dark light

BIGVERN1966

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,051 through 1,065 (of 1,215 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: fantastic gannets #1305677
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    What happend to the one that was at Sandtoft (AEW3 if memory serves), Its been almost four years since I’ve been up that neck of the woods. (The Mods suggest that somebody started a Gannet Thread, so well done mate).

    in reply to: Twin Ramjet Powered Monoplanes #1305901
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    They had a monoplane configuration, but they were not monoplanes.
    In the same way that the Su-37 had three sets of control surfaces and were described as having a triplane layout, they are not actually triplanes. (indeed only the main wing is full span so it isn’t even a bi plane, but a sesque plane).

    I found this a flying model site, they don’t carry pilots and may not have undercarriage but they are still classed as monoplanes,

    19.2.1. The Easy B model shall be a monoplane covered with any commercially available material sold in sheet form. Microfilm is not allowed.

    The term MONOPLANE actually means a single wing surface used as the primary source of lift. Hence the SU-37 is a MONOPLANE, as is the BLOODHOUND and the BOMARC.

    End of subject as far as I concerned.

    Anyhow as i stated on another thread, Bristol’s started up a Guided weapons division in 1949 and the first year and a bit was spent on studies, the MoS had originally asked Bristol’s to look into a follow on to the Sea Slug being developed for the Royal Navy. The first thing Bristol’s did after putting the team together and finding a company that would do the electronics side of the project (Ferranti) was go around all of the UK research establishments and find what was the state of the art in Guided Weapons R+D. Bristol’s (looking at Aerodynamics and propulsion) and Ferranti (Radar and Electronics) were not impressed with what had been done since the war. The exception as far as Bristol’s were concerned was a department at RAE that was working on ramjets. The other was a proposal by TRE that was put to Ferranti’s on the use of CW Dopper radar in tracking the target. Ferranit knew that the technology at the time would not be up to the job, but they decided to start a Pulse SARH program to fit in to a project of an auto tracking Gun laying radar that was being developed for the British Army, (with the intention of using the equipment as a guidance radar for any SAGW that was developed). They started a CW project in late 1951, that was to save Bloodhound ass in 1957. The Bristol team decided to go for ramjets and won a contract for a (Ram)Jet Test Vehicle that had been designed by RAE. Along with the JTV project, a study was started on a Multi Ram Jet Weapon (MRJW). the originally design was called the MRJW 410. The 4 standing for the number of Ramjets and the 10 being the diameter of the ramjets in inches. The 10 inch ramjet size was chosen as it was the biggest that could be bench tested in the UK at the time. The attached drawing is a scan from a draft document of the MRJW study from mid 1950, and could be one of the very first sketches of what became Bloodhound. As you can see, had this design ever gone into service, Bloodhound could not have been called a Monoplane and I’d be Quad Ramjet Powered Thing Fixer instead. ๐Ÿ™‚

    in reply to: fantastic gannets #1306088
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    last night i watched a program on discovery about a fantastic but almost forgotten ex-FAA aircraft…the fairy gannet..what a beautiful beast they where..i never knew that these aircraft where so unique..the double mamba engine was a fantastic peice of engineering..in the program they mentioned a example that is being flown back from the USA…what is the current status of this aircraft..is she in the UK yet..and is she or when will she be airworthey..
    as enyone eny thoughts or memorys of the old gannet….WHAT A BEAST…

    You have not read the thread on this Forum about the county court case on historic aircraft paperwork have you mate? The aircraft in question is a T5 and is stuck at Goose Bay with a blown engine (and has been for a while). The Mods had locked that thread the last time I looked at it.

    in reply to: looking for a Scud lift.off picture! #1814758
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    We all have zillions of Scud pictures, but in all those years, never been able to catch one of a Scud launch. Not to mention a video. Has anybody been lucky ?
    ๐Ÿ˜Ž

    Look for ITN Gulf War Video. That’s got a Iraqi Scud launch on it.

    in reply to: Ejection Pics #2581250
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    Entropy: Yes mate they do have a pod and like I said, we’ve never ever had to use it, this is why I am looking for pics from American sources of it in use. This system is probably the most expencive survival system in use today, that is why we don’t mess with it on our Pigs.

    For F-111 Pod details look here

    in reply to: Show us those interception pictures! #2581493
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    I don’t know what nation is the Jag.I know only this – date of pic. is 1 Jan 1987

    Had a good look at it, The Jaguar is from the Oman Air Force

    in reply to: Ejection Pics #2581553
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    In each case the Zvezda K-36 ejection seats worked flawlessly…..

    Ken

    Of course there is the Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-27 airshow crash in 2002 as well, were both pilots successfully ejected. Of course however, the wreckage went in to the spectators and a lot of people were killed.

    in reply to: Show us those interception pictures! #2581572
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    More

    What nation is the Jag from, Oman??

    in reply to: Show us those interception pictures! #2581576
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    The story about Blackbirds missions over, or best, near Soviet Union borders is still, in many points untold. In the “hotest” days of cold war, the soviets, carefully monitored the flightphat of every Blackbird sortie from UK, towards Murmansk area o the Baltic sea. Remember that, in the soviet doctrine, the interceptors was “directed” to their targets from ground radar stations, and week after week, month after month, these stations recorded a lot of information about direction, speed, hight and duration of the Blackbird flights.

    Also, Foxbats were used “as Blackbirds”, to test tactics to shootdown a real SR-71, over the Soviet Union. The soviets believed after close examination of the Blackbirds flightpaths, that a shootdown was posible using “various planes” located a different areas in the same route of the Blackbird. Each plane has his prope “launch window”, and the Blackbird at Mach 3.0 cant turn on time to evade a missile. In some ocassions this tactic was sucessful, but in the last moment, the order to shootdown never arrived, due political considerations. The Blackbird was over the sea near the frontier, not deep inside of Soviet Union, and one impact a Mach 3.0. disintegrated the plane over the sky, and the soviets wants a near complete plane in his soil. Not 5mm. fragments under the sea.

    Yes i agree. No Blackbirds were shootdown over Soviet Union, but.. the victory in aerial warfare not was only a shootdown. If your opponent abort the mission, you win also. Nobody knows, at the present, the number of failed or aborted Blackbird missions near the Soviet Union, and when the Mig-31 becomes operative, the Blackbird career in Europe, ended. I remember a Blackbird picture taken from a Mig-25 published in AFM… and yes, i think that “others” still are clasiffied.

    Regards from Spain.

    Very True, As for my remarks about the incident in the Baltic, had the Mig 25 been serious, the Blackbird would have been very dead. As for what happen up north, nobody knows unless they have a security clearance. Its possible that a Mig 25 actually got a photo of a SR-71, however, I would put that down to the SR-71 having a problem that had caused it to slow down (Intake unstart or alike) and the pilot had pushed on instead of turning back. As far as Iโ€™m aware the SR-71 never made an intention penetration of Warsaw part airspace (may have come very close however and may have done it by accident ๐Ÿ˜‰ ). The real pity about this thread is that I’ve got access to hundreds of photo’s , the problem being however, is that I cannot post them.

    in reply to: Ejection Pics #2581602
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    Martink Baker seems to be the most popular ejection seat in the world these days.

    However,i will never forget the video of Mig-29 pilot ejecting at Farnborough in the 1980s at low altitude by using his K-36 seat.That was pretty impressive.Maybe some can post screen caps of that video.

    Wrong, it was the Paris Air show in 1989, the aircraft being flown by Anatoly Kvotchur (an awesome pilot in anybodyโ€™s book). The crash was caused by a bird going into one of the engines during a slow speed high Alpha manoeuvre. There was no way that he could recover from the asymmetric thrust when it happened and the aircraft departed.

    in reply to: 2 TAF RAF Question #1308246
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    specifically am interested in 121 Wing (comprising of 174/175/245 Sqn) operating Typhoons under the control of 83 Group/ 2nd TAF… anyone know if they had any markings to denote that they ‘belonged’ to 121 Wing?? Also interested in the same for post war units operating as 121 Wing (have seen a reference to RAF Fassberg aircraft carrying a red ‘lightning strike’ but I presume that was all of the Wings operating from there – were there were more than one?)

    Neil.

    Your in luck with post war units. 121 Wing was reformed on 1st April this year at Coningsby, with funny old thing, Typhoons (the paraffin burning type) of 3 Squadron (and 11 Sqn when they reform with the type).

    in reply to: Show us those interception pictures! #2582186
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    Hey Firebar how bout a picture of a Blackbird intercept? I’m sure those Mig-25s took lots of them. :diablo:

    Don’t think so. I was at a lecture a the RAF Air Defence Radar Museum at Neatishead which was part of a holiday tour called ‘the long 4 minutes’ that covered a number of Cold War sites in eastern England. One of the facts that was mentioned was that the closest that a Mig 25 ever got to a SR-71 was five miles, over the Baltic and was tracked by a NATO long range radar located West Berlin. The SR-71 then outran the Foxbat which had to break off.

    in reply to: Is there a clean Nuclear attack?? #1814782
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    excuse me…
    but what do you mean by “Far from it”?

    The only primary effects that are produced from any nuclear explosion (fission or fusion) is RADIATION and a blast of Neutron particles. The radiation is produced across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, but most of it is in the form of X-rays and Gamma rays. The heat that is felt is Infra red wavelengths and the Flash is the visible wavelengths. The shockwave that is caused in any detonation inside the atmosphere (or underground or in the sea) is the effect of the radiation release rapidly heating that medium (Air, Ground or water) to a plasma,. Which expands rapidly, just like the gas produced by a chemical explosive (you would get a shock wave in space as well, but this will only be the remains of the weapon that has been turned into plasma and is expanding). The weapon only coverts a fraction of the fissionable or fusionable material, for the Little Boy A-bomb was the figure was about 6 percent of the uranium, the best figure being TSAR BOMBA at 50 percent of the Fusionable mass. The neutrons which are a product of both types of atomic reactions will also bombard the bomb remains and the medium around it, making almost all of it radioactive (also contained in the bomb debris is the fission (and fusion) products produced in the detonation, all again highly radioactive). The sphere of plasma will then expand until the pressure of the material around it stops the expansion (this is the Fireball). At this point the plasma will rise like hot air in a balloon causes the envelope to rise. This causes a vacuum underneath, which sucks up the entire moveable matter below which also becomes radioactive as it mixes with debris. As the fireball rises it cools and expands as it mixes with the lower pressure air thus forming the mushroom cloud.

    The simple answer to the question of is there a radiation free nuclear weapon, is that such a device is a physical impossibility.

    in reply to: Anti-ship Tomahawk still operational somewhere? #1814809
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    No your quite right. Mostly they were rebuilt, IIRC, as block III TLAM’s to quickly restore stocks after the heavy TLAM expenditure in Desert Storm.

    A few TASM’s may have been held in storage somewhere just in case but its doubtful. All TASM was, from memory, was a Harpoon seeker head mated to a converted Bullpup warhead on a TLAM missile body with a datalink grafted on for MCG. Theoretically TACTOM can do the ship attack attack mission more successfully than TASM anyway so, your friend may be right, they may have an antiship capable Tomahawk on the new Burkes – its just not TASM.

    Then again he may just be assuming that because they pulled the Harpoons that there ‘must’ be an antiship missile aboard those vessels which is not the case necessarily.

    Could not the new Tactical Tomahawk be used as an Anti Ship Missile?

    in reply to: Is there a clean Nuclear attack?? #1814811
    BIGVERN1966
    Participant

    Is it true that in thermonuclear explosions (Hydrogen or something like it), the radiation matters die becuase of the great heat?

    Far from it.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,051 through 1,065 (of 1,215 total)