Test pilot by the name of Roly Falk.
If he’d have known what would happen to the development aircraft flown by a Rolls Royce test pilot at the RAF Syerston display a few years later he probably wouldn’t have rolled it. The aircraft came apart at less than 2G rolling into a right bank.
If a Vulcan came apart during a 2G pull, something must have been seriously wrong! And it makes me wonder, how all the rest of the fleet survived for years in the low level role with out every single one of them braking up. Low level flying at high speed puts a very high strain on the airframe (and we are talking WAY more than 2G´s). Besides, the Pop-up Manuover is NOT a gentle pull. It will probably be around 3.5-4G´s on the way up, and a similar amount pulling out of the ´reverse half-cuban´. So if a Vulcan broke up at 2G´s, it must have been seriously redesigned! Otherwise, you would have Vulcan remains all over the place, and no surviving crewmembers.
The particular Roll performed in this video clip, produced very little G on the airframe, probably only about 1.2-1.5 G´s (and then I´m assuming the worst case). Most probably it would have been only between 0.5 to 1G. This is an aileron roll, and for those who do not, know they do not have to induce any load at all :rolleyes: The pull up to the 45° angle, and the approx. 60° turn afterwards will have induced a lot more load on the airframe.
Ahemmmm. That should teach me to read the small print 😮 😉 It´s all there if I´d bothered to read the rest of the entry 😮
Of course you are right LN-ATC! FR886-889 were indeed reserialled HK936-HK939. And then VM286. It makes a total of 5 not 9.
The RAF had a total of nine L4B Cubs. RAF Serials FR886-FR889, total four. Then HK936-HK939, total four. Then there was the odd one out, VM286. A total of nine.
Info from Lend-Lease Aircraft In World War II by Pearcy, Arthur. ISBN 1 85310 443 4
The summer of 2007 will see a Boeing 40C-4 (similar to the more numerous 40B-4 but with a smaller engine) take to the skies for the first time in more than 60 years. It will be the oldest Boeing airliner flying and just one of three survivors of the 4-passenger (plus pilot) Boeing 40 family.
Now that´s a great project to fly in 07! Thank you very much for the info.
A very rough translation of the article
My Norwegian is not as good as it should be, but I thought some of you might like a (rough) translation of the linked article.
Rescue of a German fighter aircraft of World War II
A Focke Wulf 190, German fighter from the second world war will be rised from a deapth of 60 meters in the sea outside Sotra in Hordaland.
The Aircraft will be rised on the 1st of November, in an operation that is planned to take five hours.
The aircraft was stationed on the German airfield of Herdla in Asköy, and flew into the sea on 15th of december 1943. The pilot was saved by personel on land.
The first conservation efforts will be carried out at the Naval Base in Haakonsvern, from November until March next year. After that, the aircraft will be moved to Herdla Museum in Asköy, where it will be restored.
More than 20.000 of this aircraft type were built during the Second World War.
Ministry of Sea, civil organizations, private enterprises and enthusiasts have all done their best to help the riseing operation.
Now I stand by, to be shot down in flames by my norwegian friends, for incorrect translation 😮 😀 😀 😀
I do KNOW for a fact that I´ve never seen any limits on taxyspeed publiced in Jeppesen, on any of the airports in Europe I´ve been to.
I´ve never seen any limitation publiced by airport authorities regarding taxi speed. As mentioned above, the only limit would be that of the aircraft manufacturer. The 737 Flight Crew Training Manual RECOMMANDS taxi speeds of no greater than 20 kts maximum, however on Long Straight Taxiways, speeds up to 30 kts are acceptible. Maximum Speed for a turn of more than about 30° is 10kts. This speeds are not in the Limitation Chapter of the Boeing Manual, and are there for a recommandation only.
Ceaking Door,
Our posts seem to have overlapped 😉 The above says all I can find at the moment.
How about the Warwick GR Mk.II (+ GR Mk.II Met) or GR Mk.V as a likely candidate?. Both saw service during the war with Centaurus engines and four bladed Rotol (most probably) wooden props? They did not serve in any great numbers, but were out there.
I think I understand what you are trying to say DH. 😀
If I go to the Janes Fighting Aircraft of World War II, all Halifaxes are said to have been with three bladed props (merlin and hercules powered examples). So not much help there!
However, in Halifax and Wellington by Brian J. Papier and Chaz Bower, is the following note under a picture of a Merlin four blade Halifax.
Four-bladed propellers were found to add another thousand feet to the service ceiling of the Halifax, and to improve the rate of climb at high altitude. They were also beneficial to Mk. 5 aircraft operating with Coastal Command on long endurance flights. (Page 50)
Nowhere in that book is a picture of a four-bladed Hercules Halifax, or any mention of such a contraption. Therefor I assume this was only done to Merlin engined variants. Since we have already arrived at the conclusion that this relic is not from a Merlin, then I think we can exclude the Halifax from the discussion.
I can certainly think of better ‘pranks’ to play in wartime than diving on an AA site to make sure it’s awake, especially at night :confused:
Has anyone been recorded as doing that before??
Funny that! I did read the article earlier, and posted a reply just like yours AJ. After the first reading, I was sure he was supposed to be diving on AA sites to check if it was awake. After a second reading, I realized that that he was supposed to be diving on an AIRCRAFT to check if the gunner was awake 😮 After that, I deleted my response, as it clearly had no merit. Now you do the same mistake 😮 That means that either the article is not very clear, OR we read what we think is right! I’ve always thought he was brought down by AA, so the reading kind of re-enforced that believe when I conveniently left out the aircraft part. The fact that he was supposed to be brought down friendly fire, as opposed to the enemy’s, was something I regarded similar to Mr. Baders holiday on the west coast.
How likely do you think it is, that an experienced Bomber Man would try to sneek up on his comerades to give them the scares? And, at the same time expose himself to a leathal dose of .303 fire from four guns in the rear turret? Not very likely! If that was his habit, he would not have lasted as long as he did.
Could still be Hercules (Halifax)?
All I can remember, is that it were only Merlin engined Halifaxes that had four bladed props, and mostly the Coastal Command ones. I do not remember to have ever come a cross a reference to a four bladed Hercules model. I’m willing to stand corrected on that one though!
Active Service means they were used by the armed forces, in some role or another. By that reasoning all the aircraft you count above, saw active service. They were not, however, used in combat. Nit picking, I know, but I just thought it might help you with further investigations.
I got the 737-400 TF-ELY from Newcastle. Departed bang on time and arrived punctually in Kos. Great flight, Great service, clean and comfy aircraft…. oh and lovely food! More than I was expecting from Excel! Full trip reports will be filed upon my return. No photos of the aircraft but several from inflight.
I’m glad you enjoyed the old bird. She was the best 73’s we ever had, I was very sad to see her go.
I was on the NCL base when you flew on her, but didn’t do your flight 😮
Both the DST and all the pre-war DC-3’s had the passenger door on the Right hand side, but when produced for the military during the war they went to the trouble of redesigning the fuselage with the door/cargo door on the Left hand side! Why should they do that? Maybe this whole thing originates from a U.S.A.A.C (now U.S. Air Force) specification of some obscure nature? If you look at the U.S. Transport Command aircraft from the War (C-46, C-47, C-54 etc.) all of them have the door on the Left side, where as on pre-war aircraft, they were quite as likely to be found on the right hand side. Bearing in mind that surplus U.S. Transport Command aircraft formed the backbone of the airlines post war, it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that the Left boarding was simply a carry on from these. As already pointed out the brits tried to buck the trend with right boarding on the early Comet, but that was soon confined to the sidelines.
With regard to Nick’s comments above, then it is very possible that this is a Martinet, as they have the same wing, gear and forward fuselage (cowlings/engine) as the Master