dark light

dhfan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,891 through 1,905 (of 3,092 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Crazymainer Come to Duxford #1392764
    dhfan
    Participant

    The Red Lion would be extremely convenient.

    in reply to: Apres Airshow – the last DX – Meet at Whittlesford? #1403507
    dhfan
    Participant

    Sorry, a pair of occasional lurkers will be missing.
    Have a nice time, chaps and chappesses and we’ll see most of you next year.

    in reply to: E.E Lightning #1403511
    dhfan
    Participant

    I’ve no idea whether the Lightning is considered complex or not. Given the age of the beast, intermediate would seem more likely, but the biggest problem is it’s considered unsafe.
    I understand one of the major problems is all the flight controls are in the spine along the top of the fuselage. Given the types propensity for engine fires, much as I would love to see one fly, I can’t blame the CAA for not allowing it.

    in reply to: Top Five Historic Jet Fighters #1406907
    dhfan
    Participant

    Some dubious fighters mentioned by various posters above…

    F111
    TSR2
    Buccaneer
    Canberra

    I suppose they may have had other, limited, capabilities but as far as I know, they’re all basically bombers.

    in reply to: Torbay Aircraft Museum #1408151
    dhfan
    Participant

    Did Keith Fordyce have an RAF background through National Service?
    I’ve no idea how old he is/was. He looked old to me on the telly in the early sixties but as I was 11 or 12, everybody over 20 looked ancient.

    There’s no reason why a “celebrity” shouldn’t be interested in old aeroplanes but it presumably soaked up a fair bit of his loot.

    in reply to: Top Five Historic Jet Fighters #1408282
    dhfan
    Participant

    I shan’t join in here, having limited knowledge of paraffin burners, but I’m glad to see a good fight put up for Hatfield’s finest. (Chester, Christchurch, whatever).

    P.S.
    Vampire and Meteor should get points for longevity presumably. Discounting M-B’s use of Meteors as they’re ideal for their particular requirements, approaching 30 years for a first-generation jet is pretty impressive.

    in reply to: Torbay Aircraft Museum #1410370
    dhfan
    Participant

    It used to owned and run by Keith Fordyce.

    For those of a certain generation – a former TV presenter and one time compere of ‘Top of the Pops’.

    Mark

    The opposition actually – ‘Ready, Steady, Go’

    I never visited the museum, it came and went in between family holidays with parents and the time I started heading that way myself.
    From Mark12’s later comments, it seems museums could learn a thing or two from showbiz.

    in reply to: Britain's 1987 hurricane #1414846
    dhfan
    Participant

    The Sunderland was severely damaged in a storm and I think it was that hurricane that caused it.
    I lived just north of London then and only got the edge of the storm and that was terrifying enough. As I don’t remember hearing of problems at Duxford I guess it missed there.

    in reply to: Corsair sets speed record #1414852
    dhfan
    Participant

    the calendar quotes Friday, Oct 1 1939 as the day the Corsair became the first American fighter plane to break the 400 mile an hour mark…says nothing about seaplanes or being the first AIRPLANE, period, to do it…just first American fighter.

    Mark

    As the Corsair first flew on May 1st 1940 according to the above link, or May 29th 1940 according to British Naval Aircraft since 1912, that would be extremely difficult.

    As I’ve already said, the link also says it was the first production aircraft to exceed 400mph etc. I’m convinced the calendar’s wrong about the date but I’ve no reason to doubt that statement.

    The Mosquito is widely stated to have been the fastest aircraft for about 2.1/2 years but as the prototype didn’t fly until November 1940 it beats that.

    in reply to: Corsair sets speed record #1415577
    dhfan
    Participant

    Mark’s calendar’s got the year wrong, it was 1940. I knew it was delayed entering service but hadn’t realised it first flew that early.
    The link I posted says it was the first production aircraft to top 400 mph in level flight. Sounds reasonable, I can’t think offhand of any other contenders in 1940. The “downhill” Hurricane had a hell of a tailwind. That could be considered cheating. 🙂

    in reply to: Obscure TV warbird appearances? #1416076
    dhfan
    Participant

    Anyone remember ‘Moonstrike’ about Lysander ops in France? I’m sure there was a real Lysander in it, can’t remember if it was flown or not though (this is 40 years ago 😀 ).

    I remember that. My memory tells me there was a real Lizzie in it too but it’s so long ago I wouldn’t take bets on it.

    in reply to: Corsair sets speed record #1416087
    dhfan
    Participant

    I’ve no idea whether it was the first to exceed 400 mph or not (just thought – the S6b did it in 1931) but surely 65 years ago was before the first Corsair flew?

    Edit
    Found this
    http://www.aviation-history.com/vought/f4u.html

    64 years apparently.

    in reply to: 5 bladed Rotol prop #1423258
    dhfan
    Participant

    Rotol prop blades were made of compressed wood until the end of the war when they changed to Dural.

    DH made hollow steel blades postwar for the big airliner props but AFAIK Rotol never did. It was agreed Rotol would only make props up to and including Dart size and DH would make the bigger ones.

    in reply to: Vickers Warwick #1428242
    dhfan
    Participant

    The only reference I have is the Putnam book. According to that, although not entirely accurate, there is some similarity to the above remarks.
    The two aircraft were designed virtually simultaneously and intended to be complementary. The higher power engines for which the Warwick was designed included the Vulture, Sabre and Centaurus which suggests it was intended to be equivalent to the Manchester. By the time anything in that class was available, the four-engined bombers were already doing the job.
    The Vickers type numbers are 284 for the Warwick and 285 for the Wellington. The book states that the prototype Wellington Mk 1 was effectively a cut down Warwick.

    This proves that I hadn’t read as much of the book as I thought I had!

    in reply to: MAJOR NEW ANNOUNCEMENT #1430031
    dhfan
    Participant

    If you’ve got an SG at a jumble sale price I’d be interested. 🙂

Viewing 15 posts - 1,891 through 1,905 (of 3,092 total)