I don´t know why this forum is not as active as the others. I always take a look but seldom contribute :confused:

Here is picture of my CAP 10 taken last september during a Fly-In at Vestmanneyjar (Westman Island) of the south coast of Iceland.

Hi all,

I´m very saddened by the loss of the Firefly and it´s crew. My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of the crew.

However, I feel this is not the right time or place to have a discussion on the level Midway has been doing for the last posts. The presence of a second crew member on a display flight might be a nessesary thing. I´m not type rated on the Firefly, and I doubt Midway is either, so all discussions about the second crewmember should stop now.

If something is wrong with the number of crew members on this flight it will be reported by the AAIB. They are the specialists, we have no knowledge to make these kind of statements on a on-line chat forum.

Regards,
Galdri

Mixtec, I have to disagree with you on this one!

To be a save and proficient pilot you have to know your aircraft all through out the flight envelope. That includes stalls and spins (for certified aircraft) in every possible attitude. It should also include flight at airspeed BELOW normal stallspeed (close to zero G). To know that the aircraft can not stall at 0 g has saved my hide ones. Speeds close to maximum allowed airspeed should also be covered in training.

Just make sure, if you are flying a C-152, not to let it spin more than 2 rotations during training. There is no garentee it will recover after more than two rotations. It is down to the individual aircraft if it recovers, and some don´t.

This particular aircraft was last seen hanging by the tail from a bridge in some action movie, the name of which escapes me at the moment. It was supposed to represent a crash of an airliner.

The unducted fan project has been dropped, as it was not giving the resaults hoped for.

Ok guy’s I may be stupid but………..

According to the schedule for Jetmagic they are flying EMB 135. But I’m sure the picture of the aircraft from said airline is of a EMB 145. The aircraft is still bearing the old Crossair/Swiss registration, and Crossair never operated EMB135.

Can someone clarify??

Originally posted by Comet
Got it in one Hand – I remember that place before the City Hall was built, they drained away part of the lake and ruined it in my opinion.

Well I could not disagree more. I would not have minded at all if they drained it completely.

It is kind of strange to have breeding grounds for geese, seagulls and ducks right at the end of runway 01/19. It is not a comfortable feeling to meet one of those things during take off or landing, they simply don’t know who has the right of way 😀 The record is 36 seagulls killed by a landing PA31. The airplane was a mess.

Besides the downtown is littered with birddroppings

Well, this is not as easy as it sounds.

When the first verstions of the B17 were being developed in the early-mid 30’s, the R1820 was among the most powerful yet relaiable engines available. The entire plane is designed around these engines. The wing for strength, the fuel cells for endurance/range, the tail for stability and the list is endless.

To take an engine like the R2800 and stick it on the B 17 is not a modification, you would have to completely redesign the aircraft and in the end nothing of the original B 17 structure would be left. You would end up with a completly new aircraft.

It would have made a lot more sence to just start with a clean sheet of paper and design a completely new bomber to take the R2800, but since the B 17 was doing it’s job rather well I guess it was not considered worthwhile to rush something into production with the R2800. However I’m sure some thought must have been given to the problem of upgrading the B 17 with something new and more powerful. The B29 for example was developed partly as a B 17 replacement, but it’s superior range made it more suited to the Pacific rather than Europe.

Regards,
Galdri