dark light

Sabrejet

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 706 through 720 (of 1,675 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Subritzky family Vickers Vincent #812815
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Is it no the job of the RAF Museum to preserve one of each type regardless of the personal whims of the management at the time?

    Lovely idea but I doubt that has ever been a stated aim.

    in reply to: All you cockpiteers, look away now #813788
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Intruders.

    in reply to: Dating Google Earth airfield images – is there a way? #815753
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    I don’t think so, but your suspicions are correct – and it seems the dates don’t run out of line in just the one way: Hullavington’s airfield isn’t visible on supposed ‘wartime’ images, when it was (according to the stated date) well-and-truly built!

    in reply to: Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter at East Fortune #816710
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Disagree if you want to – but the records suggest differently. As I said, “Strutter” makes no sense anyway. But I’m just trying to set the record straight, so call it anything you like.

    in reply to: Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter at East Fortune #816738
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Gents please – it’s a 1-1/2-Strutter (‘one-and-a-half-strutter’)!!! “Strutter” makes no sense, considering its derivation (unless you call all aircraft with struts “Strutter”, which would be confusing!)

    And yes I know it also has a Sopwith type number, but you won’t find many WW1-era references to that, and none at all that mention the term “Strutter”.

    in reply to: VTTS Hard Facts Finally Coming Home To Roost? #816758
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    As someone who has had a great deal of involvement with Design/Engineering Authority inputs and Complex aircraft I find it exasperating that those with self-evidently little or no knowledge of the subject are happy to cast aspersions.

    For my part my hat is well-and-truly off to what VTTS managed to do: XH558 will stand as the pinnacle of achievement (in terms of private warbird operations) for some time to come I think. And I am so glad that my sons were able to appreciate this fantastic machine airborne (many times), something they’d have missed if it had not returned to the skies: I’m sure their experiences will remain bold in their memories for many years to come and I imagine that XH558 has done more to nurture an interest in aviation amongst our youth than anything since Concorde.

    I do however have slightly mixed feelings about what has happened since its inevitable grounding. I can only hope that it turns out well, and we can once and for all time forget some of the daft comments made above.

    in reply to: Vickers Wellesley incident #816762
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    I see there is a National Archives accident report too: AVIA 5/19.

    in reply to: Vickers Wellesley incident #816795
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Air Britain K File confirms K7732 (lost a wing and crashed) as 29 September 1938. Sgt Ronald Ashley Cowan (26), Sgt Harry Newby (23) and AC2 Peter Asquith Corp (19) all killed.

    From 8th October 1938 edition of the Bury Free Press:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]250646[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Fort Collins, Colorado B-17 Project – New Build B-17G #817101
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    …at the end of the day another airworthy B-17 is great news….:applause::cool:

    Geoff.

    Unfortunately it will take a LOT longer than that. Best wishes but having looked at the website I detect a level of naivety.

    in reply to: Battle of Britain film – but what language? #817364
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Japanese katakana. Main title in red is kanji, with ‘battle’ in there (3rd and 4th-from-last characters).

    EDIT: battle in kanji: [ATTACH=CONFIG]250622[/ATTACH]

    Maybe someone can translate the rest!

    in reply to: V1 Pulse Jet Restored Test Video #817569
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    I was under the impression that the V1 engine required air going into the intake – that the aircraft/bomb needed to be travelling at a decent pace in order for the engine to work. Hence the need for the launching ramps.

    Am I confused?

    By the way, that thing is scary!

    Ramjets need airflow: this is a pulsejet and is less dependent on airflow to function. If you look at V1 videos you’ll see that the engine is running before launch. The ramp was just an expedient way of launching them.

    in reply to: RAF P-39 service career #818200
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Neither were fighters, and the Botha soldiered on as a trainer (mostly training crews to fly downhill on one engine) and then target tug.. The Albermarle was apparently used twice on operations as a bomber, which would presumably trump the P39, but was then used for paratroops and as a glider tug until 1946, so both had a second life and the Albermarle was very much operational evern if not as planned.

    Adrian

    Fair point: I missed the ‘fighter’ bit. But both types (Botha especially) didn’t get to serve in their intended roles for similar reasons to the P-39 (i.e being cr@p).

    I do see the odd comment in favour of the Airacobra (Eric Brown maybe?).

    in reply to: RAF P-39 service career #818215
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Botha and Albemarle come to mind.

    in reply to: Positive changes ahead at Brooklands #818757
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    A few from New Year’s Day:

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]250558[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]250559[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]250560[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]250561[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: The Wind Rises. #820746
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    It’s a cartoon. Deal with it!

    Bait duly taken. Another lesson learnt.

    For the non-philistines, I’d recommend Porco Rosso too.

Viewing 15 posts - 706 through 720 (of 1,675 total)