dark light

dhfan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 901 through 915 (of 3,092 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: First supersonic aircraft to takeoff and land #1365979
    dhfan
    Participant

    If we are talking level flight, and a jet, it may have been the F100A,
    or the Lightning.
    I seem to remember reading that one of the British “V” bombers went supersonic in a dive.
    If so, that must have been a thrilling ride!!!!!!!

    It was a Victor. Accidental it is said. 🙂

    Largest aircraft to go supersonic at that time.

    in reply to: Approving Junk. #1365996
    dhfan
    Participant

    Can’t argue with most of this and I personally believe Issigonis should have been shot, not knighted, for designing the Mini. However, dropping the engine to change the gearbox oil is gibberish. The gearbox was in the sump and shared the engine oil. Unfit for purpose, 20W/50 is not gearbox oil.

    in reply to: RAF Airfields – Help needed please!!! #1367770
    dhfan
    Participant

    I have extremely limited knowledge of Wellingtons, and even that’s an exaggerration.

    However, the one in the background I believe to be a Mk.X and the one in the foreground probably isn’t…

    in reply to: Battle of Britain – British technology #1367885
    dhfan
    Participant

    Stupid me. I have just realised something else that may be relevant to your project. Namely, the intuition used to decieve technology. I refer to the utilisation of more natural elements to overcome the technological advances. Specifically, the use of Navajo Indians (or more correctly, First Nation) radio operators for the Americians and Welsh radio operators for the RAF etc to prevent the opposition, with, at the time, high quality radio listening devices, from knowing what was being said in the air. And it worked.

    A valid point (and seriously devious :D), but I’m not sure it’s relevant to the BofB period.

    in reply to: Battle of Britain – British technology #1367950
    dhfan
    Participant

    If memory serves me correctly Dowding was in receipt of Ultra decrypts during the Battle of Britain, these with many other factors helped shape fighter commands strategy for the Battle.

    The early work on the German enigma ciphers had been carried out by code breakers in Poland prior to the German invasion in 1939, this pioneering work was destined to be continued at Bletchley Park.

    A point you should remember is that versions of the Enigma coding machine were in use by all branches of German armed forces, not just the navy!

    It’s been quite a while since I’ve read any books about Ultra, so I can’t be precise but, I don’t think it was of any major importance at that time.

    IIRC, the BofB period was at the beginning of the decrypt successes. There was no guarantee the signals could be read in time to be of any use, rather than later in the war when there was a steady flow of intelligence from Ultra.

    The naval signals in particular were more of a problem as the Kreigsmarine Enigma machines had an extra encoding wheel.

    The contribution of the Poles was hugely important. They were the first to acquire a complete Enigma and copy it. Without referring to various books, I can’t remember now how far they got with decrypting the signals before Poland was overrun.

    I’ve just re-read your original post while waiting for the forum to refresh. Is it me or is it REALLY SLOW tonight?

    In my personal opinion, the biggest blunder the Luftwaffe (Goering) made was switching from attacking the airfields to cities. Although they (he) didn’t know, it was on the verge of bringing Fighter Command to its knees.

    in reply to: Battle of Britain – British technology #1369887
    dhfan
    Participant

    Stanley Hooker’s work on the Merlin supercharger could also be relevant.
    Biggest difference between the Spitfire Mk.I/II and Mk.V IIRC, 30% more power at altitude.

    in reply to: Spitfire Mk II #1370836
    dhfan
    Participant

    Have the Fireflies at Duxford got short Griffons? Not that it would necessarily help to measure the airframe dimensions but the engine would presumably give a rough idea.

    in reply to: RAF Hednesford – Wellington and Spitfires #1375216
    dhfan
    Participant

    Could the Wellington be the Hendon T.10 or were there still dozens in service then?

    in reply to: Most Produced Aero-Engine? #1377370
    dhfan
    Participant

    Somewhere around 100,000 in this country I think. I have read how many Packard produced but can’t remember now. I don’t think it’s enough to beat the Twin Wasp.

    I guess there’s at least another dozen Merlin-powered aircraft that haven’t been mentioned, starting with the Hurricane. 🙂

    in reply to: 5 mile runway in the UK #1377716
    dhfan
    Participant

    I’ve had a look through Action Stations 6.
    It says there was considerable discussion about connecting Thurleigh and Little Staughton with a very long runway. It also says there was a move afoot to build a huge Maintenance area at Twinwood Farm and connect it to Thurleigh with a wide taxiway. This was supposedly for the Brabazon.

    Looks like Vicky 10’s quotes may have come indirectly from Action Stations.

    in reply to: 5 mile runway in the UK #1378277
    dhfan
    Participant

    Me too.
    I wonder if it might be in the relevant Action Stations? I’ll have a look later, when I’m nearer to them.

    in reply to: Most Produced Aero-Engine? #1378301
    dhfan
    Participant

    Twin Wasp sounds a good contender.

    However, some Russian aircraft, as opposed to engines, had fairly astronomical production figures. Was there a widely used engine across several aircraft?

    in reply to: Heads Up BBC One – UK 7.00 pm Friday 17 Feb #1378676
    dhfan
    Participant

    He got one wrong, the name of the airfield where the Spitfire entered service with 19 Sqdn. He said Hornchurch.

    I thought he did very well.

    in reply to: XL391 Support #1380826
    dhfan
    Participant

    I would suggest as the owners don’t want another aeroplane – you’re crackers. 🙂

    in reply to: Wellington Bomber Mystery(2006 thread) #1384240
    dhfan
    Participant

    Actually the Wellington and Warwick were two different designs with different Vickers Type numbers – the Warwick was larger and appeared later too. Can’t say I’ve heard of operational Wellingtons with mid-upper turrets though.

    If you’d read the above linked thread you would have found the following:

    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 prototype Wellington Mk 1 was effectively a cut down Warwick.

Viewing 15 posts - 901 through 915 (of 3,092 total)