Pierre, would you be interested in an english translation for your site? Seems to me you could use any help, and the english speaking part of the world could make a major contribution.

Pierre, seriez-vous intéressé dans une traduction anglaise pour votre site ? Me semble vous pourriez utiliser n’importe quelle aide, et la partie Anglophonee du monde pourrait faire une contribution majeure.

A fully restored T-33 (in working order), a licence to operate it from the Netherlands with paying passengers atached to the front-seat console. Some spares would be nice too. 😀

On second thought: A pre-WW2 Fokker would be kind of neat. Imagine a G-I or T.8W in flying condition! :rolleyes:

Speaking of Marshall’s and Dutch Hercs: How are those doing? Aren’t they supposed to be delivered very soon? I have yet to see any photos of the two ex-USN EC-130Qs in a (near) airworthy condition.

On both aircraft the useful range is about the same. As preiously stated, once you reach the horizon you begin to loose tracks. Although the full range on both is classified, I can tell you that in the 1980s and 1990s (before the upgrades to NATO and USAF AWACS) the range was sufficient to cover all (exept for the lowest flying/ground hugging targets) of NATO Europe with only 3 E-3 Sentries. Surveillance-wise in an empty airspace that is, if you want to cover all radar targets and add fighter control you would need more.

The limiting factor on the E-3 and E-2 is not the radar, but the data handling. On the E-3 for instance, you could not track more than some 500 targets simultaneously (again: this was before the upgrades). During/after Deliberate Force USN E-2s gave me a similar air picture as NATO E-3s gave me. To me, the crews made the difference: E-2s were limited to surveillance only (reporting targets) or surveillance with limited fighter control (only 3 mission crew), while E-3s provided Command and Control, surveillance and fighter control during the same mission. Having said that: the Hawkeyes always showed up if an E-3 had a ground abort, and there was no immediate replacement Sentry. The USN really made an effort to be available when needed.

Considering that the Tristar is a hose only tanker and the C17 uses a boom socket (which are not maintained by the RAF) it would be a bit difficult. The only RAF type that can tank off boom equipped tankers is the E3D Sentry (apparently RAF Sentry crews prefer tanking off American tankers using the boom).
.

It is not a matter of preference, but of offloading speed. The boom was designed to offload large quantities of fuel in the shortest amount of time possible. SAC (then the owner of virtually all tanker aircraft) operated the big ones, such as strategic bombers and cargo aircraft. KC-135s have 5 different speeds to offload their cargo, with (IIRC) speed #5 for bombers and C-5s (and since its introduction the E-3) and speed #2 for fighters such as F-16s (and if fitted with a dogue USN aircraft). If you would offload the fuel to a Sentry with a drogue it would take forever, as the speed would be equal to the settings used for fighters: drogues cannot offload any faster than that.
(this according to a boom-operator of the Hawaii ANG I flew with out of Geilenkirchen years ago)

Hurrah!

Good on the Dutch! With the US machine which is now airworthy again, that makes the vast, breathtaking number of TWO DC-2s flying world wide. Thoroughly appropriate that one’s in the USA, the other in Holland. Given the low numbers preserved, it would be great if another was to return to the sky.

Who knows, one day, we might get to see ‘Uiver’ and the DH-88 in the same sky once more…

Err… I thought there were only 4 DC-2 airframes left in the world, half of which at Lelystad, the other half on poles in Oz, and one of them airworthy – also at Lelystad. Where’s this 2nd airworthy example located?

Hi,

Some more images.

Regards, Bauke

Brilliant! I see they saved the “Dirty Diana” tail, that stirred quite a commotion some years ago.

For the uninitiated: some years ago at the RNLAF Open House at Leeuwarden AB, this piece of art (while still fitted to an operational F-16) did not wear a red shirt. The top brass didn’t quite like that, so a technician was ordered to put some clothes over her, or the aircraft was to be removed. While still on display her looks were changed to what you can see here, much to the amusement of many onlookers.

Actually there were two tails: one at Leeuwarden, and one at Goose Bay. I’m not quite sure which tail was where, but here is one of the original tails, as painted on F-16A J-248:

(Artwork by Peter van Sticht)