dark light

Royzee617

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 64 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Royzee617
    Participant

    4th of July!

    What timing! Great pics. Cheers.

    in reply to: Strange high wing monoplane identity unknown #1263801
    Royzee617
    Participant

    merci

    Merci bien Monsieur Moggy!

    in reply to: Earliest Aviation Memory #1266828
    Royzee617
    Participant

    Flying Review

    Another thing has come to me overnight, buying the Observers series on planes, I-Spy books and subscribing to Flying Review International. I think I still have the first issue that came through the letterbox – in 1966. Amazing feat of an F111 flying non-stop with no IFR to the Paris Airshow. Was to be a few more years before they came to UH. Recall reading about their arrival on the headlines of the newspaper I used to deliver ‘The Cron n Eck’ on my Saturday evening paper round, my first ‘proper’ job. Then building a Revell kit which was either the Navy blunt nose F111A or F111B lange nase version – or was it t’other way round?

    in reply to: Flaklands Flypast #2543346
    Royzee617
    Participant

    daft

    I am still puzzled why anyone would get in a Harrier if they knew the PTB had so much confidence in its aerodynamics.

    All aircraft should be designed to have limited controllability after engine failure or flame-out. I am reading Morgan’s book on SHARs in the Falklands and he mentions about landings feeling like balancing on the head of a pin.

    It smacks of a bad design if the RAT was superfluous. I have read of other aircraft (the F4) engaging the RAT and relighting etc. then making it home. Sounds like a Harrier was all or nothing. And it is not as if the engine was extra reliable.

    Rather shatters my impression of the SHAR. Odd that even tho I have read a lot about this plane (including Sharky Ward’s book) I have never heard of this defect. I say again this is IMO ill-matched to the SHAR’s role of distant patrols in fleet defence. Imagine being a hundred miles away from the carrier and the engine quits. That’s it – bang out or die. Unlike its predecessor the F4 or today’s F18, with their two-engine safety margin, a single engine configuration is truly daft.

    I now have even more respect for Sharkey, Morgan and their colleagues.

    in reply to: Earliest Aviation Memory #1267918
    Royzee617
    Participant

    airshows and Heathrow

    This is a frustrating thing to answer. As senility creeps in I am set to pondering when I first saw a plane up close or fly over etc.

    I used to make model planes as a kid, draw them and go to airshows nearby – Henlow, Cranfield, Upper Heyford etc.

    My mum constantly reminds me of my indifference to a day out at Heathrow and how come I am so interested in planes now.

    I didn’t actually get aloft until the early 80s with a flight in a Dragon Rapide at Sywell.

    As a kid I recall seeing flights of Lightnings and Hunters over our school in Towcester, Voodoos etc from UH plus the C97 tanker towing a couple of jets over our house.

    A RAF rescue Whirlwind at Wolverton Carnaval…

    If anything else comes to mind I will return.

    Royzee617
    Participant

    Cheers chaps!

    Thanks for the notification. Be patient because it’ll take us a while to d/l 60 megs and watch it.:cool:

    in reply to: Flaklands Flypast #2544613
    Royzee617
    Participant

    emergencies?

    So what was the pilot supposed to do when the engine failed etc? Eject? That’s daft.

    in reply to: Who has the best Mildenhall pics? #1269295
    Royzee617
    Participant

    slip of a lad then then

    Ah, I remember 28… we went to a lot of airshows back then… married life aint the same, with kids it gets worse. Esp when your son prefers soccer to planes. Could be worse, my nephew is obsessed with buses. We’ve tried everything – ECT, drugs, hammers, porn, etc and nowt works (yet).

    I had one of those Olympus AF jobbies… got one or two good ones. Trouble is where did I put them? Ah yes, here they are in this album… now where did I put the scanner… right, here it is… might as well just photograph the photo’s with the DVC… quality is not perfect but it is quick and they are small enough for this site.

    in reply to: Spotted today #1269330
    Royzee617
    Participant

    merins?

    Is merins your pet name for Mustangs?

    I recall highlights being the pair of P51 tailchasing… oh and the BBMF of course.

    in reply to: Spotted today #1270223
    Royzee617
    Participant

    nice site

    Like your web site… one of the links isn’t working…

    Only a few pix from Little Gransden…? I was there too… might have even passed by each other without knowing. Hope to get there this year too.

    Went to Brize on Saturday and took loads of pix. Maybe some are good enough for Airliners.net…;)

    in reply to: Spotted today #1270229
    Royzee617
    Participant

    ey oop!

    Hi Ollie… remember me from the WW2Aircraft.net site?

    Good to see you are still plane mad.

    in reply to: Who has the best Mildenhall pics? #1270242
    Royzee617
    Participant

    More please

    Good pix… so you must be about twenty somthing then? Might have seen them myself in the 90s…

    I might not have some of the best MAF pix but I have some great video;)

    Had a crappy camera back then tho.

    in reply to: Flaklands Flypast #2545111
    Royzee617
    Participant

    aero and such

    Fascinating – hadn’t thought it through. When you think about the Sopwith Camel etc possibly the pioneer of ‘relaxed stability’ then it is true you want your plane to be as manoeuvrable as technically possible. Life and death as they say.

    I am not comfy with the notional term ‘fighter’ when applied to the SHAR. Call me pernickty but I’d say it is more of an interceptor – given its original role of fleet defence against Sov Bears.

    That said I wonder about the Hawk then. There were 9 +of those chaps up there.

    in reply to: Flaklands Flypast #2545266
    Royzee617
    Participant

    Flaklands vs Falklands

    Sorrry about the deliberate mis-spelling it’s just my juvenile ironic humour.

    I can’t believe they restricted the SHAR like this. Darn, Dan was right. Grr. But what does that tell us about the SHAR’s glide-ability? Hardly sounds safe. Especially when WW2 planes are allowed – by inference the Spit etc have better flight characteristics. Wow.

    in reply to: Dramatic Aussie Black hawk crash Video released #2545271
    Royzee617
    Participant

    BBC

    Those sickoes at the Beeb showed the vid this lunchtime on the news. What hypocrites. Prob would not have got a mention without the graphic vid. And they show it when kids are around…

    Prob be on YT imminently. Seen a crash like this before with a Sea Knight screwing up the approach to the stern of a frigate or some such. Tragic.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 64 total)