Mr Magoo, you’ve done it again 😀 😀 😀

Ollie, don’t you know that this Staggerwing has WWII history in the UK, so that’s why it should not leave UK. Never mind fancy military paint scheme on something like a Mustang/Thunderbolt/Spitfire, etc. Most of these machines never saw active military service during WWII. They are just painted to look like the ones that did.

That is why I can not understand this comment ‘You can hardy miss the Staggerwing. What with bein bright yellow amongst a load of naval machines’ Am I being thick (or icelandic, who’s first language is not english) or are you belittling that machine for being just what it should be, in comparison with some machines that are not what they should be?

This machine has a very important story to tell. All the second line aircraft flying during the war, that get very little recognition. Accept it for what it is. It is a very important WWII relic flying in the UK

Indeed not Galdri, and I’m sure the beancounters hate it too, Galdri what equipment do you fly? is it the 752 for icelandair? and any idea how much a routine go-around costs your airline?

True, the beancounters do not like go-arounds either, they might actually like them even less than the pilots! 😮 :diablo: I’m on the B737 with Air Atlanta Icelandic at the moment, but for how long is open to debate, as the airline has announced it’s plans to retire them all before next october. However, they seem to be getting rid of them a lot faster than initially planned 😮

As for the question about the costs of go-arounds, I’ve to admit, that I’ve never seen such a figure. If we are only talking about a go-around that would resault in a traffic pattern and a landing at the original destination, I do’nt think the cost would be too great. On the 73 only about, say, 1000kg of fuel, plus the extra, say, 10 min flying time (depending on location of course).

I think you are correct there David. I remember seeing pictures of it flying. It was bought as a basket case in the US and restored in Spain, if the old sells are working properly. It is maybe not more than a year since it first flew.

I do wonder, though, what the extra weight in the rear fuselage would do to the CofG.

Move it aft? :rolleyes:

The more I think about it, this makes no sense at all. Someone is winding us up 😉

Now, how is the real gs001? Is it rweaver again? 😉

It’s probably due to very high negative G experienced after the tail was clipped off by the bomb (and the bomb making a huge upwards force on the tail- which would translate into high negative G)

If you still want to design something yourself, and fly it, then I think your first stop should be a place like this:

http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/books.html

There you can buy some book, or another, covering everything you need to know about aircraft design and flight testing.

If you like to have a look at at the thinking behind the design of an aircraft (a jet) you can look here:

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/AircraftDesign.html

Planes and parachutes dont mix…people die.

Exactly my point. But the sad part of it all is that we have people on both sides that don’t think that applies 😮 😡 😡