That’s the beast!
Looks like it flew around Aug 1939 , about a year after the first flight of the Wasp Junior Variant.( According To William Green in his Vol 6 “Floatplanes”)
I am somewhat of the opinion of JDK,
However.
The Kingfisher was underpowered and there was a rumoured “oil burning motor ” variant quoted in Vol 111 of Aircraft of the Fighting Powers. ( Yes I know, but it the only evidence I yet have to hand of a non-Wasp Junior Variant)
A Ranger Variant could therefore make sense (about another 150 Hp) and the longer nose etc. could justify the bigger fin and rudder. The cleaned up wing floats could also then apply.
I agree with JDK that the canopy indeed looks odd but I wondered if that was just down to the crude touching up.
So, I think we are either looking at some artist’s licence for an improved Kingfisher, or a highly touched up picture of an in-line engined one-off variant as has been indicated by Michal Los.
The floatplane is certainly an oddity and obviously not quite what is stated on the caption.
It seems to be of the Kingfisher ilk but has some features strongly reminiscent of the Curtiss SO3 Seamew family. Note the in-line engine (yet apparently with Wasp type radial cooling gills) and the single cantilever strutted tip floats. Also that fin and rudder assembly is enormous.
The photo has been touched up somewhat which doesn’t help.
Since 2005 ASCC has been the ASIC (Air and Space Interoperability Council).
It does look like some humour has slipped under the wire at last!
I wonder if anybody can confirm the story of another incident not so far away from this one?
Just south of the Angel tube station apparently another shelter had a near miss, which shattered the culvert of an underground river ( The Lea ?) flooding the shelter and causing many casualties.
I was told this version by cleaning ladies some years back, who worked in the City University Dame Alice Owen building which adjoined the apparent site.
To add to the confusion: in many cases the higher spatial resolution imagery is taken from aerial photography, not satellite imagery at all.
A truly enthusiastic and talented designer of the old school.
His many ideas even included schemes for a reproduction H.P. 42 that might have one day possibly come to something. Always ready to talk aeroplanes, with humour and patience for the less qualified, he was a natural magnet to chat to over a coffee.
He will be very sadly missed.
My old Cranwell Flight Commander’s boots appeared in the parade square drilling sequence.
It was one of the opportunities for genuine Flight Cadets to appear in the film apparently.
Here are a couple of Bill Roots’s shots of the “actual” Reindeer built at Denham.
I think that Brian Stainer of APN has now retired and that his collection of shots was sold on. “JDK” who posts here occasionally might know more on that one.
I trust these are of some interest.
(Note the aircraft in the background _ I can make out two D.H. Dragon Rapides and possibly an Anson at least.)
Rutland Reindeer
By coincidence my late Father in Law was a model maker at Denham Studios.
Here’s a couple from his collection of the Model.
IIRC he told me the full scale beast was built up from a Halifax hulk.
I do have some ground shots of the tail somewhere I think
I guess we have all seen police helicopters using FLIR to detect the baddies at night. They show up as white ghosts usually running straight into the arms of the police or hiding under bushes or car ports. Even cats and dogs show up as recognizable objects.
I want to know why if the system uses body heat for the detection process, people show up as complete people even if wearing hats. The body must dispense heat at different rates, does the computer fill in some blanks like a CGI game?:confused:
To now answer your question ( I hope)
A FLIR doesn’t just detect “body heat”.
All objects normally emit IR Radiation this being , as described above, dependent on the object’s surface emissivity times the fourth power of its absolute temperature.
Thus all of the components of an individuals clothing ,regardless of how much body heat is boosting their temperature, will be emitting IR radiation to a degree and this will be picked up , and differentiated by the FLIR down to a temperature difference of 0.1Deg C or better.
Even when the item of clothing is removed it will continue to emit IR ,although this level will decrease as the object e.g. a hat , cools.
Does this help?
FLIR Systems FLIRS have been employed in airborne use for many years.
Typical sensitivities for most general airborne FLIRS are better than 0.1deg.C and are user selectable white or black “hot”. The FLIR measures emitted IR radiation which is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature ( times the material’s emissivity) , hence the thermal sensitivity. The emissivity of materials varies from case to cas,e so that objects at similar temperature but with different emissivities can be distinguished. The IR wavelengths used (typically around 3-6 or occasionally 8-14, microns ) penetrate most smokes better than optical , hence their use by firefighters.
The point about objects “disappearing” under certain circumstances is valid. “Thermal (or Radiometric) crossover” can occur when two objects may be at different temperatures , but because of their differing emissivities “cancelling out”, are emitting IR Radiation identically. Classic cases are metal bridges over rivers “vanishing” in the IR as the water and metal reach identical level of emission -for example as the bridge cools in the evening.
A quote from an old Boss.
” A 5% aircraft loss rate on a strategic bombing mission may not initially appear that excessive:
until you realise that, if sustained, you will have had to to replace your
entire force including almost all of the crews, every 20 missions. “
4. Gyroplanes need a tail rotor. Any aircraft that can routinely operate at airspeeds where control about one or more of its axes is degraded must be fitted with a control system to eliminate that deficiency.
That’s an interesting point.
I gained a gyroplane PPL some years ago as part of an industry project .
Certainly the idea of being dependent on an aerodynamic rudder post engine failure ( and immediate loss of slipstream over the fin ) felt a little disconcerting , particularly when you look at the keel area forward of the rotor mast. The final IAS of about 45 kt left reasonable rudder feel eventually, but events in between tended to keep you on your toes for a few seconds.
I do wonder if the initial Cierva tractor type of configuration with the consequently longer tail surface moment arm would be inherently a bit less touchy in this aspect.
Salmson -Moineau S.M.1. – (here’s a dinged one) amongst many others.
Transverse rotary in fuselage ,driving 2 props by shafts and gears.