cas wrote

only the u/c ,flaps and turret are driven by the hydraulics, the u/c has the additional facility to blow down the gear in the event of a leak.

Thanks for that info cas. Also, understand about the blow-down, this is pretty much standard in a/c. Any idea what psi the airbottle is charged to?

Bit surprised to hear of the “bungee” type arrangment for the bomb doors though, can’t see how that would operate. I guess they could be hand-cranked with the “bungee” providing some sort of back-up up-lock. There must be more to it than this I suppose.

Thanks anyway.

Warbird wrote :

Depending on the system assuming that the U/C is hydraulic then if you knock off the U/C leg it is safe to think that there will be a loss of pressure in the system therefore If the doors are held together by hydraulic pressure loosing the fluid & pressure would then allow the doors to open.

I don’t know the actual Bleheim’s hydraulic system but I can tell you that hyd systems in aircraft do not work like that. They may, in some cases all be fed from the same hyd main reservoir and pump(s) but each circuit will be independent and protected by NRV’s.

Hi Mike J

Since private Canberras are already operating on the UK register, I don’t see that the operation of a PR9 would be a problem, assuming that 1) The RAF dispose of them to private owners, and don’t store them or sell them to an overseas Air Force, and 2) A private owner can be found to operate one. I doubt that the CAA would not class them as a ‘complex’ aircraft, in any case.

One (1) private Canberra operates in the UK. This is a B.6 which is not any more “complex” than, say, a Vampire, Meatbox or even a Hunter. The PR.9 however is a different matter. This Canberra has powered flying controls (the only Canberra to have such). I think this may cause problems IF a privateer can get a chance to operate one. (It would be good though 🙂 ) Again, it’s not a matter that the CAA would/wouldn’t grant a permit, it’s a matter of whether BWoS would agree to be DA. I somehow don’t see this happening. You are right of course that the PR.9s would, in all probability, be “sold on”. But as their current effectiveness is probably more to do with the US sensor suites than the airframe itself, and these would be removed, this idea is probably a non-starter. Although, having said this, there are a couple of outfits in the states doing specialised hi-alt work (currently using Canberras) that would love to get their hands on a 9 – but then, so would I.

Regardless of why BAE Systems undertake such work on historic aircraft, I think it extremely unfair to knock them for receiving some intangible benefit from this. Without them, there would be no RNHF in its present form.

OK. Easy target with uneasy performance history I guess. Be interesting to know just what their “intangible benefits” were though, do you know? And yes, various groups derive considerable benefit from the BWoS involvement.

In my mind, the UK av industry has (and had) the best aviation innovators/engineers in the world, our aviation history proves that. My quibble is over the “management” of those stalwart men and women and the seeming lack of, what? – vision? As for why they are criticised, if “they”, as a corporation, performed better they wouldn’t be. Tend to agree with Willow’s post in this. Knocking BWoS in the av community is a given, no matter how much PR they do.

Anyway, enough of this, ’tis just tilting at windmills. Good talking with you.

Willow
Not railing against the Hawk itself, after all I think the Canberra is a really good airframe and that’s 50 years old! It just seems to me that, somewhere, the brit av industry has “lost” something. In 30 years surely the UK aviation industry could have come up with a new design? They used to be so innovative in terms of aircraft. No, was railing against the monolithic BWoS.

(Mutter. . . it all went square-shaped after the TSR.2 fiasco :rolleyes: )

Mike J
Yes, the same company. The examples you list are all “participatory” projects, BWoS gets kudos (and work and money) from such. Why, therefore do they not consider sanctioning Air Atlantique’s Shack? Could it be because someone in their management would have to take responsibility for something that has no immediate profit vector? 😉

Merlin wrote :

If other countries go easier on aircraft rebuilds would it not make sense to rebuild in another country and then get an international permit to fly and then export it or sell it to a british buyer even if it was to your own company. Surely permits can be transferred over to another country if the aircraft already has permit to fly.

Not really. Consider the problems Air Atlantique had with their Shackleton. Perfectly air-worthy, flying fairly frequently in the states, owned by a company with large, 4-prop experience and the facilities to handle such an aircraft. AA could not get permits to fly their Shack in the UK as a “visitor” even though it is on the US register. The reason, as I understand it, was because the “type” manufacturer (BAe) would not take responsibility for the aircraft – nothing to do with they CAA, they could do no more than refuse a flying permit for the UK.

As for the Bucc and Lightning, these aircraft have exceedingly complicated control systems (which even the full resources of the RAF found difficult to keep up with). Neither of these aircraft have, eg, any control reversion sytems, if the power control authority is lost, the kite goes in! This is unacceptable – and, I would reckon, un-insurable for any air show.

Regarding the Vixen though, I’m not sure what’s letting that fly. :confused: It seems to be exempt from checks that would deny other aircraft flight time.

It’s a shame I know, but consider the recent events with the Firefly – imagine if that had been a Lightning.

Nah! You want to see a Cold War jet, go watch the Canberra. :rolleyes: 😀

Originally posted by Moggy C
**** Barton? Of course I remember **** Barton. He had a partner called Jock didn’t he (Or was that the excerable TinTin?)
[/B]

Thought Barton’s sidekick was Snowy. Or was that the name of the sidekick in “Journey into Space”?

(We’ll be quoting the Hotspur, Wizard and Eagle next 😀 )

Very “Educating” post there Moggy, not wooden in any way.

But you’re only officially “old” if you remember D i c k Barton. :rolleyes:

(Edited to get around the censor astericking Mr Barton’s first name)

A330

Glad to be able to fill in some background – at last! 😀

Anyway, 8th down on the list in your 1st pic is Victor XH671. This suffered a partial nosewheel lowering and was diverted to Manston’s foam runway. As the Victor’s nose was lowered the nose oleo collapsed under the weight causing Cat 3 damage. A team from an MU (St Athan?) recovered it.

Remarkable stuff that foam runway, greasy, smelly, brownish, off-white gunk that took about an hour to lay. Saved lives and pounds though.