RE: Aircraft at the rear of JU52

I think it’s a fairly standard model Anson as it has the original cabin height,rather than the raised roof of the later versions.It’s hard to identify it as a specific mark because the engines are out of shot.One thing which fools the eye is that this one has had it’s mid-upper turret removed,which does alter it’s overall appearance.
Hope this helps! 🙂

RE: Replica Me 262 has flown!!

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 03-12-02 AT 08:03 PM (GMT)]Great news,one of the best bits of news this year!She looks awesome!
I’m not so sure the CAA would ‘make sure one never flew in the UK’.I don’t mean to be insulting,but I think it’s far too shallow a view of the CAA.I know we’re all a bit cheesed off with thier approach to the FW190’s,but they have thier reasons,and I don’t think those reasons apply to the 262’s.The CAA are a very openminded bunch who examine each case on it’s own individual merits,and I think it’s a tad on the harsh side to call them an ‘achiles heel’-they are quite the oposite in fact.Here’s to a 262 in the UK! 🙂

RE: F-84F Thunderstreak

Hi Phantom,
I dunno the answers to all your queeries,but I can answer a few I think.
Basically,the Thunderstreak was not exactly well liked.It was a very heavy machine and was rather underpowered,particularly when carrying external stores.The earlier straight winged versions of F84 were just as bad in terms of thrust/wieght ratio.These early versions were nicknamed the ‘GroundHog’,which lead to later versions being named ‘SuperHog’ because of thier unwillingness to take off.Quite literally,under certain conditions they would fail to leave the ground and end up in a heap off the end of the runway.(This would also affect the next generation Republic fighter,the F105 Thunderchief,nicknamed UltraHog.)
The engine in the F model was the Wright J-65,a licence built Armstrong Siddely Sapphire.Unfortunately,these Americanised Sapphires were less powerful than the originals,so the 65 only produced about 7,000lb of thrust in a machine which would weigh around 20,000lb for take-off.
There were other problems too.The canopy on the Thunderstreak was hinged to lift on a pair of arms on either side of the cockpit with a third retracting it rearwards at the same time.If you needed to eject,the canopy was supposed to detach with such force that these hingeing arms would snap under the strain and the canopy would fly off nicely-fat chance!A number of pilots were killed when thier seat fired them straight into the canopy,the arms having failed to sever.
An early solution was to drill holes in the arms to make them weaker, but this didn’t always work either,and in the end they had to resort to using explosive bolts to ensure the arms severed correctly.
One final ‘nasty’ that the type had in store was a tendency for the wings to suffer a severe tip-stall in high G turns,suddenly generating far more lift at the root of the wing,forward of the centre of gravity.The aircraft would pitch up so suddenly that the force would tear the wings off.Nice.
I would say that the Thunderbirds did extremely well to display the F84 in the way they did.They had to fly an aircraft type that was in the USAF’s frontline inventory,and I think it’s fair to say that they coped with the F84,rather than it being thier mount of choice.
On the plus side,it did have a good straight and level top speed,and a wide variety of weapons (if it could get off the ground with them!) and it also lead to the highly successful RF-84 Thunderflash.

RE: Goshawk Squadron

Hi Kev,
I’ve not personally read Goshawk Squadron,but having read Piece of Cake,I think I can guess the kind of characters in the book.One or two cowards,a couple of reckless daredevils,one total b*****d and perhaps even an axe murderer to liven things up a bit.Ok,ok so I’m probably going a bit too far,but this wouldn’t at all surprise me in one of Robinson’s books.I’ve had a good old rant about Piece of Cake before now,so I’m not going to again.(I hear a resounding ‘Phew!’)
The thing is that he is actually rather a good writer.The issue I have with his books is that they are aimed at the wider public and so the fairly sensational characters,plot etc are taken almsot as fact by the majority of readers,which I think is misleading.He should point out very clearly that his books are works of fiction because as it is it’s as if he’s saying ‘This is how it REALLY was’,which we know isn’t quite true.
Now Sagittarius Rising is something different altogether!Kev, you’re in for a treat.If there’s anyone reading this who hasn’t read it,then go out and find yourself a copy,IMHO it’s one of the best First World War bio’s you can have on your shelf.I finished it a few weeks back and I enjoyed it from cover to cover.Biographies,and particularly aviation ones,tend to be a bit romantic and ‘rosey’,but this book is different in that it is for the most part written in a very matter-of-fact way.I’d highly recommend it,and I’d be interested to hear what other people think of it.

RE: Brussels Museum – Battle

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 26-11-02 AT 07:09 PM (GMT)]Hi Alastair,
The Dutch Navy did operate the Avenger,some ugly ones with radomes etc,and others of more conventional appearance.The version with the radome in the belly was designated TBM-3W2,whilst the more conventional looking machines were TBM-3S2’s,one an unarmed radar carrying hunter,and the other an armed sub-killer,which would operate in pairs.All of these were operated from the carrier Karel Doorman.I saw a good picture of the ‘Doorman with Avengers ranged on the deck not long ago,but I can’t remember where I saw it-Doh!I’ll have a hunt around and see what I come up with.

Hope this helps,
Ant

RE: Uncle Adolf’s gift to the youth of Germany – Christmas 1944

That thought crossed my mind aswell Mike,although I’m really not sure what solution(s) FlugWerke have come up with for thier 190D’s.The last I heard,they were talking about putting an inverted RR Griffon in place of the Jumo.

RE: Uncle Adolf’s gift to the youth of Germany – Christmas 1944

Nice piccies KiethMac,thanks for putting them up.I’ve often marvelled at the speed with which Hienkel actually managed to produce this machine-it was just a matter of months from drawing board to first flight,and I think I’m right in saying that production was underway before the prototype flew.
The idea that Hitler Youth glider pilots could’ve flown this machine was a little bit fancyful to say the least.It had quite a high wing loading which meant that it was quite a handful to fly,whilst the BMW 003 engine had to be handled very carefully,even more so than the Jumo 004.She also had a tendancy to snake and dutch roll at high speed,and it wasn’t a particularly stable gun platform according to those who actually got to fire the guns.
The glue problems that the Germans had was partly down to the bombing of the Tego-Film plant by RAF Bomber Command in 1944.The glue they ended up having to improvise with,FZ-Film,had an acidic content,which over time would eat into the wooden structure,resulting in the wing coming apart in flight.One of the prototype 162’s actually broke up in mid air during a demonstration in front of numerous leading Nazis in December ’44,killing FlugKapitan Peter,Hienkel’s senior test pilot.
This glue problem also affected the Focke-Wulf Ta-154 Moskito,a very promising twin engined fighter made,like it’s British namesake,entirelly of wood,and only a handfull were built.
Unfortunatelly,the Allies don’t seem to have been aware of how serious the problem was,and atleast one He162 was flown for evaluation at Farnborough after the war.It broke up on it’s third evaluation flight,killing the pilot.
It’s often said that the 162 never actually went into action,but one book I have states that a pilot returning to Leck after an air test found a bunch of Typhoons attacking the airfield,one of which he allegedly shot down.Does anyone know how much truth there is to this?

Thanks again for the pics KiethMac,keep ’em coming! 🙂