Personally I think Christopher Plummer was so rubbish in the film that they should have thrown him out of the Spitfire and let the dummy do the (over)acting. 😀
Re: Where Eagles Dare question
Originally posted by Moggy C
Question: Were these genuine airframes or not?If genuine, it seems a bit wasteful.
Wasting perfectly good, lovely old aeroplanes never seems to bother films luvvies though does it. The sight of those Mosquitoes being crashed and burned in 633 Squadron still almost kills me everytime I see it. 😡
Originally posted by JDK
The only rule to remember is “Will you be understood?” If not, change it.
I agree that the most important thing is to get the point across, but it still irritates me to see “to” used instead of “too”, “there” used instead of “their” or “could of” instead of “could have” etc., etc., etc. (I could go on for hours!).
It doesn’t take any longer to get these things right than it does to get them wrong.:mad:
Yeah the Gnat’s nice if you like toys:D , but that real aeroplane in the background is more like it 🙂 🙂
Originally posted by Dave Homewood
(ie making TV ad with Warbirds and a French lingere’ model)
One can never have too many lingerie models 😉 😀
I watched the programme last night and found it fascinating.
The three things which really struck me were the incredible amount of wood and other materials needed to build the tunnels, the sheer ingenuity of the prisoners in manufacturing items from almost nothing and, above all, the guts and determination shown by the tunnellers in digging through such dangerous ground.
I’m not especially claustrophobic but I certainly wouldn’t fancy it!
Well done Channel Five. BTW the programme on Hitler’s Bunker immediately before it was interesting too.
Herbert – anything of any use on this webpage?
Originally posted by Eric Mc
… The problem is that once this happens, the yoke is no longer useable – the presumption being that the pilot will not be around to want to use it once he has decided to eject.
Great story and you’re right, the yoke certainly isn’t useable afterwards. There is an explosive “snatch unit” (ooh, er!) fitted to the elevator control tube which actually breaks the tube allowing the yoke to be ‘snatched’ forward, and away from the pilot’s legs, under the pressure of a (strong) spring. So even if you could overcome the pressure of the spring and pull the yoke back you ‘d have no elevator control anyway.
I’d always assumed aileron control was retained though – although the yoke would be jammed against the instrument panel making it a bit tricky to use of course! Maybe someone else (LesB ?) can confirm/refute my assumption?
Have checked and apparently it’s being “renovated” not scrapped!
Must be a hell of a renovation if you need a big skip nearby:D 😀
Me too!
Originally posted by “1stThings1st”
Has anyone come across any photos of this NY Concorde, following heavy snow this winter?
Well these photos were taken last Saturday (28th Feb). They had about 19″ of snow five weeks ago which, as you can see, had all melted by the time I got there.
G-BOAD wasn’t protected from it in any way but I don’t suppose it would do any more harm than the “wet” environment she’s constantly residing in now. The Concorde ‘exhibit’ isn’t actually open to the public yet so I certainly hope andrewman is correct and that they will build some sort of roof over the top.
Stringbag – Scimitar piccie from Intrepid as promised. Sorry it’s not up to much and apologies for those pesky people spoiling the view – it was quite busy that day so this was the clearest shot I could get.
I still can’t imagine what the FAA Museum were thinking when they swapped this rare aircraft for a Phantom (which they later got rid of) – seems that Intrepid came out on top in that deal.
The Scimitar just looks so out of place amongst the American aircraft on Intrepid’s flight deck, and it hasn’t even got a tail number painted on 🙁
Stringbag – Yes, I’ve got one shot of the Scimitar. It’s not a very good one I’m afraid but I’ll post it when I get home this evening.
OK, this is an extract from the “Handling” section of the Attacker F.1, FB.1 & FB.2 Pilot’s Notes. Paragraph iii id the most relevant to the original query I suppose and does seem to illustrate the difficulty in raising the tail on such an aircraft…
“Take-Off
(i) Taxy forward a few yards to straighten the tail wheel and engage the tail wheel lock.
(ii) Open the throttle smoothly to take-off r.p.m. There is no tendancy to swing but should it be necessary, small changes in direction may be made by careful use of the brakes until the rudder becomes effective at 50-60 knots. Note – If it is necessary to check any of the engine instruments, this should be done against the brakes prior to take-off.
(iii) The elevator forces to raise the tail are very heavy, but this may be done at 75-80 knots. With full internal and external fuel, the aircraft may be flown off at 105-110 knots. At maximum take-off weight the aircraft should be flown off at 115-120 knots.
(iv) Brake the wheels before raising the undercarriage which, to avoid the risk of damage, should be locked up before the speed reaches 190 knots. Slight lateral trim changes may be felt due to one leg retracting before the other.
(v) Raise the flaps a few degrees at a time, retrimming carefully. There is a very strong nose-down change of trim on raising the flaps. This is particularly strong if they are raised at high airspeeds.”
Hope this is of interest.
Scott, I think you are referring to the small blisters on the extreme nose just behind the radome? If so these are the threat warning receivers added to the Swiss Hunters as part of their many upgrades. There are a similar set mounted each side of the tail bullet at the junction of the fin and tailplanes.
The “sabrinas” that Glen referrs to are the link collectors, which were a feature of almost all Hunters, although the Swiss extended them rearwards to incorporate chaff and flare dispensers.