John B (Sc)
-
Posts
1,070 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Profiles
Forums
Media Demo
Posts posted by John B (Sc)
-
-
Who would that be John? Can you say? Be good to know.
Don't see why not. A gentleman called Lemmy Tanner. Fine pilot & raconteur - he's a superb soaring pilot too, which is why he spends part of each year in NZ, lucky chap. Do you know him?
-
Yes. Skidding off the runway due to u/c collapse does make it difficult to use!
I have a memory of an incident years ago just after emergency barriers became fairly common, - at Leeming I think? One of Leeming's JPs - it was that long ago - had brake failure and realised rather too late to be able apply power and go around safely. (the early JPs were quite marginal flying machines.)
Cry from aircraft heading rapidly South was " Barrier, barrier", tower immediately responded "Negative barrier" (push button, oops no response) followed by a looong expensive graunching noise as the gear was retracted and the aircrft skidded off stage left, through the far hedge into a field. No-one hurt but a rather surprised pupil as they ended up 'aux vaches' - not quite the emergency response he had expected. Quick reactions from the instructor, though probably not the standard drill. General amusement afterwards.
The microswitches designed to stop an on-ground retraction were apparently foxed by a quick heave on the stick, momentarily taking the load off sufficiently. They aren't a good thing to rely on anyway.
The Cranwell pilots are lucky to get away with mild? back injuries. A last minute exit like that would be quite hard to brace properly for, especially if it is a command ejection system (I don't know if the Hawk has that, expect it will.). At least modern seats are a bit gentler that the early ones. It was said you ended up significantly shorter after each ejection, and three was the absolutely maximum to avoid terminal spinal damage - lack of clearance betwen vertebrae due to compression. So goodbye fast jets. Mind you you'd think after three you'd want to find another game anyway!
-
Fascinating stuff Les - thanks. I can imagine the tanks being a ****** nuisance. Whatever way things are set up, unserviceabilties and last minute changes are bound to mess it up. Sounds like ops have the same issues in any engineering game !
An old friend , now living in NZ, used to fly with no3 on Canberras, so the last one I made was in their colours to present to him. Must make another. He had some great stories of the Canberra days.
-
Sounds about right....I am doing the 1/48th scale kit and had looked at removing the tanks - though it seems I've managed to glue them on rather well! They will therefore need to stay! I just needed a prototypical reason for doing it!!
I'm intrigued they did remove them for the short range missions. I suppose there was some weight and drag saving - though not great. Tip tanks on would help the low level ride, and fatigue life, though only significantly when filled.
How about that for an operational justification?
The counter - Did the RAF worry much about airframe fatigue life in the Fifties - probably not. Night interdiction would generally suffer less from low level turbulence, so maybe that & load carrying limits explains the removal in may cases.
-
I don't think John meant it quite that way Dean, although it doesn't read too well, his later comments back up that he does have concern for the Hawk crew, just more for the poor souls on the Spanair plane. Some awful headlines on that subject today
Thanks Mike, for interpreting. Sorry Dean if it upset you - I wasn't trying to be rude - simply that these things happen fairly routinely, especially in the military. Part of the risks of the game, which the participants understand and accept.
It's a bit of an old story. All flying gets routine or even ~boring at times. then suddenly things go twang and it's all far too 'exciting', too quickly ! I do sympathise with the Hawk crew. Most pilots will immediately picture themselves in that pickle. (cries of Aargh, whoops, or oh s***, etc.)
(Incidentally the tendency amongst many pilots, providing the crew survived, is to sound quite casual and even almost critical of the bad luck or errors of other pilots, then do the sympathetic bit! The participants usually also try to sound laid back about it all, even make it a joke. Silly?, but human nature.)
I do get more than a tad irritated at media attempts to make a drama out of every crisis, which is probably what prompted the 'So?' comment. They, usually ignorantly, ask the wrong questions, don't listednto the answers (because they aren't dramatic enough), emphasise the wrong things, and as a result get our usually equally poorly informed political masters doing silly knee jerk stuff. One reason flying is becoming such a pain in this country is the combination of biased media reporting, and ill informed MPs / civil servants applying ridiculous so called Health & Safety rules to avoid absurd litigation claims.
(A good clue - if ANYONE says to you 'Safety is paramount' - walk away. He's an idiot. If safety is paramount, don't get out of bed. Life is obviously far too dangerous. Certainly don't fly aeroplanes.)
Bah humbug ...Soap Box off...... Old somewhat exasperated pilot who remembers the rather freer days of yore !
Cheers,
John
-
Hydraulics failure is a good bet, hope the crew are OK.
Good point - not funny at their landing speeds & no brakes etc - Does Cranwell have a barrier? I guess it probably doesn't.
-
So? - A fairly normal hazard of military aviation, typically either due to mechanical or finger trouble. Ok, not as common as it once was, admittedly. Sounds as if the crew are fine. (Probably worrying more about the enquiry by now!) Normal habit to checka ndassess after ejection - it's a fairly major belt even if all goes well.
Hawks had a problem with brakes in their very earliest days in service - I wonder if that is still an occasional weakness. Could the u/c failure be related to that - unlikely I guess. Getting quite long in the tooth those beasties now.
Much more serious, a Spanair machine crashed on take-off at Madrid today. Sounds much worse - and no quick Martin Baker way out either!
-
" I never said the box art was wrong, I said it was an "interesting (surprising?) choice". Of all the gorgeous schemes the Lightning wore, they chose this one (but lets not have that Box Art argument again )"
So true. 23 Squadron's natural metal with white spine and fin for me. With the large style Red Eagle ! Super contrast with the Tigers.
Never really liked the two tone camouflage onthe Lightning. Overall dark green for RAFG , yes. Lightnings were MEANT to be brightly coloured !
-
Super stuff Bill. Go it.
Many years back I did a full line up of Airfix Lightnings, including some home made 'orrible balsa and plunge formed canopy two seater conversions. That was way back when natural metal Lightnings were all the rage. Your line up when complete will be really nostalgic - for me and I bet for a bunch of other folk too. I've long meant to do the same again - maybe yours will spur me on.
Didn't do 29 then, because they were still on Javelins. 5 Squadron were done, don't think 11 Sqn were (also Javelins ?). Had to have several Tigers of course because they in black tails, and 23 with white tails, were my 'local' F3 squadrons at Leuchars. A T4 with Tiger stripes and yellow T-bands had to be done, along with a red & white spine OCU beast. First F6 I saw was a 74 machine, just before they headed off from Leuchars for Tengah. Simple looking but v impressive when new and shiny, so that had to be modelled too. Nice large tiger stripes, nm spine and tail.
Also had a 111 Sqn machine with the black and yellow tail, and of course 56Sqn's over the top checkered fin scheme which finally called a halt to the whole thing.
Happy days.
-
" And I will be purchasing and building as many as I can afford to smuggle in to the house and fit on the shelves!! Oh HAPPY days!!!! "
Likewise.
And a 1/32 Swordfish to go with the 1/48th, 1/72nd and the 1/8th scale R/C one. Help - I need a bigger house and wallet. Not sure if I dare go to Telford this year. Could need a truck.
Yep - it's a great time to be in this hobby, but finding time to build 'em all will be as hard as explaining this to my finance controller - oops , hello dear.
Store, mull and winnow the excess I guess.
-
I thought the Lightning was announced as an F6 - yet that looks like we're getting an F3.....
Looks like sample parts from all the single seat Marks - there's a Mk1 tail there too, as well as those curious looking overwing tanks.
Should go well with the Echelon builds - Bill have you finished yours yet?
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a two seater amongst them !
-
Thanks Leadsolo. That should be reasonably accurate ! Much missed, both the Hannas.
Presumably removing the tanks would increase roll rate since there would be less roll inertia without them. That would also ease close formation flying.
I wonder if any aerobatic limitation with tanks would depend on whether tanks were full or not. Quite a cantliever effect when full.
Common practice in many aircraft was to flow from drop tanks first, then go to internals. If that was done first that would reduce loading during aeros later in a sortie. Again not uncommon to limit aerobatics according to fuel loadings. It wouldn't surprise me if that was what Mr Petter did, in his minimum fighter design. Quite a cunning engineer.
Interesting aircraft. Compared to the Midge we thought it looked large ! Happy days.
-
Good heavens, I'm surprised that the tanks weren't stressed to the levels the Arrows were using. Their displays surely didn't normally take the Gnat close to its G limits except with the Opposition Pair - that wasn't the point after all. Hard enough for the outer guys to stay on board as it was without pulling to the limits as well, with the drag that causes. I always felt Gnat displays were a fine example of careful energy management, and good judgement by the boss keeping his power down to allow a maneouvre margin for the outers
As small as those tanks were, that seems odd for normal service. As an advanced trainer you'd expect the students to yug the thing to its limits occasionally! I recall seeing a couple of shows with tanks on, because of the Gnat's limited range. I'd have thought the handling change was a big factor, given the tight spacings flown. I thought the aircraft looked better with them on.
I don't remember seeing any eyes - what are Moon eyes? - but I think they had only just formed, or painted up in yellow, when I saw them. I hadn't recalled the blue serials either - thanks. I know that one aircraft had a black tail for a while. That was also later. Really must look out those potos !
-
That offer has been going for over six months now.
The earlier one, which I think was a Meteor T7 and a night fighter Meteor IIRC went quicker.
Surprised - they must have cornered the market in 1/48th Attackers!
Both fair kits if you can deal with Classic's slightly awkward style.
-
Hmm. Could be good.
What a pity it's not 1/48th. Aeroclub's moulds have worn beyond John A's limits .....
-
That seat looks fairly typical of the style designed for a seat pan parachute.
Not especially comfortable, but that is because the 'chute is rather hard and apt to be lumpy !
Nice work, wish I coudl get to that standard
-
Hi David.
I think one of the releases was in Royal Flight markings IIRC.
And also weren't Bassets used to ferry V-bomber crews around?
Yes, that was their original design Statement of Requirement, to be able to transfer V Bomber cerews to their dispersed readiness bases. Unfortunately, by the time the Basset got into sevice it couldn't manage to carry a fully equipped five man V bomber crew - or at least not for any significant distance.
I don't know whether that was due to weight gain on the aeroplane due to design issues or Service equipment demands -always a headache with stuff to RAF specifications, or due to increased load of kit required by V bomber crews. Could be any of those.
Not an uncommon problem. Design challenge to keep costs down, efficiency up, yet also a need to predict what additions will be required by the time service entry happens. On the other side of the coin, the service will add items it feels necessary (or nice to have). If there is not enough clear understanding of the costs and risks that involves, oops.
I'd love to see the Basset re-issued. Super little kit of a bonny aircraft
-
Thanks Craig. I wondered if it was White Waltham, but didn't recall the bungalows being so close. It's been a while. White Waltham was the main base for the ATA ferry girls in WW2, IIRC. Nice field, though awkward to get to from the North - so much controlled airspace.
That certainly is keeping on top of the cleanliness game - I guess the underfuselage gets the same treatment. Often a pain to do, with oil, grit, mud, grass clippings etc. The exposed pulleys and cables on the Tiger make the underside a bit of a dirt magnet.
-
Mike - heads to roll are:
1. Helmut Kohl
2. Volker Ruhe
3. Several German finance ministry officials
4. The French (well, Avions Marcel Dassault, but as I'm British, I believe it is expected that I shall vicariously blame the entire French nation)
Between them, they added at least five years to the project.
Fine, but given our MOD & Civil Service's abysmal performance with Nimrod MR4 - as just the most recent example of many - we really don't need to find anyone else to blame. Far too many folk who have no understanding of engineering have too much power in our procurement system. It is also depressingly clear that too many senior RAF officers try to influence decisions for short term service & political gain.
As far as the French nation is concerned, at least they still have an Air Force largely equipped with their own builds, a Navy, including carriers, and an aircraft industry that is still nationally owned. Oh, and defence research organisations that belong to the nation, not 'privatised' as in this lunatic place. I wish we had any of those here.
-
Impressively clean under the cowling. Has she had a recent engine overhaul ? - Gipsy engines usually throw a fair bit of oil around. Lots of rags & cotton waste required.
Where were you flying from?
-
Excellent idea, especially since the original RAF planned use for Jaguar was as a two seater to replace the Gnat. That was when future supersonic T-birds were all the rage.
-
There is the Matchbox Gnat which in some respects is superior to the Airfix.
Not sure if this is correct, but I think someone reported (somewhere) that the tanks are still on the sprues, but not the RP's. The tanks are included in the Matchbox kit. The Gnat gift set from a couple of years ago had decals for 'Reds' and 'Yellow Jacks'.
peebeep
Peebep, thanks for that. I'd forgotten all about the Matchbox Gnat. I didn't like it for some reason which I don't remember now. The original Airfix kit with the RPs and slippers was good. The later Red Arrows only version, without slippers or RPs I felt was a swiz.
(Did anyone ever see a Gnat trainer with the RPs on ? Presumably that could have been during early trials only, certainly not at 4FTS. I don't even recall seeing the fighter variant with those.)
-
Hi,
Here, he describes himself as a terminal Dassault enthusiast.
Cheers,
S.
Ah - d'accord.
Merci Sebastien
Paul - I like that COD idea, for either the Aeronavale or FAA !
-
A bit of fun Paul.
It appears that this was a genuine project. Andre's inspiration was a plan view and an article by Renee Lemaire, designer of the Dassault Mystere 20, in issue no.179 of 'leTrait d'Union', May-Jun 1998.
These project concept studies were done at Dassault's Mariganac office. One Flamant replacement study was based on the Ouragan, another (this) on the Mirage 1, then just getting going - mid Fifties.
Both high and low wing version studies done, with doubt about wing fuselage junction issues. It sounds as if one concept looked at burying engines in the fuselage. Air intake and other problems ruled that out. Engine failure concerns meant a solution was found in grouping the engines outside the fuselage at the rear, close together to reduce handling difficulties after engine failure. (Less yaw effect. Recall that early jets had high failure rates, piston engines had high failure rates. Much more of a probleme than today) Two and four jet options were debated.
After that, the model is all speculation, based on extrapolation from the concept ideas described by M. Lemaire and the sketch plans. A bit of grey matter massage, not just leaning back twiddling the thumbs, eh voila !
I'm not quite sure what the 'Fou de Dassault' comment means - need to improve my colloquial or aviation history French I think. Literally 'Dassault madness'.
It may refer to the spirit of the time - "heck anything is possible, lets' try it". France built some strange & fascinating concept aircraft in those days.
After all the Mirage was the best aircraft we never built. It was essentially the FD2 miltarised. Dasault never understood why we let that wither. Between that and the SR53 we had a good start on delta aerodynamics and handling. (I'm ignoring the mighty Gloster Dragmaster which simply showed that enough brute force can make any horror fly ! It certainly taught us about delta drag if nothing else.)
Fascinating stuff.
A bientot, mes amis.
RAF Canberra B(I)8 - drop tanks and colours
in Aircraft Cold War
Posted