dark light

Mr Creosote

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,411 through 1,425 (of 1,719 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Zhuhai airshow #504650
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    Why not make the effort to ask the organisers yourself, and then come back and tell us what they say?

    ….or would you rather someone else did it for you? 😎

    Chornedsnorkack often seems to get rebuked by the mods, but I think his only “fault” is in the way he phrases some of his questions. I suspect he’d already seen that website, and he was actually trying to ask if anyone had any inside info or rumours, a little like the way others here talk about Legends or RIAT beforehand. From his profile it appears he’s just 16 years old, Thai I think, and his passion for commercial aviation is plain for all to see. Bearing that in mind, shouldn’t we be encouraging him and cutting him a little slack if his English seems just a bit quaint at times?

    in reply to: Hurel Dubois Airliner #1200879
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    Hi Ozplane, Yes, there was a link across from the Miles Aerovan to the Short Skyvan, involving the HD wing. Fred Miles approached Shorts in 1958 regarding the HDM 106 Caravan ( A development of the HDM105 of which I posted a piccie) and Shorts purchased the design. Shorts carried on with Frank Robertson as Chief Designer (ex-Miles ) to evolve the design into the Skyvan. Miles of course ,went to be part of Beagle.
    A company which I once worked for built the sponsons for the 330/360 – but thats another story. 🙂

    IIRC, Miles threatened legal action against Shorts, but how much of the Caravan really went into what became the Skyvan? Always found both types very appealing in an odd sort of way, so I’d be interested in any more info. Cheers.

    in reply to: Aeroquiz #1202562
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    Not an Aeronautical Syndicate Valkyrie?

    in reply to: General Discussion #318593
    Mr Creosote
    Participant
    in reply to: Plastering #1899788
    Mr Creosote
    Participant
    in reply to: The absolutely WORST aircraft of all time, evar? #2478784
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    Because you did compare a prototyp of different configuration with the different series examples of the Caravelle in mind.
    The second mistake was about the way of procurement in different economic systems.
    In the 50s the Tu-104 was the civil variant of the Tu-16 and did enter service in 1959.
    The Tu-124 was a scaled down variant and did enter service in 1961.

    Either you do look into the 50s seriously or you opinion posted is just a guess from the ***. :rolleyes:

    The SE 210 from 1955 was with 52 seats and two British Avon engines. The best ones available in the West. It did enter service in 1959.
    The SE 210 did become the Caravelle I with 64 seats, when last ones built in the 70s were Mk 12 for up to 140 seats.

    The Caravelle IA from 1959 had a range of 1500 km and a travel speed of 746 km/h.
    The Tu-124 from 1961 had a range of 1250-2100 km and a travel speed of 870 km/h.
    The Baade 152 from 1962 had an intended range of 2000-2500 km and a travel speed of 800 km/h.

    PS
    282 Caravelle were built till 1972 and the break even was reached by 200.
    When it comes to a classic, it has to be the Boeing 737 from the 60s, but that was a different decade.

    Of course, we’ll never know if the developed 152 would actually have achieved those figures, but even so there’s just no way that monstrosity could have competed economically on an even playing field (ie without hefty subsidies) with contemporary American or West European types.

    in reply to: The absolutely WORST aircraft of all time, evar? #2479371
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    Reality was a little bit more difficult. The SU had promised to order 100 hundred examples of the 152 and to allow the GDR a modern aviation industry by that.
    In the same time scale Tupolev developed the smaller Tu-124, but did modernise it to the similar size of 152 to Tu-124A, which did become the Tu-134.
    In March 59 the prototyp with the Mikulin engines had a test for a fly past over Leipzig Fair to impress the visiting Chrutschev. But that did never happen, because on the return flight from that test flight the Mikulin engines ceased and the 152 crashed. In June the SU canceled the order and with it the modern aviation industry in Dresden.
    The much more economical Pirna 014 engines were not fitted and tested on an IL-28R.
    The official reason was: The prototyp V1 was flown too fast and had a too steep sink-rate so the gravety-feed tanks were unable to feed the Mikulin engines, when the 152 V1 did crash 3 miles short of the runway.
    The export of the 152 II had to start in 1962, the similar capability Tu-134 did so from 1964.

    I really don’t see how you can compare the Caravelle with the Baade 152. One was a classic, trend-setting, best selling airliner, the other little more than an (unsuccesful) bomber with seats. A bit like comparing an A330 with a Lancastrian. 🙂

    in reply to: The absolutely WORST aircraft of all time, evar? #2479590
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    Before you do a claim, you do better look into different sources at first. 😉

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-31_Vengeance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Caravelle
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_152

    Erm… I’d alredy checked the Wiki entry on the Baade 152, and the one on the Vengeance doesn’t really alter my opinion much that it was rather a mediocre aircraft, and the resources put into its development and deployment could have been put to much better use. Not sure where the Sud Caravelle fits into all this, though.

    in reply to: The absolutely WORST aircraft of all time, evar? #2479754
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    For the title of ultimate worst aircraft I dont think the Christmas Bullet can be beaten. But as for production aircraft, has anyone mentioned the Vultee Vengeance, slammed by one USAAF General as “A waste of metal”?

    Probably not the worst of all time, but a favourite bad plane of mine has always been the Baade 152 airliner (or are we just talking military here?). Slow, short ranged, spars and undercarriage both taking up cabin space, underpowered, tricky to land, and bleedin ugly too (somehow puts me in mind of Jade Goody)

    http://www.aviastar.org/air/ddr/veb_152.php

    in reply to: General Discussion #320864
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    I think it was marketed originally several years ago by Viz magazine.

    Its along the lines of there previous bit of tat, namely ‘The life of Jesus- in Cats’ plate.

    Some people have more money that (insert insult here)

    Steve

    I think there was also a ‘Princess Diana Full English Breakfast Plate Of Hope’

    I remember one poor lonely chap at work who used to buy those silly Danbury Mint plates as “an investment” for about £70 a time, and one day he brought one in to show me. He was so proud of all the certificates in their fancy envelopes, but when you actually read through all the verbiage all it really said was stuff like “This is certified as a plate by the plate collector’s guild” or “This was made in Italy” or “This is part of the XXXX collection” Total rubbish.

    in reply to: Ridiculous TAT #1901067
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    I think it was marketed originally several years ago by Viz magazine.

    Its along the lines of there previous bit of tat, namely ‘The life of Jesus- in Cats’ plate.

    Some people have more money that (insert insult here)

    Steve

    I think there was also a ‘Princess Diana Full English Breakfast Plate Of Hope’

    I remember one poor lonely chap at work who used to buy those silly Danbury Mint plates as “an investment” for about £70 a time, and one day he brought one in to show me. He was so proud of all the certificates in their fancy envelopes, but when you actually read through all the verbiage all it really said was stuff like “This is certified as a plate by the plate collector’s guild” or “This was made in Italy” or “This is part of the XXXX collection” Total rubbish.

    in reply to: How successful was the Harrier? #2481528
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    The point of an attack helicopter is its survivability and time on station. It can hide and observe the battlespace better. To make an aircraft survivable versus heavy AAA requires something like the A-10. A Harrier would be wasted if sent against tanks.

    A thing about the forward bases:
    The Falklands were probably not the region were the Harrier could perform best. In a Middle European environment the number of paved areas is much larger, and a paved strips of about 500m length are easy to find. Basically you can take every small autobahn strip and you are less constrained than conventional aircraft which need on average 2400m (or 8000ft) runway. In a medium sized city (think of the vity of Hannover area in Niedersachsen, Germany) you can improvise 3 different airfields within a few kilometers and regularly shift inbetween them.
    Harriers can also operate from destroyed runways, as long as a few hundred meters a left intact.

    Which brings us nearly back to one of the original points, namely the supposed IRBM threat to large fixed bases, which was one of the raison d’etres of the whole VTOL thing. I remember lots of talk in the sixties and seventies about how modern accurate IRBM’s made those huge fixed runways hopelessly vulnerable, and yet somehow the threat never seemed to materialise. So was it all just being talked-up by Hawker Siddeley and the RAF in an attempt to promote the Harrier?

    in reply to: The Battle of Britain 1969 film #1229333
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    My brain must be going, because I thought it was Susanna Yorke….

    Quite right. Probably wishful thinking on my part after ogling Susanna Reid
    on BBC “Breakfast” again.

    in reply to: Martinsyde #1234456
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    I wonder what might have happened if the RAF had got the fighter it wanted, ie the F.4 Buzzard instead of the Sopwith Snipe, and Martinsyde had survived those lean post WWI years. Might we have had a whole series of Martinsyde fighters, maybe even into WWII and beyond? Does anyone know of any plans to diversify from fighters, ie any bomber or transport a/c projects?

    in reply to: The Battle of Britain 1969 film #1238153
    Mr Creosote
    Participant

    It was also broadcast on the Channel 4 HD service in Hi Definition, only found that out when I switched over and caught the closing credits!!

    Let me reassure you that Susannah Reid in her suspenders looked even better in HD. :diablo:

Viewing 15 posts - 1,411 through 1,425 (of 1,719 total)