What do you know about airmanship? Yes, the runway is plenty long enough to make a normal landing. Even for a much larger and heavier aircraft. But under certain circumstances runway length is not the issue. Cross wind may be the issue which it apparently was here. The pilot appears to have chosen to land into the wind rather than expose the Triplane to a 45 degree crosswind of ten to fifteen knots on the duty runway. As the rotary engine is either on or off, and the comments about throttle are also irrelevant, as the on-off sound of the engine, particularly on approach do not in any way indicate signs of engine trouble. The pilot may have misjudged the landing profile. Even the best pilots get it wrong every few thousand hours. But to accuse someone with great experience and skill of “sheer stupidity” is off base. How many hours do you have in a Triplane?

Side slipping into the undershoot fence is simply poor airmanship! There is no need to touch down just in side the fence as the runway is plenty long enough to make a normal landing. An important aircraft has been damaged in my mind by sheer stupidity. My heart goes out to those who now have this extra job of repairing the aircraft.

Ahh! What a great thread. Information. Fun. No bickering. No name calling. No need for moderators.

Just a good read.

Thanks Mark 12.

Hello, Asking for a friend, does anyone know why XR808 have the nickname, “Bob”? Many thanks.

“Also it is no longer fully funded under the MOD from RN funds and is operated under the Trust, it may well have a Commanding Officer etc but is no longer a fully fledged Naval asset such as the BBMF is as the trust runs it.”

Correct. It is not fully funded by the MoD or the RN.

Incorrect. It is not, repeat not, operated under the Trust. The Trust has no say in how the squadron is run.

Incorrect. It is a fully fledged Naval asset, just as the BBMF is, and the Trust does not run it!

Again, I think the FNHT personnel, would disagree that it is not a fully fledged Naval asset, regardless of whether they are RN or civilian.

Speak up FNHT people.

RNHF

The RNHF is a fully fledged military asset exactly as the BBMF is.

It is not run by any Trust.

RHNF

Once again, people speak much of which they know not (TonyT). And so authortitatively too!

The RHNF is in fact a current RN Squadron, and always has been. It belongs to the Queen and operates under the CO of Yeovilton, just as any other squadron there does. It is run by a current RN officer. Its commanding officer is LtCdr Ian Sloan.

All of its aircraft, three Swordfish, one Sea Fury, and on Seahawk are on the military register and are not in any way regulated by the CAA. They are flown by active duty RN pilots.

The Fly Navy Heritage Trust under its operating arm, Naval Aviation Limited, operates Sea Fury T20, G-FNHT.

Numbers

TonyT:

You keep throwing numbers around, like 15 years for airworthy engines and £10+ for a used seat. Where do you get your information?

A Double Mamba could only be used in one aircraft; The Gannet.

A Gannet, if flying on the civil register would be “Permit to Fly”. The engine would not necessarily need overhaul as it could and would most certainly be released “on condition” by the E4/M4/M5 CAA approved entity responsible for its Permit.

Please show me one engine in this country flying in a vintage jet that has been truly “overhauled” as per the book? I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is one. All, I believe, are flying on old engines that have been inhibited correctly, and when removed from preservation have been found to be airworthy, possibly with minor discrepancies needing to be corrected.