dark light

XN923

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 1,083 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Proctuka in the air #1316362
    XN923
    Participant

    Maybe a moot point now, but how would it have been possible (then or now) to certify these very heavily modified “Proctucas” for flight? Please no CAA bashing here, I’m just curious.

    Also for example, there was a Harvard at North Weald in the late 80’s that had been modified to represent a Zero for the film Tora Tora Tora in the USA, including a 3 bladed prop, rounded wing tips, and a single seat canopy glazing. Would this have retained its american “Experimental” certification while in the UK? This was also a modified from standard type.

    The Proctor’s wings were removed, a new, cranked, centre section built and the original wings reattached at considerable dihedral. I think this alone tells you why they might not have been the most sturdy or pleasant contraptions to fly. Points for effort though! While the mods to the T6/Zero would have had an aerodynamic effect, there was nothing that mucked about with the structure in quite the same way! Last time I looked, the centre section was quite an iimportant component.

    in reply to: Firefly WB440 #1316369
    XN923
    Participant

    Does he offer a dustpan and brush to collect it in as well??

    in reply to: Best online model shops #229472
    XN923
    Participant

    Hi guys my local model shops called it a day,so i need your advise on the best online model shops.
    thanks in advance
    dave

    My personal favourites:

    For plastic etc. scale:
    http://www.hannants.co.uk
    http://www.models2u.co.uk
    http://www.kingkit.co.uk

    For free flight etc.
    http://www.samsmodels.co.uk (or .com)
    http://www.atomicworkshop.co.uk

    in reply to: Sea Harrier FA2 – a modern-day F6D Missileer #2587464
    XN923
    Participant

    Not quite. The FA.2 still holds some reserves for WVR combat. No pilot really wants to go within visual range, especially not in dogfight range, because you tend to lose oversight here. In combat gainst most aircraft, especially at lower altitudes, the Harrier will be inferior in top speed manouvers but equal for lower speeds. A Harrier FA.2 was designed under the impression of the Falklands, which identified the threats for the Britisch fleet as fighter-bombers and long range bombers. Both would not be in the mood for a clash against the Harrier. Against land-based fighters on air2air missions the Harrier would not be competitive. After all, it is a stop-gap measure for a stop-gap carrier.

    Again, not quite. The comment above notes rightly that the FA2 pilots want to play to the aircraft’s strengths. The Blue Vixen is the only targeting radar designed around AMRAAM, consequently it is the most effective for this missile currently in service. The Sea Harrier proved in the Falklands and in numerous exercises against other NATO air forces that in a dogfight it can more than hold its own, even against land based air superiority fighters like the F15 and F16. Other recent articles about the phasing out of the SHAR reflect this and note some of the unique tactics employed by SHAR pilots in combat to considerable effect.

    in reply to: First supersonic aircraft to takeoff and land #1318880
    XN923
    Participant

    Alot of these speed records set by America are a bit of a cheat don’t you think! I mean Rocket power V Jet… :rolleyes:

    ‘Thank you, do I leave through here…’ 😮

    Absolutely. And machine guns are not a gentlemanly way to wage war, and these submarine-boats are only fit for pirates!

    I do think that a distinction should be made between aircraft like the FD2 and the X1A though – the former was a proper aircraft which could take off and land under its own power and could manouevre adequately, even well, throughout the performance envelope. The X-planes were only built for going huge speeds in a straight line, had to be carried to their operational altitude and had run out of fuel by the time they landed. Not much use for anything other than breaking records.

    I think that is the point of this thread isn’t it? The first ‘proper’ aircraft to go supersonic, research and production – I think we have to mean ‘officially’ as well which rules out dubious Me262 claims and plausible, if uncorroborated, XP-86 claims. Which I believe still leads to the XP-86 on both production and research counts, though I would have to check to be sure that the DH108 didn’t sneak ahead of it. The DH108 is still credited in some quarters as the first jet to break the sound barrier.

    in reply to: First supersonic aircraft to takeoff and land #1318929
    XN923
    Participant

    🙂

    Fairey Delta 2 (FD2)

    The FD2 was the first aircraft to exceed 1,000 mph in level flight.

    In the late 1940s Britain was trailing far behind in supersonic aircraft design. To try to rectify matters the Ministry of Supply issued a specification for a supersonic research aircraft to investigate flight and control at transonic and supersonic speeds.
    The FD2 was a single-seat, delta-winged aircraft powered by a Rolls-Royce Avon engine with an afterburner. To improve the pilot’s forward view during landing, taxiing and take-off, the cockpit and nose section could be hinged downwards by ten degrees, a feature later used on the Concorde.

    There were two FD2 aircraft built. The first FD2 #WG774 was flown on it’s on its maiden flight by Lt Cdr Peter Twiss on 6 Oct 1954. On the 10 Mar 1956 Twiss set a new World Absolute Speed Record of 1820kph (1132mph) between Ford and Chichester in Sussex, UK.

    This beat the old record by more than 300mph which was quite an achievement considering the old record had only been set the previous year by an American F100 Super Sabre.

    Interesting Fact: The Fairey Marine Motor Cruisers company manufactured boats called the Huntress and the Huntsman 28. These were used in the James Bond movie From Russia with Love. The ‘bad guys’ boat was driven by Peter Twiss, driving one of the other boats was former Fairey Marine sales director Charles Currey.

    Huraah… 😉

    I met Mr. Twiss at an event at the FAA museum earlier this year, what a fantastic gent. Sounds like flying the FD2 through the course was like trying to thread a needle at near-Mach 2, but Twiss did it and made it sound easy! It’s still the biggest margin the record has been increased by – astonishing given how recently the previous record was set.

    Incidentally, though the FD2 was the first aircraft to take the record through 1000mph, the first aircraft to exceed that speed in a straight line was either the Bell X1A or the Douglas Skyrocket, I forget which. I wonder if either of them could have displayed the necessary manouevrability at that speed to have flown the FAI record course though?

    in reply to: Rigid airships: R-100/101 and Hindenburg #1319467
    XN923
    Participant

    Thought this thread would enjoy the attached photo I recently purchased.

    Not sure if it is a published image but it came from a private estate sale.

    Cheers,
    Troy

    That’s some photo!

    As far as bits of zeppelin are concerned, my Grandad had a small brooch in the shape of a zeppelin which was made from a piece of aluminium from the L33 when it crashed in 1917. I think my parents still have it.

    in reply to: First supersonic aircraft to takeoff and land #1319587
    XN923
    Participant

    by 1948 the XP-86 hadn’t topped Mach 0.937 if it helps

    I read somewhere recently that the XP-86 officially went supersonic a little after Yeager did (i.e. days). Can’t remember the source, sorry, so would need checking out. BTW ‘Sound Barrier’ by Neville Duke suggests that R. Beamont was the first Briton to break the sound barrier and did so in the XP-86, but confusingly, the date given for this is after John Derry went supersonic in the DH108.

    RIP Scott Crossfield.

    XN923
    Participant

    Bloody hell another dead thread brought to Life!

    TT

    …But now it’s back…

    I’ve not seen the Sea Vixen in the metal yet (planned to go to Biggin Hill last year only for my Dad to hold his retirement party on the same weekend, grrr!) and would dearly love to do so (and when I do I can express an opinion on the colour scheme, so as to keep things on topic) – anyone know when/where it is planned to display this year?

    in reply to: Rigid airships: R-100/101 and Hindenburg #1324629
    XN923
    Participant

    And the R101

    Nice pics. The top one looks like R100 to me although the one underneath is definitely R100.

    I often wonder what it must have been like to see the big ‘tween wars rigid airships flying. Films showing these ocean-liner sized things hanging in the sky looks surreal, stately, unbelieveable. With helium and modern materials I imagine it would be possible to build ‘ships the size and speed of the Hindenburg et al, but I also imagine it would be rather impractical.

    in reply to: Rare veiw of pre war Kenley Aerodrome. #1331196
    XN923
    Participant

    I’m always interested to see anything to do with Kenley as I did my first solo from there about thirty years ago in a Kirby Cadet Mk.111.

    What, if any, public access is allowed these days?

    As far as I remember anyone’s allowed to wander round the runways and perimeter track but the buildings (those that are still there, not many) are fenced off.

    in reply to: Worlds oldest serving combat aircraft #2597293
    XN923
    Participant

    The original post suggests ‘aircraft’ rather than ‘type’ – so does this mean the oldest operational airframe? I gather that, although the An-2 is an old design, a large number were built relatively recently. I imagine the same to be true of a large number of MiG copies etc. and other licence built designs. I.e. the ‘upgraded MiG 21s and F5s’ of the original post. I’d be interested to know what the ages of the C-47s still in service were – when were the last ones built?

    This raises different questions as well – do you go by the serial of the aircraft? I.e. the Martin-Baker Meteors started out as T Mk. 7s but later had the F Mk. 8 tail and rear fuselage added – quite a large section added later (though still relatively old).

    in reply to: Rare veiw of pre war Kenley Aerodrome. #1331266
    XN923
    Participant

    I have just found this old post card of Kenley Aerodrome. I thought I share it with the forum as I have never seen this photo within any publication that features Kenley.

    As far as I can tell the photo was taken prior to 1933, as the 1917 barrack huts are still extant, these were later replaced by more sustantial brick built barrack blocks.

    If you’re ever in the area its well worth taking a walk around the perry track.

    Septic

    Thanks for this. I used to work not far from Kenley and occasionally cycled over there at lunchtime. Often wondered what it looked like in its prime.

    in reply to: Tom Cruise's P-51 #1331943
    XN923
    Participant

    As for his love life: His hangar at SM had a HUGE NZ flag on one wall

    Maybe we’ve hit on the reason Nicole walked…

    in reply to: Film Star Tigers #1332742
    XN923
    Participant

    I was tempted to say have you got any pics!! 😀 But we might get removed by the moderators!!

    I did have one from the front of The Observer magazine from about 1997 involving the estimable Ms Scott-Thomas, underwear (and not a lot of that) but I don’t know what happened to it!

    (Keeping things just within topic, it was regarding an interview about The English Patient which was a film that had a flying Tiger Moth in it…)

Viewing 15 posts - 796 through 810 (of 1,083 total)