dark light

galdri

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 976 through 990 (of 1,150 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Isaacs Spitfire #1559420
    galdri
    Participant

    Remember also Daz that it will take at least twice as long as your worst estimate, it will cost at least twice as much (don’t tell ‘er indoors) and you will get to a point where you want to burn it and kill everyone in the world.

    I thought I was the only one to have had this feeling. Sounds like you have been there too:D 😀

    in reply to: What do you fly ( or are rebuilding ) #438432
    galdri
    Participant

    Interesting, Galdri. Which Gemini is this? a lovely aeroplane, we’ve got 4 or 5 in the UK at present, IIRC, including John Allison’s, which often puts in an appearance at Old Warden.

    It’s G-AKEK.

    in reply to: Supermarine Attacker question #1567260
    galdri
    Participant

    That was the very first Spiteful, NN660. It was a Mk XIV fuselage with the new wing. After it crashed they built a completely new fuselage as well, so in a way, there is nothing ‘Spitfire’ in the Spiteful. What I was getting at, was that, what ended up as the Spiteful, was designed to remedy problem spots in the Spitfire. The new wing was designed to increase the wings stiffness, and to try and get a higher critical mach number (which failed!). The new fuselage was designed to improve the deflection shooting view from the cockpit, which in all Spitfire variants up to that time had been rather bad.

    The Attacker had the Spiteful wing, and was therefor carrying the Spitfire legacy into the jet age, as the wing was designed as an improved wing for the Spitfire.

    To take another aircraft, the Boeing 737. It has had a new fuselage, new engines, new wing, new systems and so on, but is is still a B737. So I think the Spiteful is just as much a Spitfire.

    in reply to: Supermarine Attacker question #1567278
    galdri
    Participant

    It depends how you define ‘Spitfire’. The wing was from the Spiteful, the last variant of the Spitfire. It is however an open debate if the Spiteful IS a Spitfire variant or a completely new type, but it’s development is firmly rooted in the Spitfire.

    in reply to: Supermarine Attacker question #1576090
    galdri
    Participant

    Well turbo_NZ, I’m not entirely sure the Attacker needed any ‘sorting’. The position of the tailsurfaces is completely different to the Me262 and the airflow was probably undisturbed in the tail down position.

    In Jeffrey Quill’s exelent book, Spitfire, A Test Pilots Story, a bit of background is given on the Attacker. There he does not mention any handling problems exept very heavy elevators. A problem he said was to trouble the Attacker for the rest of it’s live.

    in reply to: Supermarine Attacker question #1576118
    galdri
    Participant

    The reasons the Me 262 needed brakes during the take-off run was, indeed, because the wing blanked out airflow over the stab and elevator in the three point attitude on the ground.

    I have, obviously, no Sea Fury experience, but I seriously doubt it can be described as ‘ that easy’. So, I would think the FS2004 model is flawed, or, you are just one hot pilot RobAnt:D 😉 😀

    in reply to: What do you fly ( or are rebuilding ) #438476
    galdri
    Participant

    I’ve got a Miles Gemini tucked away, waiting for the building of my hangar to be finished, before serious restoration work can begin.

    I’ve also got half a share in an Auster J1 under sloooow rebuild.

    in reply to: Favourite book? #1586020
    galdri
    Participant

    I think my favourit (of the books you can get hold of) has to be Pursuit Through Darkened Skies by Michael Allen DFC**. It is an absoulutly cracking.

    My all time favourit has to by Dansað í háloftunum (Dances in the skies) by Þorsteinn ‘Tony’ Jónsson DFM.

    in reply to: P-38's to be recovered in May 2005 #1602328
    galdri
    Participant

    The two B-17’s were ‘navigational aids’. The navigators in them being responsible for getting the flight from A to B. IIRC, one B-17 was lead nav and the other one a back-up in case the lead went tech and had to turn back.

    The aircraft damaged in the landing, was the first Lightning that made a wheels down landing and turned turtle. The pilot got out OK. All the others landed wheels up and were almost undamaged.

    in reply to: P-38's to be recovered in May 2005 #1602451
    galdri
    Participant

    Well, well, well!

    It was maybe to much to expect these aircraft to be left alone on the glacier once they were found.

    I wish them all the best, and hope they can increase the population of early Lightings by five and early B-17’s by two. However I think it will be easier said than done:rolleyes:

    in reply to: LH writes of 747F after maintenance ****-up #667598
    galdri
    Participant

    According to the Swiss Accident Report on the RJ crash near Zurich a couple of years back, the captain on that fateful flight was the very same guy that retracted the 340’s gear! Apparently he did not fully understand the system:eek:

    in reply to: Pfa #395034
    galdri
    Participant

    Hello Daz,
    I don’t want to sound depressing, or rude, but I will have to second what EwenT and Skybolt have said. Modifying the Taylor Titch is a very expensive exercise and the end resault will not justify the cost and troubles. The end product is a stubby little design (judging by your exelent web site) and has nothing in common with the Spitfire except an elliptical (sp??) wing, but hey, my Cap 10 has one too, so maybe I’m flying a Spitfire replica! Well, the last remark is maybe below the belt, but you see what I’m getting at. Having an elliptical wing does not make it a Spitfire. No, the Spitfire is a machine of eligant lines, no matter how you look at it. There for I’m more than little amused when I look at some of the designs on your website. How on earth some of them can be called scale replicas of a Spitfire, or even a look a like, is beyond me, I’m sorry.

    Back to you project. I think the only way forward for you is to go for the Issacs Spitfire. It is the nearest you can get to the lines of a real Spitfire. I nearly started building one my self about 10 years ago, and from the information I had gathered, it is a relatively stright forward design and well suited to a first time builder. At this time, I don’t think you will need to worry too much about the engine. At the moment, you can get approx. half time O-200 for about 4000-5000 dollars. And you would not be needing the engine for, say, five years, as I think it would take you at least that time to build the aircraft. That is, say, about 700 pounds a year for the engine, if you decide on the the O-200. The engine should be the least af your worries!

    Building an aircraft needs space and tools. If you are lucky, you could get both of these essentials for a small amount of money, or nothing. How ever renting space for the aircraft and buying all the tools will set you back some serious amount of money. And you have not even have started the building of an aeroplane yet! Then come all the materials, and they are not cheap! Any old wood will not do, and if you have to buy something with an ‘Aviation Grade’ stamped on it, be prepared to open your wallet. However expensive the materials, please do not be tempted to use anything you can get your hands on.

    Now I think it is time for me to stop this really depressing rambling. I know what you are going through at the moment. I’ve been there. For one year I had an ACRO SPORT II biplane on mind, and it was an endless tourture, as it was no way I could afford it on my Flight Instuctors paychech. Reluctantly, I led go of it after much soul searching. But my lunacy went from bad to worse and now I’ve two projects going, both antiques.

    I wish you good luck with your project, what ever it is going to be. Before you start, make a complete cost estimate (don”t focus just on the engine, but the whole thing) and then add 100% on top of that and you should be close to the correct end figure.

    in reply to: Margo #677152
    galdri
    Participant

    pssst! Wys,
    I think it would be FL260 at Margo;) 😀

    When I think about it, it is a bit sad. Remembering altitude limitations on waypoints in Scotland:rolleyes: 😉

    in reply to: Margo #678057
    galdri
    Participant

    Margo is a waypoint south-east of Glasgow. Don’t know about the others

    in reply to: Daz FINALLY gets his scanner going!!! #1612126
    galdri
    Participant

    Daz,
    It is such a releave to see your pictures;) 😀 😀 After looking at the pictures the others are posting on here, I thought I was the only one to get, errrr….. not so fantastic ones;)

    Anyway, keep them coming. I, for one, is enjoying them. They look like they could be out of my own album:p

Viewing 15 posts - 976 through 990 (of 1,150 total)