Bruggen you might be right with the specifics of the F-86 (I’m in no position to check at the mo), but I was possibly generalising a bit in that sentance.
The Swift was certainly the first to embody swept-wings, reheat, and the flying tail all in one design for the RAF, I think the F.4 was the first variant to bring all of these features in one airframe into service, all be it in a restricted operational manner (not that unusual in those days!).
It did pave the way for successful service of the FR.5, not to mention give the RAF some experience of operating aircraft with these innovations.
At the very least it was the first British fighter to combine these ideas, and this F.4 is the last remaing example of it.
Cracking shot of WK281:)
Bruggen you might be right with the specifics of the F-86 (I’m in no position to check at the mo), but I was possibly generalising a bit in that sentance.
The Swift was certainly the first to embody swept-wings, reheat, and the flying tail all in one design for the RAF, I think the F.4 was the first variant to bring all of these features in one airframe into service, all be it in a restricted operational manner (not that unusual in those days!).
It did pave the way for successful service of the FR.5, not to mention give the RAF some experience of operating aircraft with these innovations.
At the very least it was the first British fighter to combine these ideas, and this F.4 is the last remaing example of it.
Cracking shot of WK281:)
As part of the purchase contract (for the above 19 ) we had to dispose / destroy the aircraft to US standards.
All very good, and an interesting piece, except that burying aircraft isn’t the US standard way of disposing of airframes.
I still think dr Strangeloves’ theory on this is the nearest to the truth!:D
As part of the purchase contract (for the above 19 ) we had to dispose / destroy the aircraft to US standards.
All very good, and an interesting piece, except that burying aircraft isn’t the US standard way of disposing of airframes.
I still think dr Strangeloves’ theory on this is the nearest to the truth!:D
I just hope that she (along with the rest of the collection) is safe and secure after yesterday:eek:
I just hope that she (along with the rest of the collection) is safe and secure after yesterday:eek:
Fascinating stuff yet again and thanks for finding and posting Jared.
I didn’t think British designs were so well covered on that site.
I’m not sure that much info would have been fed back from the A.W.52 at that stage, apart from perhaps some wind tunnel data, it didn’t fly until late ’47, that with the 52G glider had a far more moderate sweep back on the wing.
With the degree of sweepback shown in this project I wonder if some data came from the G.A.L. flying wing gliders?
The whole layout seems to share a striking resemblance to the swept wing Shorts PD.1 (?) project which the SB.4 Sherpa tested the wing design and isoclinic control system.
I wonder why the standing ‘lookout’ position was deemed as necessary?
Fascinating stuff yet again and thanks for finding and posting Jared.
I didn’t think British designs were so well covered on that site.
I’m not sure that much info would have been fed back from the A.W.52 at that stage, apart from perhaps some wind tunnel data, it didn’t fly until late ’47, that with the 52G glider had a far more moderate sweep back on the wing.
With the degree of sweepback shown in this project I wonder if some data came from the G.A.L. flying wing gliders?
The whole layout seems to share a striking resemblance to the swept wing Shorts PD.1 (?) project which the SB.4 Sherpa tested the wing design and isoclinic control system.
I wonder why the standing ‘lookout’ position was deemed as necessary?
Date is wrong if it is, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=113367
I think this was an F-100 which was carrying a thermo-nuclear device which suffered a ground accident on January 16, 1961.
Date is wrong if it is, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=113367
I think this was an F-100 which was carrying a thermo-nuclear device which suffered a ground accident on January 16, 1961.
3 Ki-43 ‘Oscar’, ‘D’ Armee d l’Air (?)
4 Aichi E13A ‘Jake’ 8.S.1, Aeronavale’ L’escadrille 8S
6 same Aichi as above
According to Wiki the French used eight E13As.
good list of Japanese types operated by other forces here, http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/jinforeign.htm
3 Ki-43 ‘Oscar’, ‘D’ Armee d l’Air (?)
4 Aichi E13A ‘Jake’ 8.S.1, Aeronavale’ L’escadrille 8S
6 same Aichi as above
According to Wiki the French used eight E13As.
good list of Japanese types operated by other forces here, http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/jinforeign.htm
Open house from me again I’m afraid.
Open house from me again I’m afraid.
Re the ex FAAM, thanks Dave.
Re the unique paint hue (and your earlier point about flight gear) on the F.3s I seem to remember the same explanation as the one that you have given here.
However I have a poor history when it comes to paint topics!