dark light

Portagee

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 594 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Haiti international relief effort through air and sea #2418882
    Portagee
    Participant

    I noticed that it was an MC130(P I think) that landed whilst the BBC News was showing a continueous live feed from the airport.

    I thought it a little strange at the time but given their proximity in Florida, they are the nearest lifters to hand.

    in reply to: CVF Construction #2010523
    Portagee
    Participant

    Another £300m worth of contracts announced

    Fire Fighting
    HVAAC
    Scafolding and Painting equipment
    The contract to float the various parts to Rosyth

    BBC News

    in reply to: Time for some fun! #491170
    Portagee
    Participant

    lifting the bar a bit …42

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world -IV #2426535
    Portagee
    Participant

    The requirements in the acquisition notice call for an aircraft that is only marginally larger than the UH-1N. For example, the unarmed UH-72 could satisfy the lift, speed and endurance requirements, but lacks armoured protection and weapon systems. EADS has teamed up with Lockheed Martin to demonstrate an armed variant called the AS635. Both the UH-72 and AS635 are derived from the Eurocopter EC145 helicopter.

    Other helicopters in the same class include the AgustaWestland AW129 multi-role combat helicopter and the Bell Helicopter 412EP.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/28/336643/usaf-starts-search-for-uh-1n-replacement.html

    Presumably they mean the AW159 as your not going to get 4 crew never mind 8 troops in a AW129

    in reply to: No Nimrod for TWO YEARS ? ? #2428570
    Portagee
    Participant

    A more fundamental question regarding the flight crews..

    I presume to step from an MR2 in to a MRA4 would be a relatively straight forward transition.

    But from not having flown an MR2 for 2 years into an MRA4 ??

    Would the MR2 crews rotate through the R1s to keep “current” ahead of the introduction of the MRA 4? There is going to be a lot of crews sitting on their thumbs awaiting their turn.

    in reply to: A400M Flies #2403787
    Portagee
    Participant

    According to EADS, it will take two years between the first flight of the 400M and its entry into service (ie first deliveries planned for late 2012).

    According to Boeing, twelve months are foreseen to certify the 787 (eio in late 2011).

    Could anyone explain what accounts for this much longer certification period for the 400M?

    Presumably many of the things that get tested with a pressurised hold and the ramp up, would have to get tested unpressurised and with the ramp down.
    Not sure whether clearances for Para jumping from the side doors and ramp or para extraction/cargo drops are done by Airbus alone or in conjunction with one of the type operators. Regardless minimum clearances would be needed for IOC.

    in reply to: More Chinooks for the RAF #2438674
    Portagee
    Participant

    I missed that obviously, still a 4 year lead time for IOC according to AW, which presume would be if orders went in now.

    How quick could NH90s be bought?

    in reply to: More Chinooks for the RAF #2438693
    Portagee
    Participant

    AW149s would most likely be built in the UK.

    The question for me would be how long would it take to get the production line up and running? Especially as there isn’t even a flying 149 as yet.
    With the NH90 would it be a case of having to buy into someone elses build order to get them quicker ?

    in reply to: Woman in Red Arrows #2439560
    Portagee
    Participant

    Isn’t that Flt Lt Charlotte Fenn? Charlotte is the Red Arrows Junior Engineering Officer. I don’t see any wings on her flying suit.

    http://www.raf.mod.uk/reds/behindthescenes/jengo.cfm

    http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/British-Aerospace-Hawk/1364349/L/

    TJ

    If so I’m happy to be corrected.

    in reply to: Woman in Red Arrows #2439671
    Portagee
    Participant

    There were 11 Reds at Leuchars this year, she flew/was flying in “Red 11”

    in reply to: More Chinooks for the RAF #2440146
    Portagee
    Participant

    But some military commentators believe that the move ahead of the general election might be good politically but is “stupid” tactically as it could make a platoon of 30 soldiers in a single helicopter more vulnerable to ground fire than spread among three helicopters.

    Is it just me or does the suggestion of 3 helicopters for 30 soldiers sound ridiculous.

    30 Fully equipped soldiers in the back of a Chinook
    30 Soldiers in 1 or 2 Merlins depending on the amount of equipment carried.

    Or does that commentator think we should use buy Blackhawk helicopters in which case it probably would be 3 helicopters for 30 troops.

    in reply to: USAF OA-X Program #2442435
    Portagee
    Participant

    With all this talk of new build A4s etc, here’s an off the wall idea.

    The BAe Hawk production line is still running with the New Mk128 trainer for the RAF, New build 200 series (single seat), with the 128 style avionics. BAe claim if has 2 hard points on each wing although only usually 1 used, so that’s 2 triple packs of Brimstone/Hellfire and 2 Defensive Pods or 4 triple packs if the loads are capable plus it’s centre line Podded Cannon (no doubt the US would use something other than the 30mm Aden).

    in reply to: USSR Hurricane dig,(Graphic image content) #1157780
    Portagee
    Participant

    This is a family forum where fathers sit with son’s and pass down their aviation enthusiasm and knowledge, not trying to explain ‘Graphic image content’

    It’s easy to find stuff like this elsewhere on the web, I just don’t think there is a need to put it on this forum, however hard you try to justify it.

    On the first line, these aircraft didn’t fly by themselves, surely passing down aviation enthusiam and knowledge must include what happened to the pilots…including those who sadly didn’t return.
    Is describing a pilot as being “shot to death at the controls, slumping forward puting the aircraft into an dive, which then exploded on impact” not as graphic ?

    As for it being on this site .. it’s not.
    The link to this thread now has an advisory, even though there are no images on this thread at all.
    The post which actually has the link to another site does contain an advisory.
    If you then open that link the first thing you see is yet another advisory, and you have to then scroll down some way and (presumably) read through the first post before the images themselves then come into view.

    If you don’t want to see such images why have you went that far?

    in reply to: Leuchars #469525
    Portagee
    Participant

    And a few more

    in reply to: The XH558 Discussion Thread (merged) #1168150
    Portagee
    Participant

    Have to say 558 looked magnificent over East Fortune this afternoon.

    Sadly the old airfield isn’t operational any more so no landings, but still a joy to behold…especially for those of us who only saw a Highspeed taxi at the weather effected Leuchars last year.

Viewing 15 posts - 346 through 360 (of 594 total)