dark light

plough

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 245 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: XM603 Update #858513
    plough
    Participant

    Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but it seemed more appropriate than making a new one.

    XM603 is apparently having a wash and brush up followed by a repaint with the help of the VTST team, and Neil Draper has posted a couple of time lapse videos on YouTube of the work so far (mainly the erection of the scaffolding and protective canopy). The second one is perhaps more interesting as it shows clearly the extent of the weathering.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOQM6NRfha4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWl3fT_nFh8

    in reply to: Shackleton to Woodford? #858522
    plough
    Participant

    ….it looks like XM603 is under a temporary poly-tunnel arrangement. Is it getting a repaint or a clean-up?

    It has had a clean up and is about to get some surface repair and treatment followed by a repaint (all with the assistance of VTST).

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster PA474 New Hangar 2016 Duxford, Name??? #861315
    plough
    Participant

    Okay, lets see if we can make this clearer. The Lancaster will not be in the hangar at Duxford for most of the time. Most of the time it will not be under major service. Most of the time it will be a fully serviceable working aeroplane residing at Coningsby

    Your posts are becoming more and more like gibberish to me.

    We are talking about a hangar which has been specially built in response to a single aircraft servicing contract. Whilst it will undoubtedly be used by other aircraft after the Lancaster service contract is complete, by posting “it won’t be in the hangar for most of the time” that can be clearly interpreted as meaning it won’t be in there during the service, which is obviously rubbish.

    The wording “it won’t be in the hangar for most of the time” is open to ambiguity and misunderstanding. What you mean is that ‘it won’t be in the hangar after the service is completed’ So…Yes, it is poor English! – something which I find on aviation related forums more than on almost any other.

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster PA474 New Hangar 2016 Duxford, Name??? #862120
    plough
    Participant

    Plough, It won’t be in there for most of the time. Most of the time it will be at Coningsby.

    I don’t intend to start an argument, but again, I do not understand how it is going to be at Coningsby during its major service? This is the clear understanding of what you have written in both your posts. Surely it will be out of commission and staying put at Duxford whilst the major service is carried out?

    If by “most of the time” you are referring to the time after the major has been completed and PA474 has returned to operations, then yes, I think my misunderstanding is down to the poor wording.

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster PA474 New Hangar 2016 Duxford, Name??? #862287
    plough
    Participant

    ^^That is very true, but the wording of the post that I replied to clearly suggested that the poster isn’t expecting PA474 to be inside the new hangar for much of its stay there, and I wondered why that should be. Perhaps it was just poor English?

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster PA474 New Hangar 2016 Duxford, Name??? #862502
    plough
    Participant

    As the Lancaster won’t be in there for most of the time…….

    Why would they need a hangar building specially for it in the first place then??

    in reply to: Scampton Airshow for 2017? #862503
    plough
    Participant

    ….. Please please please invite the Swedish Airforce Historic Flight. Saab 105, Tunnen, Draken and Viggen :).

    From what has been said, it sounds as though the intention is for it to begin as a smaller, more low key event, and gradually build it up into something more substantial as the years progress, so I wouldn’t get too carried away with the wishlist for next year :).

    I imagine that as the original team that managed the Waddo show was disbanded, and the RAF Charitable Trust team that run RIAT already have their hands full, they will have to put together a new management team for Scampton. Presumably they won’t want the new team to try and run before they can to walk.

    in reply to: BBMF Lancaster PA474 New Hangar 2016 Duxford, Name??? #862808
    plough
    Participant

    Lancaster House…..[/url]

    That would be very suitable I think.

    in reply to: Scampton Airshow for 2017? #862813
    plough
    Participant

    Apparently now confirmed by the RAF Charitable Trust for Sept 9 & 10th 2017: http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/RAF-Scampton-host-new-annual-airshow-2017/story-29325199-detail/story.html.

    Sadly planned for what is the busiest period of the year for me (and a good many others who I know are airshow fans), so I doubt very much if I will ever get to see it (unless it is a wet day!).

    in reply to: Canberra to the skies #865430
    plough
    Participant

    …….will the CAA let them display it?
    Even if the recent restrictions don’t apply, I’d certainly ask about future vintage jet policy before spending a lot of money on an aircraft the authorities may not let fly.

    Apart from Hunters, which are currently grounded as a precaution pending the outcome of the AAIB investigation re. Shoreham, no other vintage aircraft which were flying beforehand have been forbidden to fly since. Neither has there been any suggestion that the CAA would forbid any other type from flying. The new requirements centre around safety, and in particular crew currency and experience, and for some vintage aeroplanes that might make life difficult due to the small number of hours that some of them fly (although I am confident that the CAA is open to discussion regarding such circumstances) – the main issue for most operators is going to be the cost of maintaining crew currency.

    The flying restrictions currently in place forbid displays featuring an aerobatic element, again there is nothing that suggests that the CAA wouldn’t allow any vintage aeroplane to fly or display – the Canberra in particular is an aeroplane that can be displayed very effectively without doing anything approaching the current temporary restrictions. After the Shoreham investigation is finished, the restrictions are quite likely to be at least partially relaxed.

    I think too many people are jumping on the bandwagon of predicting the end of vintage jet flying and death of airshows. The future will probably be more sparsely populated by vintage jet aeroplanes and airshows (mainly down to increased costs for operators and shows which were only just keeping solvent to start with), but I see no particular reasons to be unduly pessimistic.

    From their thoroughness and past dealings with the CAA with the Vulcan, I would say VTTS are probably better placed to gain the necessary permissions to fly and display the Canberra than most other operators 😉

    in reply to: Gnat Display Team Crash 2015, Report out May 2016 #870650
    plough
    Participant

    I think this dicussion is leading to the wrong direction! Nobody asks for a specific number of hours on type. We are talking here about aircraft classes. ……..If somebody is flying displays with high performance/complex aircraft like a Gnat even 3 hours on type per year may be enough. BUT in this case this lack of experience should be compensated by flight hours on other comparable aircraft!

    I agree, but the wording of your earlier post gave some of us the impression that you thought that 12 hours a year on the type was insufficient. That warranted debate I think?

    However, getting the extra flying time on similar types is not easy or cheap, and I think the greater emphasis that there will be in the future on minimum hours of experience may make it unfeasible to keep some aeroplanes on the display circuit.

    The conclusion of the report suggests that the AAIB similarly felt that his general yearly flying experience was less than enough – “The pilot’s experience and currency were considered to be contributory factors

    in reply to: Gnat Display Team Crash 2015, Report out May 2016 #870681
    plough
    Participant

    Pretty sure it was 12 hours total time on all types.

    Calculating for the five calendar years before 2015 from the annual hours given in the table on page 69, it comes out as 12.8 hours per year on the Gnat only (and I assume the AAIB reference to 12 hours refers to the actual period of five years preceding the date of the accident?). Even if it is combined hours on Gnat and Jet Provost, he is given as only flying 1 hour on the JP (in 2010) during that five years, so not worth splitting hairs over really 😉

    in reply to: Gnat Display Team Crash 2015, Report out May 2016 #870802
    plough
    Participant

    This was 12 hours on the Gnat only and averaged over the previous five years – were it not for the particularly low figure in 2011, the average would likely have been about 15 hours.

    If 12 hours per year on type is considered insufficient for display flying, we may have to say goodbye to seeing quite a number of aeroplanes in flight ever again 🙁

    in reply to: Hangars v hangers #871916
    plough
    Participant

    Language is always evolving

    The trick is understanding the difference between evolution and deterioration;)

    It appears to be the deterioration that most people have an issue with. Languages evolve by becoming clearer, richer and more expressive. What we see too often (and what are highlighted in this thread) are examples which give the English language less clarity, less expression and make it much less easy to understand.

    in reply to: Scampton Airshow for 2017? #845090
    plough
    Participant

    That is some pleasantly surprising news.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 245 total)