dark light

stonesfan

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Inside Orient Thai's 747… #548793
    stonesfan
    Participant

    Its not just age that is a factor here. Just total neglect.

    A spanking new 777 would soon look pretty shoddy if it was not serviced and valeted properly.

    in reply to: Why has the Tristar not been that enduring? #549581
    stonesfan
    Participant

    It could be said that the Tristar was the last jetliner to be built that ‘looked good’?

    Although I guess looks are personal viewpoint…..

    Yes the Tristar is a very attractive big jet,lots of good looks. I flew to the Falklands and back in the 1980’s. Shortly after they had opened Mount Pleasent airport.It was an ex Pan Am L1011-500,now with 216 SQN RAF. For all you Tristar fans the RAF Tristars are still doing sterling work supporting UK forces all over the globe. They are very flexible, operating in the same roles as the other RAF beuty the VC10! The tanker Tristar can give away 3 times the avgas of a VC10, to keep the fast jets on station.

    in reply to: Why has the Tristar not been that enduring? #549717
    stonesfan
    Participant

    I believe civilians can actually fly to the Falkland Islands on one of these still?

    Does anyone know what rules were applied to the Tristar (and DC10 for that matter) when operating over large areas of ocean? Were they any different from ETOPS?

    Maybe someone with authority can also state what a double engine failure would have meant for a tri-jet? Could it have limped along with one engine?

    Stonesfan, Take a trip to Brize where the RAF are still flying their 30 odd year old ones, as Passenger/freight and Tanker variants :diablo:

    in reply to: More DC-10's in the U.K? #549993
    stonesfan
    Participant

    Hi, sorry, posted in wrong thread! Thanks for answering, have restored to own topic.

    Admin could you please move this answer to my posting about the 1011. thanks 🙂

    Tristar was delayed by the Rolls Royce RB211 problems and MacDag were able to step in and offer great deals on sales…..with their butt ugly/inferior DC10.
    Tristar looked better, better airframe, far better avionics. But it missed out, to many peoples loss.
    The other factor being that the avionics were ahead of their time and were an expensive bit** to mend.

    in reply to: Top Gun -The Movie Versus Reality #2466999
    stonesfan
    Participant

    Top Gun? Cheesy, over the top, but good fun and the air combat scenes stand up well considering they are over 20 years old. Far better than crappy old CGI……

    in reply to: F1-11 Maximum range possible…. #2467974
    stonesfan
    Participant

    On the plus side of the F-111 would have been its much lower fuel flow, therefore requiring less tanker support.
    The critical issue wasn’t actually the fuel consumption of the Vulvan, but the fuel consumption of the tankers. More potent tankers (like a DC-10 based KC-10) would have drastically cut these requirements.
    All aircraft in that mission operated with turbojet or very early low-bypass turbo-fans.
    The only operational aircraft that could have performed the mission with payload and without aerial refuelling (aside from top-up after take-off for safety reasons) was the B-52H.

    Was it a mixture of Victors and VC-10s?

    I believe the Tristar 500s were still operating for BA at the time? Their range is pretty impressive.

    in reply to: F1-11 Maximum range possible…. #2468862
    stonesfan
    Participant

    What is an “F1-11”?

    Oh give over! I thought it was only railway forums that stooped to levels of pedantry like this 😉

    Thanks very much for the information though. I guess the answer seems to be ‘no’ then!

    My historian friend was mentioning that had we had a few squadrons of F111s then it maybe would have deterred Argentina from invading in the first place. Maybe this is not quite correct then.

    But a few large Aircraft carriers with Buccaneers and Phantoms, maybe!

    in reply to: BBC FIGHTER PILOT, JOHN MCREA #2475096
    stonesfan
    Participant

    What a great series! I only watched the entire DVD, put together by the chap on youtube a few weeks ago.

    Agree totally about the selection process at Biggin Hill, with a good deal of the prospects harping on about ‘lifestyle and fast cars’ etc. Surely they werent really that naive? But then again, most were barely out of, or still in their teens.

    Was interesting following the fortunes of those who managed to make it through the Officer training and then onto flight training. The candidate who found it ‘all too easy’ and set ridiculously high standards ended up eliminating himself firstly from Pilot training, and then from Navigation training. On the other hand, there was the candidate who could do all parts of his flight circuit well, except landing. You do feel for him as he is given ‘the chop’.

    I believe 3 of them ‘make it’ in the end. One just about passes the exam and is deemed suitible for transport aircraft and ends up flying a Herc. Another does fairly well, but not well enough to be considered ‘fast jet’, and ends up flying the Canberra. And lastly, John Mcrea does very well and is put into the Front line in a Buccaneer.

    Would love to see another up to date remake of this series, although I do seem to recall the beeb and RAF falling out bigtime after this. Anyone remember why?

    stonesfan
    Participant

    Agree with the Tornado F3. But I’d have like to have seen it given a mid life engine power upgrade to give it some real welly and an improvement in its aerobatic performance. I always felt the F3 was slightly underpowered for the role it was built for…….

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)