dark light

DC Page

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 312 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: A.380 hits plane at JFK. #486956
    DC Page
    Participant

    I’ll leave the assigning of responsibility or fault to the authorities, but it’s already pretty clear what happened based on what’s been reported so far. The Comair jet never cleared taxiway Mike because their gate area wasn’t clear. Did they alert the controller they weren’t clear? Were they required to? They held short while waiting for the equipment to be cleared with their tail still too close to Mike, at least for an oversized jet like the A380. The AF A380 came along at what appears to be a fairly rapid rate. I have no idea if he was moving too fast, that is for authorities to decide.

    The limiting A380 design factor for use at current airports wasn’t runway length or even MTOW, it was width of taxiways and size of gate areas. There are still areas like this at many airports where the margins are just too close when it comes to the A380. If there had been a fire there would have been nearly 600 people at risk in just seconds. I’ve seen the emergency evacuation test footage for the A380 and I know they passed, but I sure wouldn’t want to be one of 525 people trying to escape an A380 with a transcontinental fuel load, while burning on the tarmac. I don’t like Airbus aircraft for dozens of technical reasons, and while the A380 is a beautiful aircraft I don’t ever want to fly on one. Way too many people on board.

    in reply to: Duxford #1087652
    DC Page
    Participant

    If you judge Duxford by the cafe’s food and prices then you’re bound to be disappointed. Next time pack a lunch. Timing is everything when it comes to how quiet or how busy things are, and as was pointed out it’s not exactly the busiest time of year right now. My best days at Duxford were on quiet days though. Better luck next time, if there is a next time.

    in reply to: Lancaster with Underslung Armoured Car #1087682
    DC Page
    Participant

    The pictures show the M29 Weasel rigged under a Douglas C-54 Skymaster. This was the only aircraft that carried and dropped an underslung Weasel. The C-54 had previous experience with carrying the M22 Locust Tank in this fashion, and even though the Locust was designed to be carried by the C-54, I don’t think it was very practical. The Weasel was easier to rig underneath the aircraft due to the lack of a turret. Broken down into parts, the Weasel still wouldn’t fit inside a C-47, but several were dropped from Fairchild C-82 Packets and many were landed by gliders. The underslung fast-drop snow vehicle was a concept from the 1930’s, and by the time someone actually got around to trying it the vehicles had grown in weight so much that their options were quite limited.

    A request was made to Air Chief Marshall Harris for Lancasters, but he believed they were better utilized dropping bombs instead of tracked vehicles.

    The Weasel was originally called the T-24, I’m not sure when the name was changed to M29. The M29C was the amphibious version, although the M29 would float enough to ford streams and calm waters.

    in reply to: Identity of this post-war Buchon? #1088338
    DC Page
    Participant

    Yes I believe that this is an HA-1109-K1L built in Spain in 1948. It is one of two that were sent from Spain to Germany in mid 1968 where this one was put on display at the Luftwaffenmuseum Uetersen wearing markings of a Gruppenkommandeur of JG2 ‘Richtofen’ for a time. It is now at Berlin-Gatow but you wouldn’t recognize it any more. I don’t have any record of it doing film work in any of its configurations. I believe these pictures are from 1969 or 1970. I’m looking through my files for similar pics that are from 1970.

    in reply to: Amelia Earhart DNA tests inconclusive #1097496
    DC Page
    Participant

    “…resorts to calling someone they don’t even know a moron.”

    How strange that nobody understands that what I was saying was, “If he can call a person he doesn’t even know a con artist, does that make it all right for me to call him a moron?”

    Obviously not. But I was unaware that I had to explain that.

    As for flying an airplane one-handed, that’s hardly the worst I’ve done in the air. (Mr. Page, are you a pilot? Didn’t think so.)

    There you go again, assuming you have all the answers. Why bother to wait for a response when you already know everything, right? And bragging about the bad things you’ve done in the air, that’s the sign of a mature pilot. Don’t bother responding to me, you already know everything and you won’t make it through my troll filter. Have a nice flight.

    in reply to: Amelia Earhart DNA tests inconclusive #1097598
    DC Page
    Participant

    Wow, a person who by their own words admits to flying their plane from Maine to New York with a broken arm or “one-handed” resorts to calling someone they don’t even know a moron. Impressive.

    in reply to: United grounds all 757s #499793
    DC Page
    Participant

    Looks like they waited until the last minute to comply with AD’s they had known about for years, that affected nearly 100 aircraft. Great management skills.

    in reply to: Liberator 'Ticket home' #1129042
    DC Page
    Participant

    I have some info regarding a 2nd Lt. Daniel L. Rock, and the data included mentions an aircraft named “Ticket Home” that flew 34 missions between 11 August 1944 and 27 November 1944. I’m not sure if this is a B-24 or if it is related to the aircraft you are looking for or not. I’ll see if I can find any more details.

    in reply to: Grumman built them tough.. #1133303
    DC Page
    Participant

    That’s McDonnell Douglas.

    in reply to: Propeller type indication (Civil B-24) #1134361
    DC Page
    Participant

    For clarification, the first picture is of G-AGZI (AL557) later SX-DAA. The second picture is G-AGKU (AL547) at Sydney while in operation with QEA.

    in reply to: Propeller type indication (Civil B-24) #1134405
    DC Page
    Participant

    Alex,

    Most B-24/LB-30/C-87 types had some variant of the Hamilton Standard 23E50 prop with 6477A-0 blades. G-AGZI (AL557) and G-AGKU (AL547) were somewhat different in that they were built for the RAF and weren’t lend/lease aircraft from USAAF production. As such they were built to RAF specs and weren’t like most aircraft built by Consolidated at that time. They were built with an enlarged nose, widened tailplane and Curtis Electric props with long hubs. I’m not sure what changes they went through in civilian life but since there were only 140 Liberator II models built for the RAF, this version would have been a very rare subtype when you consider there were more than 18,000 B-24 type aircraft produced. Some of the RAF Liberator II’s were armed and some were delivered unarmed as LB-30 transport variants.

    in reply to: How the 'ell did he fly that home!!(old thread 2006) #1139058
    DC Page
    Participant

    The aforementioned B-52 with no tail fin:

    On January 10, 1964 Boeing test pilot Chuck Fisher and a three man Boeing flight crew were flying this B-52H on a low-level profile to obtain structural data. Over Colorado they hit clear-air turbulence and lost the vertical tail. Six hours later they landed safely at Blytheville AFB in Arkansas.

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=192206&stc=1&d=1296414974

    The IAF F-15D mentioned in post #8 landed at 260 knots and its arrester hook was torn off, but it was able to stop just short of the arrester barricade. This aircraft had 5 kills to its credit and was repaired and returned to flight. The pictures on the right side that show it on the ground are IAF photos and are authentic pictures of the aircraft right after it landed. The pictures on the left side that show an F-15 flying are digitally edited film that The History Channel used to tell the story since no actual footage of the damaged F-15 in flight have ever been released, or claimed to exist.

    in reply to: FHC´s (Paul Allen´s) Fw 190 A 5 maiden flight #1145627
    DC Page
    Participant

    Thanks for sharing another thumbnail Mr. Allen!

    in reply to: FHC´s (Paul Allen´s) Fw 190 A 5 maiden flight #1147848
    DC Page
    Participant

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I never said it wasn’t his money and his planes. I never said he couldn’t do what he wanted with his planes. I never said it was a crime. Just disappointing that the FHC website has been up for years and they only put up very small pictures of their collection. Everyone can’t make the trip to Seattle to see these pieces of history and I don’t think it would drive business away by putting up a few average sized low resolution pictures of their collection, on the contrary I’m sure it would create more interest and more people would want to come to his museum. If he wants to keep them hidden away in a warehouse or not put up any pictures that’s his right, I have no say in the matter.

    But I can still say I think he’s stingy with photos of HIS airplanes. Or is that a crime?

    in reply to: FHC´s (Paul Allen´s) Fw 190 A 5 maiden flight #1147856
    DC Page
    Participant

    His money, his planes, he can do whatever the hell he wants.

    Thanks for the detailed explanation, very insightful. Thanks.

Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 312 total)