dark light

pagen01

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 9,672 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • pagen01
    Participant

    Ill apologise now for being a total lamen, is there a short way of explaining this :o……

    My understanding is for what it’s worth,
    When the Harrier engine reaches a certain temperature it deliberately restricts the power settings so as not to get too hot which could damage internal componants. Water is sprayed in which cools the hot gas flow and the componants, more fuel can then be introduced again to safely the power. This is most useful for very short and vertical take offs, I believe an extra 1000 hp is gained this way with the Pegasus.

    in reply to: Tudor Powerplants/props #945947
    pagen01
    Participant

    The Tudor did share the wing and the basic nacelles, similar four bladed propellers, and undercarriage assemblies of the Lincoln, though it used civil certified RR Merlins, and one example, the Bristol Hercules.
    The Shackleton used the same basic Lincoln wing as above, but was powered by the higher powered RR Griffon, the contra-props were needed to absorb the extra while keeping the overall propeller diameter down (thus maintaining the original Lincoln engine positioning), this also had benefits in allowing the widening of the fuselage, and bomb door opening width without penalty.
    I’ve always assumed that the Tudor as built never needed the extra power, and as it was dropped by the nationals fairly quickly any planned variants were shelved and as such never needed the extra power or contra props.

    Noise from the contra-props was a problem particularly for the crews of early Shackletons before sound proofing mods were introduced.

    pagen01
    Participant

    John Farley mentions (on prune) topping up with normal water from local fire vehicles when operating away at shows etc – guess you wouldn’t want to do that too regularly

    in reply to: Shackleton control wheel centercap #947535
    pagen01
    Participant

    Not seen one fitted before Andy, thanks for correction.

    pagen01
    Participant

    DH Trident and a few others had water injection & Concorde had reheat all of these systems were civil certified.

    Surely a very different situation, they went through considerable type testing supported by their respective constructors for certification to the register.
    I can’t think that many orgaisations could even think of doing that level of work for very low numbers of permit to fly aircraft.

    The Harrier did only use water, methanol mix not being required.

    in reply to: St Athan. Not open to public collection of the 1990s #947691
    pagen01
    Participant

    Just occured to me what a well engineered wing fold the Percival Procter had, what was the reasoning behind it?

    in reply to: Shackleton control wheel centercap #947693
    pagen01
    Participant

    I would concur with MR.1/T.4 by the shape which is more Lancaster like than the later variants.
    The only version that seems to have a centre cap as such is the MR/AEW.2 which had a domed plain cover.
    My favourite is the MR.3 captains wheel which has a yoke within a yoke for the nosewheel steering.

    in reply to: India 1920s #947703
    pagen01
    Participant

    All I can add is what lovely pictures and thanks for sharing, they are definitely Bristol Fighters.
    5 & 20 squadron were in India performing Army Co-operation work with Brisfits from the early 1920s, and were later joined by 28 & 31 sqns with the type.

    pagen01
    Participant

    The lack of design authority support for the Lightning & Harrier (and their engines) is possibly the bigger hurdle than just the safety record for the CAA, for example the Vixen had mods done to satisfy their requirements for safely operating in UK skies.
    Aircraft are looked at their complexity in construction as well as in their maintenance, and historically the type of accidents that occured to them where a common weakness may be found.

    My understanding (and willing to be corrected) is that Buccaneers can fly in the UK, just a matter of HHA (or another operator) having the requirement to fly them.
    BTW who is the DA for the Buccaneer?

    in reply to: St Athan. Not open to public collection of the 1990s #948594
    pagen01
    Participant

    Fantastic shots Si!
    I take it the Battle is L5343, which was recovered by a team under Flt Lt Erik Mannings?

    in reply to: St Athan. Not open to public collection of the 1990s #948886
    pagen01
    Participant

    Here’s Quepees’ thread, http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=107830 some good pics of the Heinkel 111, Beaufighter, and dumped Shackletons at Saints.

    in reply to: RAF Swanton Morley in the late 1960s (Revived thread) #949082
    pagen01
    Participant

    Grumman AA-5? Lovely pics Quepee.

    in reply to: St Athan. Not open to public collection of the 1990s #949092
    pagen01
    Participant

    The Canberras look like part of the seven ex FRADU Canberra T.22s that were stored for a few years at Picketston, shame a whole one didn’t survive – Spitfireman here has the cockpit section of one.
    I can’t find any Argosy listed into the 1990s, though 4 SoTT did have at least one for a while, maybe the other one was in use with the paint apprentices.

    in reply to: St Athan. Not open to public collection of the 1990s #949291
    pagen01
    Participant

    It was definitely on show at RAFM Cosford (next to the Me262), unsure if it’s still there or not.

    in reply to: St Athan. Not open to public collection of the 1990s #949643
    pagen01
    Participant

    Here’s a link to the St Athan collection, http://ciapoldiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/St%20Athan%20Museum
    Includes listing of all the aircraft held there, but also interesting reading in its own right, I never new about the RAF Spitfire gateguards all ending up there, which Robs’ pictures possibly show.

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 9,672 total)