That stick must be smarting, BIO, why not take it out and loosen up.

Because any change like that would have required full testing and clearance (an asymmetric weight might, theoretically, have some FCS implications). The guns were being purchased anyway, so were fitted to Tranche 1 jets in lieu of designing and clearing special ballast, but were not to be supported, or provisioned, so loaders and ammunition were not purchased initially. It was planned to procure Tranche 2 without the gun, but this now seems to have been changed.

The rationale was that in the WVR environment, the effectiveness of ASRAAM (a missile that most assuredly ‘rocks’ and which is fully integrated) rendered it superfluous.

It is for A-G use (where the sudden shift of emphasis to low level CAS is biting) that the gun has been restored, and not for A-A use.

It will be interesting to see whether, now they have a fully-supported, operable gun, the RAF Typhoons actually practise A-A gunnery, or whether (since the weapon is intended for strafe only) only A-G gunnery is practised.

Rob L,

Congratulations, you’ve found a view of Rafale that makes it look butt ugly. That’s not easy.

I think Typhoon looks best from directly above – it has a lovely plan view. Rafale looks great from almost anywhere in front of the six-nine line, and is the prettiest of the contenders from a frontal aspect. The F-16XL looks good from above. The Gripen is the best looking jet from all angles.

1) when was it built?
From the late 40s to the early 50s.

2) it looks like it is based on an airliner…that right?
No, it was the anti-sub/maritime recon derivative of the Lincoln bomber, which was in turn derived from the WW II Lancaster. The variant in your pic is an AEW2, a converted patrol version equipped with a Gannet/Skyraider-type AEW radar.

3) how many operators did it have in total?
The maritime aircraft had a crew of 10-11, two pilots, a flight engineer, two navs, three AEOps and two signallers.

4) was it well loved by it’s crews?
Extremely! Even the tricycle undercarriage MR3, which had auxiliary turbojet engines in the back of the inner nacelles

5) what roles did it fill (I know the E-3 took over from AEW in the RAF, but wasn’t it a Navy plane?)
No, it was never a Navy aircraft – though it would have been in the US. It was designed for ASW and maritime patrol, and flew in that role until replaced by the Nimrod in the early 70s. A handful were then converted as interim AEW aircraft following the withdrawal of the RN’s fixed wing aircraft carriers, and these flew on until replaced by E-3D Sentries.

6) was it a capable AWAC system?
It was adequate, over water.

7) when was it retired and who was it’s last operator?
No.8 Squadron retired its last Shacks in 1991.

Heh heh heh……

The serious point is that there are plenty of conflicting claims for the first flight, and accepting the Wrights’ claim as being the most valid is fraught with difficulty.

Any serious, open-minded student of aviation would give equal credit to Cayley, Wenham, Lilienthal, Pilcher, Chanute, Maxim, Langley, the Wrights, and Santos Dumont as the fathers of heavier than air flight.

So how’s life in the real birthplace of aviation, BIO?

I’m always amazed that a Yorkshireman, from Brompton Dale, should be so US-centric in his comments on this board.

http://www.flyingmachines.org/cayl.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cayley

Sustained, controlled, manned flight in 1849…… manned, heavier-than-air flight by an adult in 1853. 50 years before the Wright Brothers!

Yorkshire – Birthplace of aviation.

No, amateurs make entirely false claims, saying things like:

“The A330 was more expensive; but more importantly, it was too big for the runway size of many NATO bases.”

Amateurs believe what Av Week tells them, because they read it in Aviation Week.

Amateurs ignore the fact that the A330 can take off with full fuel from an ICAO standard balanced 10,000 ft runway, where a KC-767 would need 12,000 ft, and would still be carrying less fuel to offload. When the UK was looking at both types, the -767 was marginal at Brize under certain conditions, where the A330 was not. Which aircraft is too big for NATO runways, again?

Professionals give accurate fuel offload figures for the three competing types on a typical towline task, operating from a representative 10,000-ft runway, on a typical four hour sortie (with one hour’s fuel for diversions/reserve).

The KC-767 has just 50,000 kg to give away to receivers, or 64,800 kg given an unlimited runway. By contrast, the the A310MRTT has 45,500 kg of fuel available to offload (but can offer 5,700 kg more if a fifth ACT is fitted), and the A330MRTT has 82,500 kg.

The operating costs per flying hour, support costs, etc. are commercial in confidence….

Italy selected the 767 because it offered invaluable work for Aeronavali, and to fit the hangars at Pratica di Mare.

Of course Airbus gets domestic military orders. And launch aid, sometimes. The difference is that Boeing likes to present itself as a private company, living on its wits in a free market, and conveniently forgets the KC-135, E-3, E-6, E-8, E-10 orders that have effectively acted as state subsidy.

The key point is that whatever else it may be, the KC-767 is the second (sorry, third) best tanker available. That will (or should) be of concern to those who think that US servicemen should always get the best that money can buy, or to those who want to see the most efficient and effective USAF tanker force, but it will not worry those who see a wider picture – who see benefit in keeping Boeing’s industrial capabilities, and who might value Boeing jobs in Seattle/Wichita more than they value Northrop jobs in Mobile, etc.