RE: Simple question for Jap buffs

Hi Moggy, What a cracker of a question! I’ve always just assumed that they had. I went to my library to find a piccie of a Japanese Navy aircraft with a hook – but there were non to be found!! I did find statements on some aircraft saying that they had to be used from land bases only because their landing speeds were too high for carrier landings. This leads me to the conclusion that the Japanese Imperial Navy did not use the arrestor hook, which is a big surprise! So is there anyone out there who has a definitive answer?

KeithMac

RE: Running a diesel on cooking oil

One things for sure, doing it the other way round and frying your chips in Diesel is NOT a good idea!

RE: An argument

We could always get a good one going on the EU. Geforce is always ready to defend the European Superstate. Of course the last politician who tried to united Europe under one flag was a meglomanic Austrian Corporal with a strange taste in facial hair, and an equally strange taste in friends! I tend to share Capt Mainwarings view, or perhaps Cpl Jones’s.

KeithMac

RE: RAF serial numbers

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-10-02 AT 08:30 PM (GMT)]OK Wombat, now you’ve got the basics of the British System. A few more snippets: Aircraft obtained on lend lease from the USA did not have blocks missing, because the Americans openly published information on aircraft production, so there was no point. One Curtiss Cleveland flew with a maintenance no. 2669M although technically it could only carry this number after it had been permanently grounded. Some civil aircraft, such as Avro Yorks carried military serials while employed on military air trooping charters in the 1950’s. The RAF have operated aircraft which carried their original USAAC serials, Kittyhawks are an example. The USAAC operated aircraft with RAF serials, a good example being the Airacobra, which the RAF tried, did’nt like much and gave back to the Americans or sent to Russia in large numbers. Many aircraft donated to other countries retained their original British serials after they entered service with their new owners and had been formally struck off British charge, the 9 Chipmunks given to the Kenya Air Force are an example.
We are now also giving aircraft serial numbers to Flight Simulators because of the Maintenance Job Card System operated by the RAF. Simulators are treated as aircraft because many of the spares used on the simulators are aircraft spares and can move between the two!
By the way, the number system is a UK military system used by the RAF, Royal Navy, Army and all branches of the Ministry of Defence.

If your confused, try looking at the American systems – they make ours look easy!

KeithMac

RE: SA 80 with grenade launcher?

Hi Tomel – Well they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I’d rather have a weapon that gives me a better than even chance against the opposition than one that looks good. Ever wondered why the boys from Hereford use something else!

P.S. It’s also bloody awful for doing ceremonial drill with – next time you watch Trooping the colour, note how many times thay have to give the order “Change Arms”.

KeithMac

RE: SA 80 with grenade launcher?

Tomel, Where do you get the idea that the SA80 is a GOOD weapon. Have you not heard about it’s abysmal performance during the big Gulf exercise last year?
During my time in the forces I’ve had the Lee Enfield .303, the 7.62 FN SLR and the SA.80 as a personal weapon. The .303 was ancient technology but you could take out a target at 500/600 mtrs without a problem, being bolt action it had a slow rate of fire, and it moved off target a lot during the re cocking, but it killed things at long range. The 7.62 SLR fired a big round accurately and will kill your enemy at 500/600 mtrs just like a .303. It’ll go through 15mm of mild steel at 200 mtrs, so hiding behind flimsy protection won’t help the enemy much. It had a good rate of fire, and provided you kept a good grip on it, it stayed on target between shots.I’ve fired thousands of rounds from one and never had a jam or a breakage. Now the SA.80 has a tiddly little round slightly under 6mm in diameter, which won’t necessarily kill the opposition with one hit, it needs to be kept dust free or it jams, if on the other hand it’s a cold damp day, don’t try to use the optical sights, the heat from your face fogs the lenses! You can totally bugger it up by fitting the gas plug in the wrong way (yes, it is possible)It’s just cost an arm and a leg to try and modify out all the snags we’ve had with it, and the trials are still on going. Give me the good old SLR any day, come to that I’d rather trust my life to a WW1 vintage Enfield.

KeithMac

RE: RAF serial numbers

Hi Wombat. The British Military serial system was intoduced at the beginning of WW1 with a block of 200 numbers issued to be applied retrospectively to aircraft on Royal Navy charge. The numbers commenced at 1 which was a Short Biplane. This series continued until it reached 9999, then restarted at A100. This series continued to Z9999, then recommenced at AA100. Some letters are not used, for instance “O” which could be confused with Zero. M was not used in the original sequence, but was applied as a suffix in a separate series to aircraft downgraded from flying but used for instruction,i.e. 8807M. During the war large blocks of numbers were not used in order to confuse the enemy, and this practice of leaving out blocks of numbers continues to the present. N was used twice, for naval flying boats the first time and later as part of the sequence A1000-Z9999. We are now at ZJ and no decision has been made as to where we go next. Somehow I think that it will remain a 5 figure alphanumeric code as all RAF maintenance record cards and computer records use this system and changing it could be expensive!

KeithMac