Did it land on it’s floats, the prop isn’t bent at all?
Off with his head!
Off with his head!
Did anyone see the History channel program a while back which presented evidence that at least one midget sub was at Pearl during the attack.
The evidence is based on a photo taken by a Japanese Attacking Aircraft which accidentally captured what looks like a midget sub breaking surface, and the trail of a torpedo heading towards battleship row.
The midget subs were known to surface suddenly after torp launch due to the effects of buoyancy and before the crew could trim again.
I’ve read books on the subject and all say that no subs were at Pearl but this image looked intriguing. I guess it’s possible one did sneak in and then subsequently sunk outside the Harbour.
Did anyone see the History channel program a while back which presented evidence that at least one midget sub was at Pearl during the attack.
The evidence is based on a photo taken by a Japanese Attacking Aircraft which accidentally captured what looks like a midget sub breaking surface, and the trail of a torpedo heading towards battleship row.
The midget subs were known to surface suddenly after torp launch due to the effects of buoyancy and before the crew could trim again.
I’ve read books on the subject and all say that no subs were at Pearl but this image looked intriguing. I guess it’s possible one did sneak in and then subsequently sunk outside the Harbour.
What’s it like when the bomb releases?
I would imagine it’s quite a noisy sudden shock when it goes.
BTW what’s a GoPro?
When you restore a Spitfire (or any aircraft) isn’t this just a continuation of it’s history? As long as it’s restored as close to original spec, and with an original powerplant (or close as if none available) I don’t see a problem.
There’s probably very few `original` parts in an original Spitfire anyway in the same way there are very few `original` parts in my Ford Mondeo as when it left the factory.
So what’s the beef?
There’s a lot of anger on this thread (some of which is probably just) but I think we need to look at the positives.
Without the people who put the Vulcan back in the air we wouldn’t have had the opportunity to see her. My sisters kids and my missus have all seen a Vulcan fly for the first time, as I would expect many other generations have. The airframe is preserved and I hope flys again but even if not the potential to be a taxi or museum exhibit is high. Don’t forget the MOD and Government didn’t want her.
If we compare what happened to the vulcan to other display aircraft over the years it’s not an uncommon occurance for `joe cockup` to intervene occasionally, in fact the Vulcan had a minor ****-up compared to some.
When I saw the words `farewell` on her bomb doors man y years ago I never thought 558 would still be around today.
So lets look forward to a swift repair (the engines might be savable) and another year on the circuit.
If she doesn’t fly again I think the airshow scene will be just a little bit more lonelier a place.
No afterburners on a Vulcan, but I do know what you mean if she does fly again then the lets see a spirited display for her last flight, but I hope to see her fly again for at least another year.
No afterburn! What, you mean they set off ALL the car alarms at Weald with normal engines!! 🙂
Dave F86 – The system will involve removing the bags before flight. Its happened successfully on previous occasions therefore its not a systemic failing . The bags are placed there by a human -they are removed by a human -therefore sad to say but the humans failed again!
I think the point being made was that if you make it obvious there is something in the intake it’s less likely to be forgotten.
Why not a pole with a mirror on so you can look into the intakes, or maybe a web cam?
If they do retire her in the future I hope that can do a final `enthusiasts` day with a full afterburn take off!
I remember the, `ground shaking North Weald take offs` in the 80’s and they were something special.
BTW why all the comments for getting her put to rest?
It is rather sad to blow two engines by mistake, but they did get her airborne. I say keep going until they have to retire, then maybe a taxiable exhibit at Bruntingthorpe.
You could always chop up the damaged engines and sell the bits on ebay. Raise some money.
Well at least it’s not a failure of the engines or the aircraft.
Hope they can fix her as I was looking forward to some Vulcan action this year.
Just out of interest why would you have the silica gel bags in the engine.
Is this some kind of corrosion prevention?
Would have thought they would be attached to those red, remove before flight tags or something similar to make them more conspicuous.
I wonder why one of the wheels has a hole drilled out?
If the failure of one engine can cause (and seems to be a common problem) the failure of it’s neighbour is the Vulcan effectively a two engined aircraft in terms of an engine out on takeoff. In other words can it safely take off on only two?