dark light

bloodnok

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 741 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Pre-war Inflight refueling #1272758
    bloodnok
    Participant

    i don’t think the tanker aircraft had sufficent range to fly to the middle, refuel someone else, and then get back again.

    in reply to: Fire Dumps picture thread….. #1276604
    bloodnok
    Participant

    i’ve got pictures of me on the vulcan and the shackleton at RAF Valley,back in the mid 80’s, i’ll post them up when i get them dug out!

    in reply to: RIP "Blaster" Bates #1283738
    bloodnok
    Participant

    anyone know why its taken 20 days for news of his death to get out?

    in reply to: Raymond Baxter RIP #1292697
    bloodnok
    Participant

    sad news indeed, i met him a couple of times over the last 20 or so years, both professionally (whilst i was in the RAF) and socially ( at VSCC meetings), he was always willing to chat, and always interesting.

    in reply to: Aircraft ID #2566840
    bloodnok
    Participant

    thats a Tornado with inboard pylons fitted with sidewinder rails

    in reply to: C-130J Program #2566844
    bloodnok
    Participant

    just about all C130’s left the production lines with the outerwing hard points built in, and from the ‘H’ model onwards the fuel plumbing and associated wiring was a standard fit along the trailing edge . so its relatively easy to either fit outer wing fuel tanks or drogue units.

    in reply to: C-130J Program #2567064
    bloodnok
    Participant

    Do not forget that the RAF J`s are not cleared for Air-Air refueling yet.

    I not even sure if they are cleared to even carry the Probe!

    Does this also apply to other Air Forces using J`s?

    last time i was at lyneham there were several ‘J’ s with probes fitted, and i can’t think they’d go to all the trouble of fitting a probe if its not going to be used.

    in reply to: Buried Lancasters.(2004 thread) #1293464
    bloodnok
    Participant

    the lake at RAF Valley is still off limit for swimming and fishing due to the ammount of stuff dumped there at the end of the war.
    ammunition, vehicles and some say aircraft were dumped there, and i know that when other more modern aircraft have crashed in the lake, recovery of the wreckage wasn’t as complete as normal due to the hazzards in the lake.

    in reply to: Help Save RAF Driffield(Old Thread 2006) #1293509
    bloodnok
    Participant

    what makes driffield stand out from countless other WWII airfields?
    by the look of the website above, most of the airfield has long since been removed, so whats the point in struggling for a partly complete airfield, that doesn’t have anything majorly exciting in its history.
    as is said on the website, its one of over 700 wartime airfields, and you can’t save them all!

    in reply to: Blended wing body for small airliners? #533853
    bloodnok
    Participant

    burnelli also had a blended fuselage/flying wing back in the 30’s, it even got into commercial use.

    http://72.14.221.104/search?q=cache:YxazzifFzYIJ:www.aircrash.org/burnelli/nyt1941.htm+burnelli+flying+wing&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2

    in reply to: C-130J Program #2568574
    bloodnok
    Participant

    I’ve always wondered what such equipment consists of. Any ideas?

    without wishing to sound melodramatic, yes i do know whats fitted to the SF aircraft, but don’t really want to say.

    yes, i know an awful lot of info is out there in public domain, but i don’t want to be the one responsible for giving out something that shoudn’t.

    in reply to: Hurricane display Honington 8/9/06 #1298463
    bloodnok
    Participant

    thanks for the replies.
    yup, it was indeed a ‘hairs on the back of your neck’ type of moment.

    in reply to: Hurricane display Honington 8/9/06 #1298816
    bloodnok
    Participant

    anyone?

    in reply to: C-130J Program #2570852
    bloodnok
    Participant

    ELP you don’t half talk some crap!
    just vague generalisations, and stuff that can be found in any magazine or on any website.
    the ‘j’ did have some initial software problems, but name me any modern aircraft thats entered into servive, and not had software problems. these problems weren’t enough to keep it on the gound, or restrict its operations.

    there were problems with the ceramic linings on the engines, but they were soon fixed, other problems on the engine side were caused by the operators not using them correctly.

    the RAF’s ‘j’ s can do anything a ‘k’ (‘e’ model for you) can do (yes, even rough strip landings), and a lot more besides.

    the only restriction on the current ‘j’ fleet is they can’t do SF work, but thats not the airfrmes fault, its just because the haven’t fitted all the special equipment that the SF aircraft have.

    it seems to me you are letting all the politics get to you, the politics dont make it a bad aircraft, and just about all the faults you are banging on about have been fixed years ago.

    the ‘j’ is now a reliable and good performer. and before you think i’m biased in any way, i fix ‘B’,’E’ , ‘H’ and ‘J’ models for a living, so i can make comparisons right across the range.

    in reply to: Buried Lancasters.(2004 thread) #1306676
    bloodnok
    Participant

    it still begs the question, why would you dismantle two big aircraft, cover them in hessian (implying some sort of protection) and then bury them?
    surely they would have been disposed of to a scrappies, or if they were written off/damaged why bother covering them in hessian.
    something doesn’t add up with this tale.

Viewing 15 posts - 556 through 570 (of 741 total)