dark light

Lindy's Lad

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 1,493 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Civilian Harrier operating in the UK #1123018
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    LISTEN!!!! Rules and regulation amendment will NOT make an aircraft type safer. The decision by the COMPETENT authorising body is not just a case of ‘its my trainset’. Its a measured decision based on FACT taken by competent and experienced people .

    In Britain, there is no such thing as a ‘sterile’ area.

    in reply to: Civilian Harrier operating in the UK #1123094
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    As has been said plenty of times before, the CAA rules are not set in stone and can be amended provided that suitable justification is provided. In the case of a civilian Harrier, you cannot provide the following:

    1. The aircraft is supported by a suitable engineering body, ie. the Design Authority
    2. The Engine is supported by a suitable engineering body, ie. the Design Authority
    3. The aircraft had a satisfactory safety record in service. Usually excludes combat losses, or those losses as a direct result of combat maneuvres (ie. high speed low level CFIT
    4. The operating company is deemed as suitable – past experience with a similar type, or expertise on a similar type.

    As far as the categories go, the CAA employ engineers to come up with these rules. They are not designed by beaurocrats but by the people who operated these aircraft in front line service. Do not think that operating an aircraft for airshows is safer than operating an aircraft for any other purpose. It will cause the same amount of damage if it crashes.

    The CAA will let you fly a harrier, BUT you must prove that it is safe to do so. Sadly with that aircraft type, you cannot.

    edit: comparing the CAA to the FAA is a bit odd. Take the engineering license as an example. If you have an EASA B1.1, you can convert to an FAA equivalent with the addition of a couple of module exams (legislation) and suitable experience. To convert an FAA license to an EASA B1.1, you must do ALL modules and have relevant experience.

    in reply to: Flapless flying?! #528909
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    Its an interesting concept if you think about it for a large commercial airliner.

    Multiple engines could provide redundancy (bleed air from flight engines and APU).

    Hydraulic systems could be vastly reduced in size and complexity, but would still be required for undercarriage and braking systems.

    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    each component will have a stamp. Each assembly will have a stamp at various stages of its construction. The short answer is thousands.

    in reply to: Civilian Harrier operating in the UK #1127684
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    As I understand it –

    The harrier has manual controls, or at least a manual back-up control system (Sorry I’m Tonkas, not palstic pigs…). It also does not feature a reheat or afterburner system. In essence, it probably wouldn’t come under the ‘Complex’ aircraft category. With that in mind, the CAA could be swayed to allow a civilian one to fly.

    However, its loss rate is high. Its unservicability rate is high. The support for the engine would not exist. This would persuade the CAA NOT to allow civilian flight.

    The short answer would be for someone with a bucket of cash and a FEASIBLE action plan to try. As they say up north, ‘Shy Bairns get nowt’.

    EDIT: Given the following posts, move the flying controls directly into the reasons why harriers cannot fly in civvie hands! Told you I was Tornados…. :)… I always thought that the GR3 had control rods….

    in reply to: The XH558 Discussion Thread (merged) #1132250
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    have you ever been involved in trying to attract major investment to anything? You can’t just hold the buckets out for that level of cash.

    They are TRYING to get sustainable income. You all complain when they wave the bucket at you, and then complain when they avoid askng you to donate.

    Grow up – its a charity. Charities often spend huge sums on promotion in the hope that they will gain long term investment from it. Now is probably a good time since we are apparently emerging from the recession and Sir Jack Hayward may be feeling generous again.

    The answer is simple – if you don’t support this project, don’t donate. Just don’t complain about its fate when its life actually does run out. If the aircraft appears at an airshow where you are (inevitably complaining about Sally B’s or BBMF’s running costs) don’t look at it. If you feel that you could be a better project manager than Dr Bob, then construct a business case and take over.

    Its the same arguements over and over again. Pease silence this broken record.

    in reply to: another amazing bargain !!!! #1132304
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    A two year old carriage clock…. hmm. I may have to move last year’s special edition Diana + Charles wedding tankard from my limited edition IKEA shelving unit.

    It’s got harriers on it – it’ll break VERY quickly and at vast cost to the purchaser. Its also got a Vulcan on it – which means it will make a very public and expensive entrance, before fading into obscurity….

    I’m in a bad mood today – can you tell?

    in reply to: Quick Q for Vulcanologists – Why was Vulcan u/c black? #1133026
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    Loony. I draw your attention to the data sheet for Aeroshell fluid 41 OM15 in RAF circles…

    “AeroShell Fluid 41 is dyed red for identification and leak detection purposes.”

    http://www.transair.co.uk/product4.asp?CustomerID=12000020&ACBSessionID=y8JEn5QJcfiU95izKn2r&SID=2&Product_ID=9058

    Spill it on a black surface and you can barely see it, but spill it on a white surface and it’s not scarlet red but see-through and slightly pink… try it. I’ve been covered in enough of the stuff to know what colour it is…

    Irrespective of the subtle shades of mineral hydraulic fluid, the Vulcan’s legs were certainly NOT painted black to aid the visual idetification of hydraulic leaks. Perhaps you discovered such mechanical failings through the magical use of smell alone. If so, I applaud you…..

    in reply to: What's this WFU A/C at the closed Nicosia airport? #1133696
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant
    in reply to: Quick Q for Vulcanologists – Why was Vulcan u/c black? #1133947
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    black is the worst colour for showing hyd leaks. The fluid used is a translucent red/pink (OM15) and shows up best against white….

    in reply to: P-51 replica crashes at Reno #1134101
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    According to the manufacturer’s website, they will be back in production soon

    in reply to: Seen On Ebay Thread #1144820
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    If its value is nil, why is it on e-bay and not donated to IWM?

    in reply to: PS915 @ Henlow (from a distance), 15/09/10 #535551
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    From an artistic composition point of view, its great – very atmospheric. It seems everyone these days is capable of taking a photograph which shows every tiny detail of an aircraft but never enough sky…

    in reply to: Gate Guardian for Leconfield?(old thread 2008) #1145381
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    Reminds me of a Leconfield legend, i’d assume in the 1950’s:

    AOC was due to visit so the entire station was lined up on the apron. As the AOC set up on finals in his meteor, the whole ensemble turned to watch. AOC then nose-dives into the ground at the runway threshold and the remains of the aircraft turn into a fireball. This was bad, but what was worse is that the whole compliment of station fire crews were also on parade in their best blues half a mile from the nearest fire engine….. I’d have loved to see the SWO’s face…..

    in reply to: Gate Guardian for Leconfield?(old thread 2008) #1147173
    Lindy’s Lad
    Participant

    restored at Fort Paul, Hull. This thread is 2 years old…. 😉

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 1,493 total)