dark light

pagen01

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,966 through 1,980 (of 9,672 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Supermarine Swift on E-bay #1025733
    pagen01
    Participant

    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:)

    in reply to: Supermarine Swift on E-bay #1035900
    pagen01
    Participant

    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:)

    in reply to: Rip RAAF F111's #1026121
    pagen01
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: Rip RAAF F111's #1036346
    pagen01
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: Avro Shackleton WR963 Project Thread #1026192
    pagen01
    Participant

    I just hope that she (along with the rest of the collection) is safe and secure after yesterday:eek:

    in reply to: Avro Shackleton WR963 Project Thread #1036465
    pagen01
    Participant

    I just hope that she (along with the rest of the collection) is safe and secure after yesterday:eek:

    pagen01
    Participant

    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?

    pagen01
    Participant

    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?

    in reply to: Broken Arrow…UK style #1026838
    pagen01
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Broken Arrow…UK style #1037040
    pagen01
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: French use of Jap planes post WW2 over Vietnam photos #1027047
    pagen01
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: French use of Jap planes post WW2 over Vietnam photos #1037205
    pagen01
    Participant

    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

    pagen01
    Participant

    Open house from me again I’m afraid.

    pagen01
    Participant

    Open house from me again I’m afraid.

    in reply to: Phantom Photos #1027219
    pagen01
    Participant

    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!

Viewing 15 posts - 1,966 through 1,980 (of 9,672 total)