also three and a half hours plus getting out, which is utterly ridiculous. I was told the local police closed an exit - or perhaps an exit road. Anyone know why? Or if that was true?

Broadly I'm with you Dean and John. A few comments. He's evidently approaching too fast. Gets the tail down, it rises again and he has way too much speed and energy. Hence he ends up not keeping the tail down after the bounce, then follows the braking and ground loop. He may have finally gone over because the wheels got onto the grass or because of the excess braking, hard to tell. (In a trike he'd have been what we call 'wheelbarrowing', with only the nosewhhel doing anything.) Actually whichever he did he was stuffed by then. With that much speed a groundloop was going to be expensive, probably taking the gear off anyway, or possibly breaking the back of the aircraft - the tail can't take that much twisting load ! A bad landing from a poor approach. Should have gone for a go around. I can't see any sign of a wind sock, perhaps he was approaching in a calm and was unhappy about the runway length available. He may have been inexperienced. Pilots new to taildraggers get unhappy when the tail is down because they can't see ahead as well as in a trike. Hence a tendency to keep the tail up - wrong ! Most taildraggers are better off getting the tail down early. Only major exception is with strong crosswinds, when lowering tail early may man a loss of rudder control, (DC-3s were routinely wheeled on.) All taildragger pilots ground loop occasionally. Trick is to do it slow, and when no-one is watching ! John B

Yes, the Vorticist style was a bit like that wasn't it - I wonder if it might have been the inspiration for the Admiralty's 'dazzle painted ships' later on. Thanks for the Photfiltre tip. John B

Ok , This is the kit on first inspection - usual Matchbox garish colours. Not too bad on trenches. A quick spray with primer has helped. The standard Henschel scheme is fairly dark and dull, so I went for the bright brown/green/pale gray scheme occasionally seen on Legion aircraft. The primer I'd used seemed a fairly pale grey, but when I'd masked and painetd the other two colours it looked white. So, mask again and over paint with grey. This shot is before the grey paint. I'd removed the tailplanes temporarily since I kept knocking them off. I haven't got any suitable roundels, then I found some wheel masks that were about right. My word the surface looks rough when blown up like that. My pre-sanding should have been firmer. Does anyone know of roundel masks available anywhere. I guess someone must make them. After grey painting, & roundel base done, aircraft now looks like this - The wheels have been repainted black since this shot was taken. Next tasks are to add an instrument panel and improve the cockpit interior, add canopy. Then some fine decal strips to complete the identity marks. Haven't sorted out code letters yet. Will probably just go for 'believable'. A nice little kit, but it seems to have taken much more work than the I-16, which is effectively complete & ready for photographing. Comparing this to some of the other builds here, my excuse is that this aircraft has been out on field ops for a long time, so it's badly beaten up and paint scheme well weathered. Well, that is my excuse and I'm sticking to it ! (Can anyone tell me how to get my photos to be smaller when posted in? These seem OTT) John B