dark light

XN923

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 1,083 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Canberra retirement #1295069
    XN923
    Participant

    Nice info on these birds, thanks Dave. If any of you are simmers, and are getting too nostalgic for some PR9 action, I have done a few 39 Sqn Canberra repaints of late. Here are a few hemp schemes to whet your whistle:

    http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a218/nazca_steve/eye%20candy%20Cans/grab_001.jpg

    Don’t know if this floats your boat, but at least these old classics will still get some action after the 29th July 🙂

    Would it be too pedantic to point out that to properly represent the PR9 you will need to extend the wing centre sections so the chord is the length of the engine nacelles?

    Thought so 😮

    in reply to: Sea Fury VR930's starboard roundel #1299445
    XN923
    Participant

    If you have a particularly narrow field of vision, at least you would be able to tell which direction it was flying in just by looking at the mid-section….

    Sorry, it has been a tough week….taxi!

    …Unless the aircraft is flying inverted.

    Very tough week.

    in reply to: Sea Fury VR930's starboard roundel #1299864
    XN923
    Participant

    Taken at Duxford in May last year

    The red circle in the top photo does look a bit big compared to the lower one, or is it just me.

    Brian

    At a guess I’d say someone was painting a type ‘B’ roundel before realising their mistake. It is a touch on the big side though. We should call the decal police – where’s G-NATY when you need him?

    in reply to: Will it be at Legends???? #1300017
    XN923
    Participant

    I think the real question is whether the container should be made airworthy ,and loose most of its originality; (rebuilt from its ISO plate upwards) or should it remain in its original condition as a static display, although if left out side ,the British climate…..

    I don’t care about that as long as they don’t paint it is a spurious colour scheme.

    Anyway, I’ve heard that they are just going to remove the front doors and scrap the rest.

    in reply to: The Wyvern #1300019
    XN923
    Participant

    Westland Wyvern

    Scimatar, the Wyvern at the FAA museum is one of the original TF1 models which used the Rolls Royce Eagle 24 cylinder H configuration piston engine. The production S.4 had a number of differences, not least of which was the Armstrong Siddeley Python turboprop. The centre of the fuselage was raised to afford better view over the nose and the fin was increased in size to improve directional stability. It had a very drawn out development mainly due to powerplant issues – the two ‘first choice’ engines were cancelled.

    This fantastic beast is undergoing a bit of a revival at the moment – 4+ publishing have issued a slim book on the aircraft, which is aimed at modellers, but has loads of good photos.

    in reply to: Twin Ramjet Powered Monoplanes #1300244
    XN923
    Participant

    So a Motor bike with two wheels is a bicycle? It has a bicycle configuration, but it is a motorbike.

    And isn’t ‘bike’ an abbreviation of ‘bicycle’? Isn’t the technically correct, if archaic, term ‘motor-bicycle’.

    in reply to: Twin Ramjet Powered Monoplanes #1302667
    XN923
    Participant

    Just bought the re-issued Airfix Bristol Bloodhound kit from my local model shop. Nice to see the fantastic retro Roy Cross artwork, but it appears Airfix have gone in for retro instructions as well. The background blurb states:

    ‘The Bristol/Ferranti Bloodhound is the surface-to-air guided missile system selected by the R.A.F. for the defence of the United Kingdom and is now in service with Fighter Command’.

    Perhaps they should have updated the text sometime between 1969 and now!

    That said, it’s quite a nice kit and a welcome return. It includes not only the missile and launch stand but a series 2 Land Rover, ground crew, security detail and dog!

    in reply to: More taxing Naval Aviation Questions #2055754
    XN923
    Participant

    Without checking, I think 4) is 800 Sqadron, flying from HMS Eagle and I think their mounts would have been Fairey Flycatchers – unless you mean RNAS?

    …Although another source said it was indeed 800 squadron, but on Hawker Nimrods and HMS Courageous.

    800 was also the first naval squadron to see action – a Skua from Ark Royal forced down a Dornier flying boat in December 1939 which was then destroyed by gunfire from a destroyer (after the crew had been taken off!). It is widely (and apparently falsely) claimed as the first enemy aircraft destroyed in the second world war (it was the first confirmed but a Heinkel destroyed by Hurricanes in Scotland before this was later confirmed as the first to be destroyed).

    RNAS? No idea.

    in reply to: More taxing Naval Aviation Questions #2055815
    XN923
    Participant

    Without checking, I think 4) is 800 Sqadron, flying from HMS Eagle and I think their mounts would have been Fairey Flycatchers – unless you mean RNAS?

    in reply to: fantastic gannets #1305020
    XN923
    Participant

    My model of a COD4 will have to do.

    in reply to: Sea Harrier FA2 – a modern-day F6D Missileer #2584079
    XN923
    Participant

    You got that right; now we are expected to believe the Type 45’s are as good at providing air cover as the scrapped Sea Harriers were.

    I can’t help feeling we’ve been here before. At the risk of getting this thread moved to Historical Aviation, the first time the British fleet with aircraft carriers present was attacked by enemy bombers in the Second World War, the fighters were moved to the hanger and their fuel tanks drained to minimise fire risk in the event of bomb strikes!

    in reply to: confirmd kills #1310553
    XN923
    Participant

    As I understand it, for fighters the enemy aircraft had to be seen to be destroyed (i.e. blow up, break up, hit the ground) or the pilot be seen to bail out, either on cameras or confirmed by a third party to be confirmed. If your claim was on fire and diving vertically at the ground, but you didn’t see it go in, it can only be counted as a probable.

    For bombers, whoever claimed it was awarded it, leading to massive over claiming.

    in reply to: (Zombie thread from 2002) 558 hopes dashed ? #1311631
    XN923
    Participant

    Sorry, I don’t believe you.

    If you really mean that it could be the start of a good idea.

    Advertise your eye teeth on e-bay, stating clearly what the money will be used for.

    Push out press releases to all the TV stations, radio, newspapers and add some viral marketing. It is the sort of story that will get lots of coverage

    You’ll almost certainly end up being interviewed at which point you can expose the appeal to a vast audience.

    Once the winner pays up it’s off to the dentist you go.

    Now let’s hear the excuses.

    Moggy

    Moggy, if by having some teeth removed I could gaurantee the Vulcan would fly I would do so. I would even let you name the teeth.

    in reply to: Sea Harrier FA2 – a modern-day F6D Missileer #2584694
    XN923
    Participant

    Which fighter exactly is slower at those altitudes? A Phantom can go M1.2 in low-level, surely no pleasure. A fighter would always come from above and not pursue the attacker same level. Considering the missions in 1991 Gilf War a Buccaneer with upgraded avionics would have performed similar to the Tornado most of the time.

    An F4 may well be able to do Mach1.2 at 500ft, I doubt it could at 150ft. Most aircraft can’t tolerate supersonic speeds at very low levels. Buccaneers used to carry a delay fuse bomb as a defensive weapon against fighters chasing them that low.

    What exactly? Land vertically? Of course, that was its rationale. However, the Argis did not exactly throw aircraft against the Harrier, they threw aircraft against the British fleet and did not care about the Harriers.

    They can change direction faster than anything else in the sky at ‘dogfight’ speeds, a function of the vertical landing capability. Only with thrust vectoring and what have you are the latest breed of fighters getting close to the Harrier’s ability to stop in mid air or step neatly out of the way.

    I do enjoy arguing with you Schorsch.

    in reply to: (Zombie thread from 2002) 558 hopes dashed ? #1311846
    XN923
    Participant

    Let’s all stop being so bloody defeatist!! …At the end of all this, if we are successful, you can look at her as she blasts your eardrums to bits as she powers skyward and smile in the knowledge that you helped to put her back where she belongs. If we fail, you get your £20 back to go nd console yourself in the boozer. Look at it that way and it doesn’t seem too much to give up does it??

    Hear hear. I’m happy to try and I’m very glad this is being done. I understand the opinions of those who are more circumspect but on the other hand I would give my eye teeth to see/hear/feel a Vulcan flying again. As I don’t think VTTS are accepting donated teeth, I will have to let money and support do the talking. If it doesn’t come off I’m still glad they tried. I’m sorry for any other projects that might suffer as a result but a flying Vulcan could raise the profile of preservation and ultimately attract more money to it. We have to consider the possiblity that the finite pot of money doesn’t have to be that finite in the end.

Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 1,083 total)