PA4 at Warton was also a flier. PA5 at Woodford was in a dismantled state already although it previously flown. PA6 can’t have been far away from initial runs. The two development aircraft outside at Woodford, PA1 and PA2, had already been robbed of parts so weren’t particularly airworthy. The third development aircraft PA3 was becoming PA13 as a production aircraft
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I would suggest that you get advice from the medical profession rather than an internet aviation forum. It’s probably nothing to worry about but worth getting checked out I would say.
At the risk of sounding patronizing, I would suggest that you get advice from the medical profession rather than an internet aviation forum. It’s probably nothing to worry about but worth getting checked out I would say.
OK, is there any information at all about the colours the Mk.XIIs might have worn, considering they operated at the very end of the war? Presumably they would have been in the standard scheme of the day with the “7B” code. I’ve found 10 aircraft that appeared to have served with 595 squadron but there seems to be dearth of any other information.
I’m sure I read somewhere that there is a memorial plaque around the area where the engines landed in the crowd. Is this true?
(I can’t get that link to work.)
Apologies. You’ve linked the same item anyway.
What was great about it, apart from the price?
The price part is certainly true.
A few photos taken on Friday afternoon.
PA2 ZJ518
Pa1 ZJ516
The furthest away one is ZJ517 formerly PA3 now PA13? The closest, I’m not sure.
I’m not sure where PA5 ended up.
I find myself in a bit of turmoil over this. I’ve worked at Woodford for over 20 years and to see it in the state it’s in now is heartbreaking. I drove to work on Friday past empty car parks. Never seen that before.
Having said that, I worked on MRA4 from 2003 to 2007 and to be honest, it was the worst project I ever worked on. It was poorly run and it staggered from one crisis to another. Some of the stories I could tell would be scarcely believable. Latterly though, many of the issues were worked through and although I believe it still had some issues, it was very close to being ready. From what I can gather, the RAF guys that were involved were enthusiatic about the aircraft and couldn’t wait to see it in service.
What makes me sad is not that the airframes will be broken into pieces without any substantial parts being saved, but that they are being broken up at all. A project that was within a few weeks of being ready for service being cancelled is, in my opinion, a worse crime than the cancellation of TSR2.
As of now PA1 and PA2 are still out on the airfield. PA5 and PA6 were in finals but have been moved – I don’t know where to. PA3 was in Hangar 5 on the Southside , again I don’t if it is still there. I don’t have proper access but I’ll have a nosey later to see where they are. I suspect they are between hangars 5 and 3A – out of sight of prying eyes.
PA4 is still, as far as I know, still at Warton. It was due to be dismantled partly, taken by road to Woodford where it would be dismantled completely.
Looks like XM603 will outlast them all – who’d have thought it.
The other thing about flying under B conditions I think you will find the hours flown do not count, I know of one USA built exec jet that was flown by the company under B conditions for a year doing trial work before being sold, its hours started from when it was registered.
We certainly didn’t adhere to those conditions. Accurate engine and aircraft logbooks were always kept. All the test aircraft I flew in had proper airframe logbooks. They may have had “proper” G- regs but they were flying under “B” conditions.
As far as “B” class regs, they were required to be displayed in the appropriate places, under the wing, on the fuselage sides and the interior identity placard. The exterior serials didn’t always last the flight though! I once took off in a 125 with G-5-657 on the fin and landed with VP-B something after the sticky plastic flew off.
We tested 146s under G-5 until 30/1/90 when it changed to G-6-
I flew in BAe146-200 E2074 as G-5-074 on 30th Jan 1990 and flew in it again on 1st Feb as G-6-074. From then on all 146s and RJ were G-6. G-11 was used for ATPs and 748s and early 146s out of Woodford. The 125s out of Chester were all flown as G-5.
I think “B” is “B” as opposed to “A” which is fully certificated and registered and “B” which isn’t. I think…
Of course people moan about price rises; their wages aren’t rising to keep up; whether they smoke, drink or not. It’s all very well saying they have to budget or “cut their cloth” or whatever but that is becoming increasingly difficult when people are losing their jobs and those in work are finding that wage freezes are the norm.
Yes, some may have to go without a new TV but they’ll find it difficult to go anywhere without fuel and increased fuel prices mean increases in ALL prices which becomes inflationary etc. etc… and so on.
George Osborne has said that the 20% rate is permanent as far as he is concerned. I gues he’ll need the revenue to pay for tax cuts just before the next election.
Of course people moan about price rises; their wages aren’t rising to keep up; whether they smoke, drink or not. It’s all very well saying they have to budget or “cut their cloth” or whatever but that is becoming increasingly difficult when people are losing their jobs and those in work are finding that wage freezes are the norm.
Yes, some may have to go without a new TV but they’ll find it difficult to go anywhere without fuel and increased fuel prices mean increases in ALL prices which becomes inflationary etc. etc… and so on.
George Osborne has said that the 20% rate is permanent as far as he is concerned. I gues he’ll need the revenue to pay for tax cuts just before the next election.
Now where do I start? I’ll get back to you on that one as soon as I figure out which of their weird ideas is the worst in terms of its effect on aviation safety.
Oh OK. I look forward to reading those.
Because the majority of their new legislation seems to be rule making because they can rather than on the grounds of proof that said rules are actually beneficial to aviation safety,in fact some of their rules are actually detrimental to safety.
Which ones are they?