Hi Janie,
Glad you liked the pics 🙂 . Stuart is a towered airport on the East Coast of Florida. Not huge, but not small either. I can’t remember the layout, but I don’t remember a lot of trees there (I could be wrong though).
The mountains are stunning to fly over, but I have only crossed them twice in a light aircraft (a C177 Cardinal). In the King Air we are usually well above the ridges unless we are on an approach. ATC keeps you very high when flying to Roanoke from the North. We usually get ‘Slam Dunked’ (as the locals call it here) on the approach in there. On one occasion they kept us so high that we flew through the overhead of the airport some 10000ft above it. The King Air can descend like a brick once you dirty it up though, but it was an interesting approach none the less. It sounds like you had quite an adventure last Summer :). Mountain Obscuration is a real problem over here in the Summer. It gets seriously hazy in between all the Thunderstorms.
Well, there were pax on board for the Roanoke and Florida shots. For the Indianapolis shots we were empty, on our way to pick up a transplant surgical team. The King Airs up to (and including) the 200 are classed as single pilot aircraft, but many customers mandate that there are two pilots, which is where I come in :). The King Air 300 and 350 have a max takeoff weight exceeding 12500lbs, which means they require two pilots and that the crews are type rated.
Thanks for the reply Newforrest. The John Evans I am looking for is definately from the Bristol area. I would put him in his 50’s.
Very sad that we have lost so many this year in one way or another. I am particularly sad to read of Matt Jarvis’ death. I knew Matt while he was a holding officer at Akrotiri in 1994 or 1995. At that time he had completed Toucano training and was waiting for a Hawk training slot. He struck me as a guy who was destined for the top.
Paul Rix – The RAAF Museum ONLY flew the Mustang because they already have another example in store; see posts 7, 8 and 13. It’s not for sale.
All I was saying is that a fully airworthy example is wasted if it is grounded for financial reasons. Especially when, maybe, someone else with the funds could keep it flying(seeing as funding and cost effectiveness are the reasons given for the grounding). These old aircraft have a life of their own when they are flown. The sound of the engine starting, the sound and sight of a takeoff, flyby or landing cannot be reproduced by a static display in a museum. What is the planned use for the Mustang now that the decision has been made to ground it? Is that intended role something a non-airworthy example could adequately fill?
James, I am not digging at you personally. My perspective comes from someone who flys a fair amount. As a pilot I love to fly, and I love to see aircraft flying, in their element. That is why I feel an airworthy aircraft should be flown.
It does seem a real shame to just park an airworthy example in the barn. I am sure there are a lot more unairworthy examples that can sit in the hangar and look pretty. The Museum would probably have cash left over if the Mustang was sold (as an airworthy example) and a good condition (yet deemed unairworthy) example be aquired to be displayed at the Museum.
I think we were making some good progress with this thread. We have a two way dialogue going with ‘Webmaster’ which is a good thing. Lets not spoil the progress made so far by letting this thread deteriorate. It is in everyones best interest to get this all resolved in an amicable and timely manner. At least, that is how I see it..
I think we were making some good progress with this thread. We have a two way dialogue going with ‘Webmaster’ which is a good thing. Lets not spoil the progress made so far by letting this thread deteriorate. It is in everyones best interest to get this all resolved in an amicable and timely manner. At least, that is how I see it..
Well, this thread has at least now got some two way discussion going. Fingers will be pointed (often incorrectly) when the masses are fed limited information on something that is causing a stir. Assumptions are then made based on past experience. Sometimes assumptions are way off base, sometimes they can be very close to home. Colonial Bird, I agree with you that the burden of proof should be on the accuser’s shoulders. At the same time though it is rather difficult to prove anything when the tools and information are not made available to get the proof that is necessary. This whole situation is very sad because it has generated a “Them and Us” divide. If it was a battle of wills between two individuals I would put it down to a personality clash, but it is obvious that there is a lot more to this situation than that.
Well, this thread has at least now got some two way discussion going. Fingers will be pointed (often incorrectly) when the masses are fed limited information on something that is causing a stir. Assumptions are then made based on past experience. Sometimes assumptions are way off base, sometimes they can be very close to home. Colonial Bird, I agree with you that the burden of proof should be on the accuser’s shoulders. At the same time though it is rather difficult to prove anything when the tools and information are not made available to get the proof that is necessary. This whole situation is very sad because it has generated a “Them and Us” divide. If it was a battle of wills between two individuals I would put it down to a personality clash, but it is obvious that there is a lot more to this situation than that.
I’ll be raising a glass to Steve tonight. Probably another to Neil while I am at it. I’d like to think they are up there somewhere discussing the finer points of the Chippy over a beer or three.
I am glad that the Chipmunk display was so well recieved. A fitting tribute to someone I wish I had known in person.
I flew Vigilants for the cadets at Henlow for a while (’98-’99 I think). Great place. I even managed to get a flight in the Queen Bee. That was quite an experience!
Launch Successful!
Launch Successful!