A pair of Airfix Hawks in 1/72. Finished.

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

15 minutes ago, Fritag said:

 

He is right of course ......but then so were Sopwith Camels, Spitfires, Hurricanes, P51's et al.    They still make your middle-aged heart soar tho' 

True.  But then I doubt you’d be exactly nodding off on a night DL or tactical low level sortie (140 kts, not above 50’) in a Lynx.  And this despite the (*cough*) “fact” that it is MUCH uglier than noted plank-wing beauties like the Blackburn Blackburn, Avro Bison, Shorts Seamew, DH9, and (to quote those epic 70s Ronco ads) “many many more!”

 

[Actually, give me a Pup over a Camel any day.  Of its era, perfection.  But then it was before practical rotary-wing really got going...]

[Fritag]

  Aviation's a broad church and much the better for it.  You'll hear no argument from me against the qualities of helicopter aviators or the demand on them.

 

One of the the most pleasurable 'plane spotting' moments I've had was when walking with Mrs F on the beach at Faraid Head near Cape Wrath close to sunset when a pair of Navy Lynxs flew very low along the beach silhouetted again the red sun; and then turned around and came back.  Beautiful weather, beautiful scenery, beautiful aircraft - and wife dancing about like a loony and waving at the crew.

 

But then she was an RAF brat, and as a kid used to cycle from home to Linton on Ouse to watch the JP's take off and land.  Later when she was in the RAF she use to stand with the plane spotters at the boundary fence at Coltishall and watch the Jags.

 

Actually; thinking back, I remember she used to tell me off for not smiling and waving at her as we taxied past;  but I tried to tell her it was embarrassing....the plane spotters would think I was smiling and waving at them like some wannabe pop star.  God help me if she'd ever demanded I blow her a kiss...........

 

Wouldn't swap my FJ hours for helicopter ones tho'   Not even in the beautiful Lynx (well perhaps just a few).  We're all allowed out little prejudices ain't we?.  450kts - night low-level using night vision goggles - now that is for kids......immortality ends in your 30's.... 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Fritag

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Hell yes; you wouldn’t get me airborne at night from a frigate nowadays - I’m no longer under any mistaken illusions of immortality!

 

My first Lynx tour started in the Falklands - after my conversion I flew down (Crabair Tristar) to join Broadsword in 1989.  Still F4s at that stage, & we struck up a great relationship with them, which is how I blagged a backseat ride in a Toom (thus fulfilling a childhood dream, albeit not from a deck).  My only fixed-wing hours out of training!
 

In our innocence we thought the Phantom guys wouldn’t be that interested in a trip in return, but we were completely wrong; they loved it - helped by the fact that flying in the Falklands in those days was ridiculously great fun, but even so.  Those few weeks definitely taught me that flying is flying is flying; not better or worse, just different.  

 

I’m not sure those Phantom boys ever quite got used to coming to the hover and then moving sideways over the deck...

 

Alas, we never quite achieved our target of hiding behind a hill during fighter affiliation sorties and locking up a jet on Sea Spray as it barrelled down the valley; I just couldn’t boot the nose round fast enough to maintain lock.  We just knew how annoyed they’d have been to hear a “Fox 1” call from a mere Lynx!  [The inconvenient fact that an F4 could outrun a Sea Skua without breaking sweat would not have diluted the pleasure or the number of beers we’d have demanded]
 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[Fritag]

2 hours ago, Fritag said:

Wouldn't swap my FJ hours for helicopter ones tho'   Not even in the beautiful Lynx (well perhaps just a few)

Rewind on that.

 

On reflection I would swap all of the hours taken up in instrument rating tests and QFI checks - and many  of the hours spent in 'General Handling' (stooging about by ones self at medium level doing half hearted aerobatics) for meaningful (i.e. not IRTs, QFI checks and GH) hours in the beautiful Lynx 

 

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

We just knew how annoyed they’d have been to hear a “Fox 1” call from a mere Lynx!

We never had a Fox 1 on the radar-less Jag of course.

 

I did claim numerous spurious Fox 2s on F4s and Lightnings inattentive enough to drop in behind the front pair of a 4-ship in ignorance of more pairs behind.  Spurious not least because in the pre-overwing pylon cold war days we didn't carry Aim 9s as a rule, cos it meant taking up a pylon better allocated to a bomb of some sort.....

 

Some of the purest fun flying to be had was as a 'bounce'; where one (or occasionally two) our own would act as aggressor aircraft for one of our own formations at low level.

 

The bounce would have the benefit of the formation's route and timings and would take off independently and aim to intercept the formation several times around the route.

 

Jag formations could and would navigate so accurately that as a  bounce, knowing the route and timings, you could low fly along an adjacent valley, out of sight of the formation, and then manoeuvre hard towards the formation in the anticipation of it popping out right in front of you and giving the formation only a few seconds to spot the bounce and react.

 

You don't need a radar if you know to the second and the half mile where the target's gonna be.

 

Or on good weather days, you could loiter at medium level and watch the formation tracking below, choose your moment, roll onto your back and drop down at warp factor snot (Lightning fashion) try and get in amongst the formation without being seen, and then use the energy accumulated in the dive - plus a bit of burner - to zoom back up again.

 

All very primitive compared with today's super high tech interconnected stand-off air warfare - but awesome fun, even more so at the times we were cleared to fly down to 100' instead of the usual 250' (well fun for kids whose bodies and stomachs can take the manoeuvring and the 'G" - makes me slightly nauseous thinking about it now......)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Fritag

[Paulaero]

Only slightly jealous chaps, had the thrill ride of a life time in a Lynx at Gib in 87.

 

Was clearly hell bent on making a 'Crab Cadet' chuck over "The Rock" and some where I still have a photo of the island from a very unusual attitude. age was no boundary to flying the way only a Lynx could.

 

I had only just returned from Biggin hill and having said that  am sure we did what the Lynx was famous for as the only helicopter in the world that could do it.

 

Nearest to a  fast jet ride was in a Bucc of 208 sqn, A  young F/O was impressed by how much knowledge I had for a 'Space cadet' although I was the tender age of 19 and a F/Sgt , the trip was in the bag until the interfering ATC officer from some other Sqn said it wasn't fair if all the others couldn't go, even though it was pointed out I was the senior cadet on camp. 

 

Often look Longingly  at the two seat jag at Newark though, some thing about the Jag, must find that stripy one I have some where …………..  

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Gib Flight Lynx in 1987?  I think I know who you were flying with; he was my instructor on my Lynx conversion 2 years later (I was still flying the mighty Sea King in 87).

 

Sigh.

 

Happy days. 
 

[And I am SO with you on swapping all those check rides, Steve!]

[Col.]

While learning to fly I was once told by an instructer that a correctly designed aircraft has a natural desire to fly and the only reason such a machine will crash is by human interference. Everything else I've learned about aircraft and aerodynamics has only served to confirm that  

Heliochopters, on the other hand, seem to get airborne by beating physics into submission and then doing whatever they damned well please.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Col.

[giemme]

6 minutes ago, Col. said:

Heliochopters, on the other hand, seem to get airborne by beating physics into submission and then doing whatever they damned well please.

I never learned to fly, but I tend to agree with your last sentence...

 

Ciao

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Helicopters fly in exactly the same way as boring plank-wing aircraft; by generating lift in an airfoil section by passing air over it at speed.  It is astonishing how many apparently sensible people who claim to understand aerodynamics / theory of flight are unable to grasp this.  They then fear what they don’t understand.

 

Incidentally, Col, your instructor was talking utter man-vegetables.  Unless his putative aircraft is perfectly trimmed in all modes of flight (which is, essentially, impossible) it would crash - as you well know, since you are a pilot.  He was probably just trying to dissuade you from over-controlling, which is a natural tendency is almost every student.

[Graham Boak]

I think you are in danger of over-egging this.  There are many examples in history of aeroplanes that have continued to fly for considerable distances after their crew have left them.  We may remember the Flogger that crashed in Belgium; the Harrier that was to have been shot down because it was heading for East Germany (and would have been had it not run out of fuel first); the wartime bombers that eventually belly-landed miles away from their crews.  Roger Hall described seeing a Spitfire flying through a dogfight with the dead pilot's head resting on a very bloody canopy.  A trimmed aircraft is perfectly capable of flying by itself until disturbed by some significant external force.   Some aircraft are of course less capable of this than others - don't try it in a Camel for example! - but anything modern will.  This is not "virtually impossible".  (Though I suspect that you may be right about the instructor's motives.)

 

I don't recall ever reading of any such incidents with a helicopter.

[xffw45343tg]

To briefly put on a serious hat (and also acknowledge that I started this latest round of helicopter ribbing)- I'm completely with Crisp on this. I'd imagine that every fixed-wing instructor on the planet has told their student to take their hands of the controls whilst flying final to prove that their stress and over-control is making flying much harder than it actually is, but as Crisp indicates, this will only happen when the aircraft has been trimmed for the intended path. Most of these training aircraft are a bit rubbish for a decent pilot (think Steve, NOT me) as they are too stable to be chucked around the sky by someone who knows what they are doing. The price for helicopters being able to do what they do, is (entirely planned) instability; you can't take your hands off the controls. Doesn't stop them (well, some of them - let's not push it) being both immensely cool and rather beautiful.

 

Normal service is now resumed: It's all black magic and sky hooks.😛

 

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Graham, did you actually read my post?  Col’s instructor is the over-egger, not me; (s)he reckoned that “a correctly designed aircraft has a natural desire to fly” [highly questionable] and “the only reason such a machine will crash is by human interference” [nonsense - is running out of fuel or encountering significant turbulence “human intervention”?]

 

If Col’s instructor had replaced the word “designed” with “trimmed”, (s)he would have been kind of right, at least for a few minutes... but essentially that’s simply saying “if I set the aircraft up correctly it will probably remain correctly set up for a while”.  True, but so what?  I set up a Sea King to fly itself (i.e. with no pilot intervention at all) from 200’ down to a stable hover over the sea literally thousands of times, and it did it every time - but all that means is that the machine continued to do what I set it up to do.  
 

Besides, my reaction was not to the first part of Col’s post, however dubious the assertions it included: it was to the rubbish about “beating physics into submission”.  Helicopters use exactly the same physics as every winged flying machine, but for some reason an awful lot of plank-wing flyers refuse to understand that.  A fixed-wing aircraft is not somehow “nature in action”.  [And I am - or rather was - a fixed-wing pilot as well as rotary]

 

 

P.S. incidentally, it is perfectly possible (nowadays, at least) to design a helicopter that’s inherently stable...but you wouldn’t want to, because it would be an awful helicopter; it would spend most of its life fighting the pilot. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[Col.]

Gee wizz gang I was only trying to make a joke! Don't want you all falling out over it  

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

5 minutes ago, Col. said:

Gee wizz gang I was only trying to make a joke! Don't want you all falling out over it  

Indeed - and particular apologies to Steve.

 

None the less, like all rotary pilots, I’ve had this “Helicopters are ugly and un-natural” nonsense for almost 40 years.  If someone keeps on telling you that your girlfriend is an ugly cow, eventually you’re going to smack them in the mouth, even if they are your best friend and it was meant to be a joke.

And now back to Mr Fritag and his beautiful model (even if it is of a silly jet).

 

[perdu]

2 hours ago, Col. said:

Gee wizz gang I was only trying to make a joke! Don't want you all falling out over it  

Col dont you DARE take your ball home!

 

If us'ns can't take the michael in BM the world as we know it is doomed even more sooner than we thought

 

This kind of banter is where Britmodeller lives and is almost uniquely the reason I hide from the world in here rather than some of the more unsalubrious places out there

 

And no matter what anyone tells you, it IS magic and does use quantum to vary it in the control planes, s'obvious innit?

[Paulaero]

12 hours ago, Col. said:

While learning to fly I was once told by an instructer that a correctly designed aircraft has a natural desire to fly and the only reason such a machine will crash is by human interference. Everything else I've learned about aircraft and aerodynamics has only served to confirm that  

Heliochopters, on the other hand, seem to get airborne by beating physics into submission and then doing whatever they damned well please.

Isn't it often quoted that that's how a Phantom fly's, proving that enough thrust and brute force can over come aerodynamics. 😆

 

Certainly an Lighting going vertical was doing so on pure power...…….

[Paulaero]

14 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Gib Flight Lynx in 1987?  I think I know who you were flying with; he was my instructor on my Lynx conversion 2 years later (I was still flying the mighty Sea King in 87).

 

Sigh.

 

Happy days. 
 

[And I am SO with you on swapping all those check rides, Steve!]

Sadly (not) I have just recently found a box with a load of ATC stuff in, including my 3822 will dig it out and find the date and A/C reg.

 

Always wanted to do a model of it in attitude..... 

[Fritag]

15 hours ago, Paulaero said:

Often look Longingly  at the two seat jag at Newark though

XX829.  She was the T-Bird on 6 sqn in the late 80's as 'ET' and I flew her many times - front and back seat.  It was (yet) another check ride in order to become a back-seat captain on the T-bird and by and large only the squadron QFI's QWI's and IRE's were qualified.

I've posted this piccie before, so for them as has seen it before  forgive the repetition.  One of the few times (probably the only time) I was pleased to be in the front seat of a T-bird on a check ride was when a (big) bird strike at low level did this.

 

I could see the proverbial square root of f**k all out the front after that, but matey in the back could see over my head to land it.  This was ET, but I'm not sure  without checking my log book whether it was XX829 or another T-bird wearing the same code letters.

11 hours ago, Kirk said:

I'd imagine that every fixed-wing instructor on the planet has told their student to take their hands of the controls whilst flying final to prove that their stress and over-control is making flying much harder than it actually is

 

RAF QFI's were trimming fascists.  IIRC the mnemonic was PAT (Power Attitude Trim).  Trim, trim, trim, trim bl**dy trim.  Drummed (sometimes literally) into your poor - already maxed out - brain until it became second nature.  But consistent accurate flying (absent cheating with an autopilot ) is just about impossible unless you trim properly; and good instrument flying is utterly impossible.

 

3 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Indeed - and particular apologies to Steve.

Bog off.  None needed - you know that.

 

1 hour ago, perdu said:

Col dont you DARE take your ball home!

 

If us'ns can't take the michael in BM the world as we know it is doomed even more sooner than we thought

 

The oracle has spoken  Ditto - to one and all.  I'd be mortified if anyone ever took me seriously.  It's such an unknown phenomenon.....

3 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

And now back to Mr Fritag and his beautiful model (even if it is of a silly jet).

Does that mean I have to do some modelling now?    Or maybe can I start some avoidance activity by challenging the use of the phrase 'silly jet' for the beautiful Hawk? 

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

I don’t mean to say that the Hawk is any more silly than other jets - indeed it is a good deal less silly than many (e.g. some of those bonkers things with about 30 lift engines during the initial mania for VTOL).

 

I just wasn’t certain that this audience would pick up on the tautology.  It’s a jet.

 

[Incidentally, this seems a perfect time to ask something that’s bugged me for years: why do you Stovie types insist on talking about “fast jets”?  I have literally never heard anyone talk about a “slow jet” - and (assuming that if they did they’d mean Nimrod, Poseidon, VC10, even V-bomber) there are plenty of other collective titles.  
 

Is it a minor form of willy-waving [cue Flashheart on his “suffer-a-JET” movement”], or am I being unfair?

Edited October 18, 2019 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[Fritag]

Tautology acknowledged and appreciated contemporaneously at this end.   Lawyerly pedantry compelled wilful blindness to the same in reply.  Standard courtroom technique.......

[Fritag]

57 minutes ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

why do you Stovie types insist on talking about “fast jets”

don't think the premise is correct

 

As far as I know it's official government speak;  e.g.

 

"Current planned MOD sponsored low flying exercises by fast jets, rotary and transport aircraft within the UK low flying system".  (copied from the gov.uk website - operation low flying page page).

 

Government initiated/sanctioned willy-waving?

 

....

 

Actually.  I'm inclined to think that the willy-waving probably really began in earnest when you opened the whole single-seat/two-seat, fighter/fighter ground attack/strike/reconnaissance can of worms.....least ways when we still had lots of different types of FJ......

 

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Fritag

[xffw45343tg]

Maybe someone was thinking:

"fast jets"

"medium speed turbofans"

"slow piston props"

 - but got bored before they finished the sweeping statement?  

[keefr22]

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

“slow jet”

 

A-10, that's a slow jet, often apparently flown by 'slow' pilots. Cue anecdote from son in law from one of his trips to the sandy place:

 

Their Wokka is on finals to (IIRC) Bagram air base. Then told to break off and hold as they recovered a returning A-10 strike package. Lady ATC was doing her best Kennedy airport at Christmas rushhour 100 mile an hour instructions, something like -'Whizzbang01clearedtolandrunway070wind010at10bewareRAFHelicopterholdingtotheeastblahblahblah...'.Silence for a moment, then lead A-10 driver in his best deep Southern drawl  - 'Maaaaam.   The    speed     I    tawwwk,     is    the    speed    I   think,    could     you   say     that    again  '    !

 

Keith

 

Edit- I have no idea why BM has reformatted the Lady ATC sentence to make it look like I type slower than that A-10 pilot thinks!

[Paulaero]

7 hours ago, Paulaero said:

Sadly (not) I have just recently found a box with a load of ATC stuff in, including my 3822 will dig it out and find the date and A/C reg.

 

Always wanted to do a model of it in attitude..... 

So EX-FAAWAFU Lynx ZD258 25/07/87 not sure what mark it was but it was fairly new and impressive. can't make out the signature looked like the shape of a violin and was LT ?

 

Love to do it in 1/48 but am sure I would have to date date the Airfix one , guess you would be able to tell me what needed doing ?

 

Paul

[Paulaero]

6 hours ago, Fritag said:

XX829.  She was the T-Bird on 6 sqn in the late 80's as 'ET' and I flew her many times - front and back seat.  It was (yet) another check ride in order to become a back-seat captain on the T-bird and by and large only the squadron QFI's QWI's and IRE's were qualified.

I've posted this piccie before, so for them as has seen it before  forgive the repetition.  One of the few times (probably the only time) I was pleased to be in the front seat of a T-bird on a check ride was when a (big) bird strike at low level did this.

 

I could see the proverbial square root of f**k all out the front after that, but matey in the back could see over my head to land it.  This was ET, but I'm not sure  without checking my log book whether it was XX829 or another T-bird wearing the same code letters.

 

RAF QFI's were trimming fascists.  IIRC the mnemonic was PAT (Power Attitude Trim).  Trim, trim, trim, trim bl**dy trim.  Drummed (sometimes literally) into your poor - already maxed out - brain until it became second nature.  But consistent accurate flying (absent cheating with an autopilot ) is just about impossible unless you trim properly; and good instrument flying is utterly impossible.

 

Bog off.  None needed - you know that.

 

The oracle has spoken  Ditto - to one and all.  I'd be mortified if anyone ever took me seriously.  It's such an unknown phenomenon.....

Does that mean I have to do some modelling now?    Or maybe can I start some avoidance activity by challenging the use of the phrase 'silly jet' for the beautiful Hawk? 

Sadly the Newark machine is in 54 sqn marks now and rather faded in all over grey, would be nice to see her in proper cammo. Has mark 10 Bang seats in as well ?

 

Must get my 6sqn retirement jet pictures up, built as a tribute to my best mate who was on 6