dark light

TempestNut

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 453 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Yak – a close one. #1552522
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Are we still going on about this? The guy made a mistake, it’s pretty obvious. Thankfully he lived to learn from it. Some don’t.

    Let’s move on, chaps.

    Daz I think we need to keep an open mind on this because its not obvious what happened. I for one don’t see this as similar to the Firefly incident at all, yet some are saying this is so.

    The Yak pilot did not seem to lose control, or orientation, but obviously something caused him to lose a lot of height very quickly. The video seems to jump about the time the aircraft gets low to the ground so I would be wary of its quality if not total authenticity. And the sound is not in synch suggesting some editing. I’m not suggesting anything other than lets just keep an open mind, and wait for the view from the pilot which I’m sure we will get.

    in reply to: Favourite Display Aircraft #1552724
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Spit XIV, Seafury, Bearcat, Corsair and soon I hope the Tempest. And of course all the other warbirds and the Vulcan

    in reply to: Bf-110g #1552729
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Just to prove that you can get info on this board,not not all of us are just interested what colour an aircraft was 😀 😀 😀 here is some more information that I have been able to collate over the last few years.

    Basically I think evidence points to GM1 NOX injection being used on the DB601 in the Me109F and in some early DB605’s in 109G’s. As I mentioned it was to raise the rated altitude of the engine. MW50 was what we call ADI or anti detonation injection. This raised power below the rated altitude of the engine and had little no effect above this altitude due to a lack of oxygen.

    On the 605 a new supercharger was designed and this raised the rated altitude of the engine and negated the need for GM1. These engines were called DB605 AS. As a consequence MW50 could be used at a higher altitude and such engines would be called DB605 ASM

    DB605A 1475hp takeoff power, 1355 @ 18,700 feet
    DB605AM 1800hp takeoff power, 1700 @ 13,500 feet 1355 @ 18,700
    DB605AS 1475hp takeoff power, 1200 @ 26,000 feet
    DB605ASM 1800hp takeoff power, 1500 @ 18,000 feet 1200 @ 26,000

    The drop in hp at altitude represents the extra power required to drive the supercharger. These are the engines that powered the 110. Whilst GM1 could have been used it would have been less effective than the AS engine, and would have been applied to the A model only I hope this is not too confusing. As for the DB605D this was a redesigned engine that attemped to cure some of the faults in the A model and get some more power out of it. :confused: :confused: 😮

    in reply to: Bf-110g #1552916
    TempestNut
    Participant

    The 110 had DB605a’s the same as the early 109G’s. If they used NOX injection it would have been to raise the rated altitude of the engine and not the ultimate power. The power of the 605 was limited by the detonation limit of the fuel used. I have some figures at home if you are interested.

    in reply to: Yak – a close one. #1552930
    TempestNut
    Participant

    The trick is to ensure that the aeroplanes are being displayed safely. Loops and rolls are fine; just make sure your gate heights are sufficient to give you ample height on exit, certainly within the limits of the DA, and maybe even with a bit of extra margin built in. If it makes displays “boring”, so what? At least the same number of pilots who left home that morning, wil return home that night. I’m sure that’s what we all really want to see.[/QUOTE]

    My thoughts exactly, I would like to se some stricter controls on the hours on type vs. manoeuvres allowed and maybe some form of modern cheep to run aircraft that could be modified to mimic some of the Warbirds so that some of the less experienced pilots can gain that valuable experience, without the high costs.

    in reply to: Yak – a close one. #1553034
    TempestNut
    Participant

    You know, I’m just a little surprised at some people who get on the bandwagon of criticising the Yak pilot, when they were not there and make a judgement based on a poor piece of video. Yet when someone witnesses an accident that clearly involves pilot misjudgement, (twice), they are criticised by those same folks who wish to wait for the official enquiry, and don’t wish to hear the views of others, and oh “it could not have been the pilots fault”. We can’t have it both ways.

    I’m sure with the connections of some of those on the board we will get to hear what happened very soon. It would be good to here the pilots view of events.

    BTW I thought the Firefly crashed doing a turn, at least that’s what I witnessed, not an aerobatic routine. I for one wish to see as many different warbirds and other historic aircraft fly, but unless our very generous Govt purchases the aircraft it is up to the owners how they fly them. And long may those aircraft capable of the odd loop and roll keep doing them.
    :confused: :confused: :confused:

    in reply to: Tomahawk, Kittyhawk, or Warhawk? #1555850
    TempestNut
    Participant

    From what I have been able to gather the Americans called them P40’s whilst the British and Commonwealth called them Tomahawks or Kittyhawks. I don’t think that the name Warhawk was used all that much. As always I could be wrong. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Sea Fury Queries #1555871
    TempestNut
    Participant

    This will be interesting 😀 😀 😀

    in reply to: Sea Fury Queries #1557583
    TempestNut
    Participant

    What have Sea Furies been re-engined with when the Centaurus is unavailable – I notice the one in Steve Patterson’s avatar has only four blades. Doesn’t look quite right, but still nice though. Do they refit them with Corsair engines or something like that? I’m sure nothing would be as powerful as the Centaurus would it?

    Dave The American Sea Fury’s have Wright R-3350 Cyclone 18’s. They can get spare parts for these easier than the Centaurus. However I believe that someone maybe manufacturing new Centaurus parts, so there maybe hope for the future of the Centaurus.

    Most of the 3350’s will be of the later variety as fitted to Skyraiders , Connies or DC7’s, and some racers have used the Turbo-compound version with the turbines removed and replaced with a std engine driven blower. These were tough reliable engines compared to the originals in the B29. The 3350 is the nearest equivalent to a Centaurus, the R2800 as fitted to the Corsair is a little smaller and less powerful.

    in reply to: Crash at airshow. #1586035
    TempestNut
    Participant

    I was watching from the eastern end of the airfield and I thought he was doing a Derry turn. As it was some 15 years since I had last seen the Firefly I was watching it like a Hawk, to the exclusion of the other aircraft flying at the time. When Bill turned at the western end of the field he did a Derry turn, but I was shocked at its execution and I said to some Dutch visitors that I had got chatting to “what’s he doing? he’s flying it like a jet” ( same thought as Firebird) He lost a lot of height during the turn and by the time he returned for the west to east pass. I said to myself “please please don’t do that again”.

    At the eastern end of the field he made a 45 degree turn to Starboard and flew off S/E over the area between Duxford village and the M11 Bill then rolled to starboard but was at least 30 degrees nose down ( if not more) when inverted and it appeared to me that as Bill continued to roll he found himself pointing at Duxford Village. He seemed to have at this point pulled back on the stick, reversing the roll? and I guess if you look at the TV footage without reference to the ground it looks as if he pulling over in a loop. The result of this was that from facing Duxford village he was now facing rising ground to the south with no hope of recovery. To me it appeared they hit the ground wings level and may have even bee nose up at impact. I did not see the news broadcasts at all, so this is from memory.

    This account may not be entirely correct but it is how it looked to me from my position. The question I would ask is why did he perform the second Derry turn when the first one had resulted in a large loss of height which he did not recover? Is there no mechanism for pilots realising something was not quite right and modifying the display accordingly.

    in reply to: Crash at airshow. #1605218
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Paul, my sympathies to you and your family, and to the family of Bill Murton. This news must be very difficult for you all now, although I suspect you have known for some time the verdict of the Naval board of enquiry. In a way you will now be able to start the healing process in earnest without having to hold back. You have many new friends on the forum, many if not all you have never met, but I’m sure they have all shared your grief at what happened. I admire your honesty and bravery over that last 8 months or so, and I hope that sharing your feelings with us has helped in some way.

    in reply to: Explaination on this Sea Fury? #1608915
    TempestNut
    Participant

    LA 610 now with the incredable Sabre VII and called Fury

    in reply to: Explaination on this Sea Fury? #1608967
    TempestNut
    Participant

    LA 610 Tempest III with RR Griffon 85

    in reply to: Explaination on this Sea Fury? #1610451
    TempestNut
    Participant

    I think the photo is of one of the Fury prototypes. It was powered by a Sabre V or VI and had 3000hp on tap. This aircraft was the fastest of all the Hawker piston powered aircraft. I do not have my references with me at present but I can supply more details if you wish.

    in reply to: Steve Hatton's Avatar #1795078
    TempestNut
    Participant

    Look out!!!! a Sabre is about to rattle:D 😀 😀

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 453 total)