dark light

Joe Petroni

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 576 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: G-PBYA Miss Pick Up #945721
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Why are there no fairings over the wing support joints? I have often wondered if its for ease of maintnence.

    Phill

    Those areas are prone to cracking, so require frequent inspection.

    in reply to: The People's Mosquito #945906
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Yet there are apparantly a number of CAA registered aircraft restored in the UK away from their own constructed serial number configurations?

    As I understand it there are modifications of low back Spitfires to high back, and single seat spitfires to dual seat, not just simply through fitment of a jump seat in place of redundant military radios or fuel tanks to maintain the same C of G balance, but creation a full rear cockpit and relocation of the existing cockpit forward in line with the TR9 design, all at odds with how those particular serial numbered airframes rolled out of the factory?

    Yet these seemly run the gauntlet of the CAA and survive the experience?

    The modification to the Spitfire is covered by a contemporary Vickers- Supermarine modification. So you can build your Spitfire and providing the modification is effective for that mark you can apply to the CAA to embody the modification (via a form and a large cheque).

    Regarding the Blenheim, if there is no existing mod, then you would contract a design organisation, with the appropriate approvals, to draw one up. As I pointed out in my post above, these are getting few and far between.

    It is important not to confuse aircraft that were ‘restored’ to the original type design standard and subsequently modified, with aircraft that are produced as facsimiles of the originals, e.g. with different engines, structures, systems etc.

    in reply to: The People's Mosquito #947792
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    So what if they are?
    I cannot see why that should stop this project as a reason in itself.
    We all know of one full nose, (not just a front cone), re-build to fly project, using parts that were never fitted to an aircraft, but were in fact fitted to a car!
    The Mk IV Blenheim/Bolingbroke re-built to resemble a Mk I pray-tel?

    It wouldn’t stop the project, just make it significantly more complex / expensive.

    Any variation from the type design standard would have to be covered by a minor / major mod application to the CAA.

    Finding someone to do this is becoming increasingly difficult as organisations with the appropriate approvals are becoming few and far between. The organisation I have used in the past have relinquished there BCAR approvals as the cost of maintaining them was not worth it for the work they were getting.

    in reply to: Vulcan Suffers Engine Damage #1008006
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Jim, from current Permit rules
    http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP733.PDF

    For light aircraft, homebuilts, microlights etc that rule has been withdrawn.

    For ex Military Aircraft I think the limitations are individual to the aircraft and stated on the Permit. There is another CAP somewhere if you want to look it up.

    Either way, ‘not normally be permitted’ is a fair way from ‘forbidden’

    in reply to: Vulcan Suffers Engine Damage #1008340
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    True, but it happens, I remember an incident involving a BM 737 where something was missed and the aircraft had to make an emergency landing elsewhere with pax on, the accountable manager who was not involved nor worked at the hangar was taken to court I believe, got a record and was dismissed.

    If you are referring to the aircraft, which made an emergency landing at Luton due to oil starvation on both engines, then you are incorrect.

    I still cannot get over the fact it was going to do a jubilee Flypast over London, how does that work? as permit aircraft are forbidden from flying over built up areas.

    The rule for not allowing LAA permit aircraft lying over ‘congested areas’, was dropped a couple of years ago. Don’t think there is a specific rule prohibiting ex Mil, on CAA permit, flying over congested areas either.

    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Posted on pprune

    It was on here first.

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=116367

    Heard quite a few times on the radio since.

    in reply to: Vulcan air to air from a Skyvan..wow #1037979
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    http://www.aviation-photocrew.com/index.php?page=2011_vulcan&year=2011

    Video at the bottom of the page is not shabby either.

    in reply to: Flt Sgt Copping's P-40 From The Egyptian Desert #1066030
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Got to be real, someone’s nicked the clock.

    Always the first thing to go..

    in reply to: Miserable beggars #1023375
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    I don’t think this kind of the thing is limited to just Aviation museums.

    I have had one or two poor experiences on Heritage Railways. 🙁

    in reply to: Miserable beggars #1032702
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    I don’t think this kind of the thing is limited to just Aviation museums.

    I have had one or two poor experiences on Heritage Railways. 🙁

    in reply to: Vampire XE995 Parts Search :) #1025711
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Here she was circa 1978 at Torbay.

    http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n18/JohnManson/Vampire.jpg

    in reply to: Vampire XE995 Parts Search :) #1035288
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Here she was circa 1978 at Torbay.

    http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n18/JohnManson/Vampire.jpg

    in reply to: Proposed Mossie rebuild in uk – discussion #1019213
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Actually reading that link again, TA639 has only 607 A/F hours, with the next major due at 705 hrs.

    Interesting it did a flypast at the ‘Mosquito Museum’. Wonder if any pictures survive?

    in reply to: Proposed Mossie rebuild in uk – discussion #1028074
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    Actually reading that link again, TA639 has only 607 A/F hours, with the next major due at 705 hrs.

    Interesting it did a flypast at the ‘Mosquito Museum’. Wonder if any pictures survive?

    in reply to: Proposed Mossie rebuild in uk – discussion #1019222
    Joe Petroni
    Participant

    [QUOTE]Besides the ones we know about in museums at DH museum and at Elvington does anyone know which airframe this may be and could it be a possible candidate for this project ??. It could be a delay of info on an airframe that was in store and is no longer with us but who knows ??/QUOTE]

    I was wondering the same thing. I rather like the look of TA639; it only has 700 hours on the clock!
    It is just a shame about the act of’ sabotage’, which took place at Little Rissington.

    Interesting read;

    http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/collections/aircraft/aircraft_histories/67-A-595%20Mossie%20TA639-II.pdf

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 576 total)