dark light

Batman

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 199 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RAAF accepts first Super Hornet #2415784
    Batman
    Participant

    Canberra is not happening – straight to overhead Gold Coast and Brisbane, then in to Amberley

    That could be because Obama was due to be in Canberra on Friday, and so that may be why the SHs got cancelled.
    Latest PR release says Defence Minister Faulkner will meet them at Amberley.

    in reply to: RAAF accepts first Super Hornet #2416160
    Batman
    Participant

    Thx Comoford, good video.

    Any stops on the way? Aka. Williamtown?

    No stops on the way.

    I think the plot would be:
    Depart Friday morning
    DC-10 tanker (note: no boom, drogues only) off first.
    5 Rhinos depart and R/V with tanker.
    When everyone airborne, C-17 t/o and flies direct to Amberley.

    Rhinos stay topped up with tanker across the ditch, and descend for low overfly of Canberra. (Tanker either has departed this stage for Richmond or Amberley, or orbits overhead to tank Rhinos again out of Canberra, then departs.)

    Rhinos R/V with F-111s northern NSW, and according to media will do a joint low level overfly of Gold Coast, (poss Brisbane?), Ipswich and Amberley.

    in reply to: RAAF accepts first Super Hornet #2416425
    Batman
    Participant

    First Delivery

    Delivery flight of the first 5 SHs are now in Auckland. Due to overfly Canberra for the pollies on Friday (26th) and then be escorted by F-111s low level via the Gold Coast to land at Amberley early afternoon. 🙂

    in reply to: Ski-equipped aircraft #1139206
    Batman
    Participant

    Auster VI

    Aussie Auster VI A11-201 on skis in the Antarctic, c 1955

    in reply to: WWI Aviation Books? #1139320
    Batman
    Participant

    From an Australian perspective, an interesting one is Harry Cobby’s High Adventure. He was Australia’s leading ace of WWI, this book was originally published in 1942. Re-issued in Kookaburra glossy format in 1981.

    in reply to: WWI Aviation Books? #1139444
    Batman
    Participant

    In the former category I think the seminal book covering British types is Jack Bruce’s ‘bible’ first published in 1957 (Putnam) “British Aeroplanes 1914 – 1918”.

    While I have all the Putnam “company” books, I find some of their generic overviews by necessity aren’t very deep. Thetford’s Aircraft of the RAF was like this, I am unsure of Bruce’s book as I have never bought it.

    What I can recommend are the old Harleyford “bibles”. I have two:
    Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War (1960), and
    Reconnaissance and Bomber Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War (1962).

    Because of their A4 format, the diagrams (some fold-outs) are better than the smaller Putnam books.

    in reply to: WWI Aviation Books? #1139448
    Batman
    Participant

    In the same vein as Sagittarius Rising is Yeates’ classic Winged Victory.

    It is fiction, buy Yeates had been a Camel pilot in WWI so provides the realism of what it was like in a well-written, easy to read story.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2418287
    Batman
    Participant

    Re: F-14

    and specifications weren’t released until the summer of 1958…

    I guess you meant the summer of ’68 (a full decade later)

    in reply to: New Aussie P39 #1139621
    Batman
    Participant

    Is this static or airworthy?

    It’s static. Looks nice, I believe they have also completed a good job on the static USAAF P-38.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2420134
    Batman
    Participant

    I’m curious why the RNs F4Ks didn’t carry gun pods whilst the RAFs F4Ms did. Were the pods introduced post Ark Royal? Or was it something to do with carrier ops?

    I would think it was physical clearance for deck launch and recovery of the F-4K.
    The pod was carried on the centreline station. For launch, the nose gear oleo was elevated to full extension which would have restricted centreline stores clearance, and for recovery there may have been some fouling problem with the cables.

    in reply to: Navy F-4's, why no internal gun #2420213
    Batman
    Participant

    Because the USN aircraft (F-4B/J) were for air defence and had a pulse-Doppler radar with large antenna, hence the bulbous radome.

    The USAF F-4E (following on from F-4C/D) introduced a smaller pulse radar (APQ-120 I think??) with a smaller radome which allowed the gun mounted in the nose below.

    The RAF aircraft (F-4K/M, and later J) also had the PD radar, and therefore had to carry a podded gun on the centreline station.

    Batman
    Participant

    Defence here is Australia has become an ongoing joke and the rot really set in about 15-20 yrs ago.

    Longer than that – you could probably go back 35 years to the Tange changes of the mid-70s.

    The Defence procurement has become so convoluted, too many committees, too many studies – so much money and so much time is wasted on unique “orphan” solutions to fill capability gaps. Defence strives to get a 100% high-risk solution for its handful of platforms, when buying off-the-shelf (COTS/MOTS) and achieving an 80% outcome is just plain common sense.

    Trying to get the orphan Super-Seasprite just wasted over $1bn. 🙁 The C-17 and F/A-18F off-the-shelf acquisitions were on time and on budget :), and must show a sane approach for future procurement.

    in reply to: Russian UAC Ilyushin Il-96/Il-98 KC-X Tanker Bid #2422030
    Batman
    Participant

    Il-96

    So it’s going to be a new design with two Western fuel efficient engines? OK.
    Now, what about a boom?

    in reply to: U-boats sunk by RAF #1143226
    Batman
    Participant

    U-461

    One interesting aspect of the U Boat war was that U-461 was sunk on 30 July 1943 in the Bay of Biscay by Australian Sunderland ‘U’ of 461 Squadron (U/461) !!

    in reply to: When is the PIC referred to as Captain #1148842
    Batman
    Participant

    Notably in Great War German aviation, the observer would be in charge of the flight, the pilot being ‘just’ the chauffeur (hence from the maritime ‘pilot’). Seems to have gone wrong somewhere after that.

    Now here’s a twist. On the RAF kipper fleet, the Nimrod nav TACCO could be captain, and the guy on the flightdeck in the left seat was PIC.

    In fast jets however, even though the nav might be authoriser and instructor, the guy in front was the captain.

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 199 total)