Any prolonged negative “G” would cause the fuel to stop flowing as the floats would “rise” and shut off the flow of fuel to the bowls…. Its possible he may have unloaded a bit too much while inverted?

I dunno if it was a true story or not (as im not familier with the 109 engine) but i recall reading that the 109 had fuel injected engine and could do a negative “G” dive if needed, while the Spitfire had to roll inverted.

One wonders though how much blood rushing to the brain one could handle before red out?

The engines in the background look interesting too!

I have seen the four engine Heron many years ago…. that was an interesting aircraft indeed.

Thanks!

One often wonders 😮

I can recall many years ago video taping a B52 landing here… the wind was gusting up to 40knots…. the engines went to idle…. and nothing happened…
It floated all the way along the runway…. 2/3rds of the way down power was applied and a go-around performed….

That kinda thing happened to me a few times… in a C172 mind you!
During summer (36degrees “C” and higher) in high winds (straight down the runway) once the plane got into ground effect it would litterally sit there 10ft of the runway with 40knots indicated and not land!

The first time it happened i let it float 1500ft before i went round.

Eventually after a few times that it happened over the summer months… I got the idea of reducing flaps while in ground effect and hey presto touch down it did! (Or land with only 20degrees of flap)

This kinda float only happened in the C152/172, anything bigger and it simply didnt happen… Maybe it was light enough to soar with the thermals?! lol

Ok enough of my ramblings:D

Phantom, have a look at the 2nd photo paralay posted. You can two R-77s mounted on the inboard pylon. Or are my eyes deceiving me?

To be honest I’ve never seen them loaded this way.
All pictures i’ve seen show one per wing pylon.

So yes two wing tanks could theoretically be carried along with 10missiles!

Sounds like a typical over-reaction from pencil pushing halfwits from a government dept. with too many gestapo like powers……

The FAA saw no problems when they allowed it to be registered?

Add the fact that it hadnt flown since December 2007 and had been in open storage

If it hadn.t flown for 2 or so year it would explain why it was chosen to go, but doesnt explain why it was “retired” early.

“Unlikely, thats been one of the great scare tactics used to get rid of the fleet, an F-111 has a fatigue life of some 12,000 hours, meaning -272 would have needed to notch up some 6,300 hours in about 13 years of service to have gone Lifex.“

I agree with you there, but im only repeating what the man with all the bars on his shoulders said… 😀 (not that it means much!)

What ever happened to the one which did the wheels up at Amberley???
I’d be surprised it if was repaired and brought back into service.

I visited Syds collection in Mareeba back around 1998.
His “little” private collection is impressive.

While wandering around the hangar i came across a large wooden toolbox on wheels.

It was stencilled with RAAF (cant remember what SQN, but it was whoever had Canberras). It also had stenciled a particluar Flight Sergents names on it.
The name was very familier and later approached said person (who had long retired from the RAAF) and told him i saw an old tool box with his name on it!

He said that it was his from his glory days back in the early 1970s!
A friend of his has visited just weeks before i did and also spotted it.
He had told Rod about his old toolbox. Next weekend Rod drove up to Mareeba and was reunited!

Its hard to think that a wooden toolbox (built by the engineers themselves) wouldve lasted 35yrs still with the owners name on it.

The Wildcat Replicas were movie props…. made for the Thin Red Line? (that movie was also filmed in and around Mareeba)

Mareeba also used to hold a pretty good airshow every two yrs with lots of warbirds flying in. They did have one last year, but i dont know if they are having any more.

A big plus for naked airplanes is reduced weight which equals fuel savings . A good paint job will preserve better that polishing ever could…….gloss paint will always protect better that flat paint. A big negative on polished aircraft, (especially older ones that have always been polished), is that you remove metal every time you polish it. I’ve seen planes that have been polished regularly to very high standards with reduced rivet heads and skin thickness! To each their own for this one!

The Heston Racer was to have any scratches over .0005″ removed from it’s leading edges:eek: Now that’s polished!

Alloy brings up a good point too about finely removing layers of metal, especially the rivet heads!

I do recall a story here in Australia from 15yrs ago or so where an aircraft (I believe it belonged to a parachute club, but i cant remember what it was), I think it was getting repainted by the owner, so when the time came to strip the aircraft he decide to grind down the rivets along the wings in order to have a flush finish!

After it got painted and inspected by the local aircraft engineer, it promptly got grounded!

To paint or not to paint is always a two edged sword.

If an aircraft is to be hangered for its entire life, then the paint will last a long time and not be exposed to the elements. However a painted aircraft which sits out in the rain and sun will fade very quickly. Once the paint deterioates, water and humidity will get under the paint and start corrosion.

An aircraft with no paint, if left out in a dry environment is quite safe. Even if it rains a few times, the water has no place to hide from the sun and quickly dries out.

The only problem would be the leading edges of the wings and tailplane, where erosion caused by dirt, dust etc…