dark light

dhfan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 3,092 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #275069
    dhfan
    Participant

    I wonder how much of the result, apparently largely due to the older generation, is due to the fact that the electorate was never consulted on whether we should join a European Union.
    We were asked 41 years ago if we wanted to remain a member of the European Economic Community, commonly known as the Common Market.

    Successive governments have signed up for everything since without asking Joe Public’s opinion.

    I voted to remain in the Common Market. I don’t recall voting to join a European Superstate – and I’m pretty sure I would remember something that important.

    in reply to: Death of the Airshow #848473
    dhfan
    Participant

    RIAT was at Cottesmore two years running due to resurfacing at Fairford. 10 – 15 years ago?

    in reply to: 80 Spitfires? #909277
    dhfan
    Participant

    BM597 Duxford November 2005 after Merlins over Malta.

    in reply to: The 1000mph Barrier #909973
    dhfan
    Participant

    It’s always bugged me that with two FD2s to choose from, it was the record-breaker that was rebuilt as the BAC221.

    in reply to: Harleyford books… #856122
    dhfan
    Participant

    I hadn’t realised until this thread that my copy of “Spitfire…” was an MAP reprint. I’m not sure I even consciously knew they owned Harleyford.
    As it was bought around 1980 from the DH Museum, it had to be a reprint.
    My “Lancaster…” is an original though – charity shop about 5 years ago.

    I haven’t looked at Mark’s link yet so this is probably old knowledge now.

    D.A. Russell was the publisher and/or editor of Model Aircraft magazine in the 50s and 60s. IIRC, it was then incorporated into AeroModeller which is presumably when the Harleyford brand came into the MAP range.

    in reply to: Bad designs #875021
    dhfan
    Participant

    Re TSR.2: without delving into various tomes to be absolutely certain, IIRC the resonance on the first flight was due to the early ‘not really cleared for flight’ development engines, nothing to do with the airframe, and was expected. What wasn’t expected was that the frequency would be exactly right – or wrong – so Bee Beamont couldn’t see.
    The undercarriage problems, I think, were due to the 180° rotation required and took some solving but aircraft after XR219 had an extra link. As they never flew, who knows…

    in reply to: Vickers Valiant Tribute -1st Of The V-Bombers #904749
    dhfan
    Participant

    I need to consult various tomes to confirm but IIRC George Edwards suggested to the Air Ministry, or whichever Dept. it was, they could have an aeroplane not quite as good but a lot quicker to be going on with.

    in reply to: Vickers Valiant Tribute -1st Of The V-Bombers #904874
    dhfan
    Participant

    I’ve always liked the look of the aeroplane, I was very happy to see it when it was at Hendon.
    Powerplants aside, isn’t it WWII-level technology or at least aerodynamically with it’s orthodox construction (something that can’t be said of the Victor, Vulcan, B-47 or B-52)?

    That was the idea. Not as advanced as the Vulcan or Victor but adequate capability as a stopgap and much sooner/cheaper.

    in reply to: The Ugliest Mosquito #876132
    dhfan
    Participant

    No, it’s just ugly!

    With three links or pictures in seven posts for the TT.39, (and one in agreement) we appear to have a runaway winner.

    in reply to: The Ugliest Mosquito #877430
    dhfan
    Participant

    I disagree, the TT.39 was a fully-fledged eyesore.
    There are a only few others readily found, fortunately, with a search but here’s one
    http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/8581L.jpg

    in reply to: Legends, The Show Report live and after #930857
    dhfan
    Participant

    I thought the commentary was excellent this year. It seemed to be at a lower volume, but that could have been me making sure I wasn’t right in front of a speaker, and it wasn’t continuous.
    I don’t get as irate as some on here but my main beef about M. Chabbert is that he never, ever shuts up. To actually hear the display was great.

    in reply to: World's first multi-role combat aircraft? #888456
    dhfan
    Participant

    I think probably at that time all two-seater aircraft were multi-role as nobody had the faintest idea what role(s) aeroplanes could play in wartime.

    in reply to: World's first multi-role combat aircraft? #888669
    dhfan
    Participant

    As D1566 said, Bristol F2 fighter. It’s post #44 in the Mosquito/Beaufighter thread.

    in reply to: Mosquito vis-a-vis Beaufighter #895178
    dhfan
    Participant

    Mosquito Tr.33 navalised torpedo bomber and strike aircraft. About 50 were built post-war…

    There’s an echo in here. Post #39.

    Ordered Jan ’45 but first delivered for squadron service November ’45 so cancelling the balance is logical. TR.33 had the thimble nose as pictured, TR.37 bullnose similar to the NF.30.

    Putnam’s Naval and DH, Sharp’s DH History and Bowman’s Mosquito all say 18″ torpedoes so 15″ in “Mosquito” could be a typo. I can’t find any mention of testing anywhere (so far) but by that stage of the war I hope they were past ordering aircraft just in case they worked so presumably there were trials.

    in reply to: Mosquito vis-a-vis Beaufighter #895695
    dhfan
    Participant

    A further scan through Sharp & Bowyer finds “a salvo from a 6″ cruiser” as opposed to a broadside. So many people, including me, remember broadside that it must be in print somewhere.

    I can find virtually nothing about the Sea Mosquito, I’ll have to try some different books. One of the few mentions in there is of it carrying a 15″ torpedo which I didn’t even know existed, I assumed they were all 18″ so I obviously know even less than I thought I did about torpedoes.

Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 3,092 total)