Looks pretty damn good with that prop wizzing round though!
Yes, I have to echo that, the overall impression is very realistic…..no wonder people ask if it can fly! 😀
…a kind of anti gravity bubble…..that the spitfires were able to fly. I did wonder how long the oxygen would have lasted with the merlin using it up?
It wouldn’t matter anyway; Spitfires can’t propel themselves if they are in an atmosphere sealed in a ‘gravity bubble’. 😀
…a kind of anti gravity bubble…..that the spitfires were able to fly. I did wonder how long the oxygen would have lasted with the merlin using it up?
It wouldn’t matter anyway; Spitfires can’t propel themselves if they are in an atmosphere sealed in a ‘gravity bubble’. 😀
I think I’d be tempted to run the propeller from a car (or truck) starter-motor for the next attempt (assuming you do try again).
Starter-motors come in all sizes and selecting the right ring-gear should give you a fairly realistic speed, balanced against the air resistance of the propeller, plus the system could be run independently of the engine (and wouldn’t risk damaging it). I know it wouldn’t look quite right with the propeller and engine speeds not synchronised but at least you shouldn’t be able to hear the starter-motor over the sound of the Meteor! 😀
Any news lads? Has work started on her dismantling?
When i was last there a couple of weeks ago, several bits had been removed off her.
Progress on dismantling seems quite slow. I had a look on Monday (still possible despite all the bloody cars!) and the only major components removed were propellers, engine cowlings/collector rings, bomb doors and one tail-plane.
…seems to have handles and trigger ‘paddles’ like the one in CD’s link.
Yes, definitely hand-trainable, and the belt-feeds designed to allow a lot of elevation.
It is highly likely that the PT-Boat version was derived from an aircraft mounting such as the rear gun on an SBD.
Boat? Looks a lot like this to me:
http://www.pt103.com/PT_Boat_Components_Browning_50_Cal_M2_Twin_Mount_Mark_17.html
My Argentinean isn’t that good…
How about your Spanish? 😉
The SC50 was cased, and the shrapnel aspect well covered.
But even the ‘SC50’ was exploded unrealistically about 1.5 metres off the ground…..so as not to damage the ‘pan’ maybe? :confused:
I’m not sure how deep such a bomb would penetrate before it exploded; possibly I’m being misled by the depth that unexploded bombs need to be recovered from?
I seem to remember that the RAF had a theory that all the shrapnel flying about would damage the machine-tools when dropped on strategic operations but unfortunately almost all these bombs missed their targets by about five miles and so the expensive, heavy casings were mostly wasted in the exact opposite of the strategic aim. Ironic really.
Why do you say that, CD – out of interest? I have always believed that it was the shock wave caused by the explosion which caused the damage rather than the impact, which would produce a crater, depending on the force and the location.
That raises a rather interesting question doesn’t it; why were (and are) 1000lb bombs casings as thick as they are?
Didn’t the programme state last night that only half of the weight of the SC500 (and SC50) bomb was the explosive filling? If the damage is done by the explosive and there is no need for the bomb to bury itself underground before exploding why bother with the expensive and difficult manufacture of the casing at all; why not just drop twice as much explosive in thin casings?
I know the RAF did this with the 4000lb ‘cookie’ but the idea there was to blow off roof tiles and blow in windows and doors to improve the chances of incendiaries starting major fires.
Would the rocket still be under power during it’s dive? It would surely make a significant difference to the explosion.
It wouldn’t be under power but would have been travelling faster than the speed of sound. Overall I think exploding a V2 warhead on the surface would be more accurate than exploding the ‘SC500’ on the surface as they did.
This was filmed at Spadeadam – which explains all those loud bangs we heard!
I did wonder; it looked a bit hilly and ‘forestry commission’ for the average ‘RAF base’!
The programme was fairly decent effort I thought and anything that brings this period of history to life for the younger generations has got to be a good thing.
I’m not sure I agree that exploding the bombs above the ground would accurately reproduce the effects of the real bombs although the ‘SC500’ explosion would have been pretty accurate for a ‘land mine’ and possibly could have been done as such (would have been quite interesting to see one come down by parachute). The production company were obviously under instructions not to damage the concrete ‘pan’. 😉
Isn’t it four episodes? I think they may need a few more houses.
Anybody know what type of aircraft this was off? :confused:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140398557334&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
…I can only remember Amelia Pond…
I bet the length of her skirt would have raised a few eyebrows in 1940…
…cracking pair of legs though! :diablo:
As for the rest of Dr Who…..sorry, utter tosh! :rolleyes:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/blitz-street
Looks interesting.
This was on a couple of years ago, excellent programme.
Are you sure that you are not confusing this with a previous ‘blitz dig’ featuring Tony Robinson and crew?
I think ‘Blitz Street’ is all new and from the trailer the idea seems to be to progressively destroy the purpose built street with bigger bombs from 50kg to a V2 warhead…
…a shocking waste of resources that could have been used for the homeless if you ask me! :diablo:
[Of course if the ‘bombs’ don’t have casings and don’t explode underground I’m not sure the results will be too scientific.]