Ant.HA long-time family friend worked for GEC Marconi in the late 80’s and 90’s, and from what I’ve heard him say it seems there were serious problems keeping the equipment cool enough to function properly. The fact that the Nimrod hadn’t been designed for all this AEW gear meant that things were crammed in cheek-by-jowl and things were always overheating as a consequence, and even catching fire on a few occasions. The problems ran on and on and still hadn’t been solved when the project got the chop.
That’s how I’ve heard it from him anyway.
Ant.HInteresting about the Sea Hurricane C of G. Seafires presumably had the same problem but this was countered with a great big lead mass balance bolted to the engine bearer on the starboard side. A few have turned up on Seafire III digs. Has anyone got under the cowling pics of Sea Hurricane?
I don’t think SeaHurri’s had CofG problems when they were in service, I believe the problem with Z7015 was due to the removal of much of the armour plate in the forward areas of the aircraft, and the fitting of a Dowty wooden prop in place of the heavier (metal) original deHavilland unit. Her original dH prop was fitted to the collection’s Spit V around 30 years ago and she’s never got it back!
Ant.HWhatever happenned to…
…the airworthy deHavilland SeaVenom that was operated by Amjet in the States ten years or so ago?
Ant.HThis was fun, last summer…..bonus point for guessing the type!!
Martin 404?
I haven’t had all that much flying experience, so I’m still in a position where I can say all my flights have been special. I’m glad I joined the ATC when I did (mid-90’s), which meant I just got to do some air experience flying on the Chipmunk before they were retired.
I was on an early morning flight to Edinburgh from East Midlands with BMIbaby last December, and got to see the sunrise from the air and the Royal Yacht Britannia all lit up below like a Christmas tree as we came in over the city. ‘Boring’ aircraft, great flight.
Ant.HGreat news, congratulations to everyone involved. 🙂 I have to say it’s good to see a freshly restored Spit flying in primer with its G-reg plastered all over it, it’s reminiscant of the ‘old days’ of the 80’s and 90’s. Very retro 😉 😀
Ant.HI don’t want to take this thread off on too much of a tangent, but does anyone know how active VP441 is these days? AFAIK, she hasn’t appeared at any shows in the last couple of years and there’s generally been no mention of her in the usual places.
Getting somewhat back on topic, I remember seeing a picture of a Ju88 in the Mediterranean theatre that was missing about a third off each (wooden) blade. The pilot had gone so low while taking evasive action that the props had hit the surface, but they still made it back.
Ant.HHaving read some of the comments that have followed on from my ‘even in Nottingham’ post, I thought I best explain things a bit. I’ve been living in Nottingham the last 18 months, and I have to say it’s a case of the good, the bad and the ugly. On the plus side, just tonight I left a case on a bus in town. It had a laptop and goodness knows what else in it. Miraculously, I’ve got it back intact! My girlfriend left her handbag in a cab a few months ago and that came back intact too. There are certainly some very good people in Nottingham, and very helpful too.
On the minus side, I’ve been shot at with an air rifle and intimidated on the street several times. It’s an unfortunate fact tht Nottingham really does have a problem with undesirable characters, and some very rough areas. I know all places have thier problems, but Nottingham can be rough to the point of bluddy dangerous in quite a few areas.
Anyone fancy a picnic in St.Anne’s? Thought not. 😀
Nottinghamshire, as jeepman says, isn’t a bad place at all in general though. I’m in Derby tomorrow unfortunately, so I won’t be able to make it to Newark. 🙁
Ant.HXH558 never had the wrap scheme in normal RAF service. It ended it’s days as a K.2 tanker, and was then selected for the Vulcan flight and ‘de-converted’, at which point the glossy wrap scheme was applied for ease of maintenance etc… I’m sure many people closer to XH558 will comment in more detail.
………;)
.
Just to illustrate the point, I found this photo today while browsing through Airliners.net.
Ant.HThat’s my contribution gone to some scumbag then! 😡 Even in nottingham I didn’t think anyone would stoop so low as to do this.
Ant.HThe one great hope of mine for next year, as with every year, is that it’s a safe one. I don’t like to be a killjoy, but this year was a bit of a black one with regards accidents, on both sides of ‘the pond’.
Here’s to a safe 2008, and to enjoying the spectacle of acts new and old.
Ant.HHappy birthday mate 🙂
Ant.HIn the second from top picture, what is the type last on the right?
Looks like a MiG 19 thats eaten too much! Compare with one next to it.
I think it’s an early Shenyang J-8 “Finback”, the later ones have a radar in the nose and the intakes moved to the wing-roots.
Ant.H1) Ongoing improvements to the aircraft, greater experience of the type, tactical changes to employ the aircraft in its most suitable role
2) It was bloody fast
Moggy
I agree about the ongoing improvements and the greater experience with the type, particularly regards accidents. As for the tactical changes, this is one of the things I’m trying to get to the bottom of. As far as I’m aware, the B26 was generally employed in a conventional medium bomber role. That is to say they pretty much always flew at medium altitudes, within range of all sorts of groundfire and enemy aircraft. I’ve even seen footage of Marauders attacking from remarkably low levels, perhaps under 1,000ft. This certainly isn’t the kind of operation that would normally generate low loss rates, whatever the merits of the particular design of aircraft.
Yes, it was also ‘bloody fast’ for it’s class, which might have helped. However, again from all I’ve seen it appears that 26’s usually operated in large-ish formations, and couldn’t just always go flat out. A cruising formation of 26’s wouldn’t be all that much faster than a formation of B25’s would it? Additionally, although it was quick for it’s size, it still wouldn’t be able to out-run enemy fighters or be so quick as to throw the aim of AA gunners?
I’ve always loved the Marauder, as others have said it just looked right. Despite my long-running interest in the type, I’ve never read/ heard a full explanation for it’s great success, hence the creation of this thread.
Ant.HIt’s true the B26 wasn’t popular initially. As has been mentioned above, the high wing loading lead to a number of accidents where pilots tried to bring the aircraft in at more conventional lower speeds. This was where the ‘widow maker’ comments came in. Early models (B26A & B) also had a short, stumpy tailfin which meant that the aircraft also had a high engine-out controllability speed. (IIRC, a single engine landing had to be performed even faster than a normal one to maintain directional control).
These early problems were largely overcome by increasing the wingspan, fin/rudder height, and horizontal tail span, in addition to lengthening the fuselage and gradually increasing the wings angle of incidence (a slight increase on the C model, and then even more so on the F’s and G’s). The first really decent model was the B26C, and it was these mid-range models that were ‘in the thick of it’ in Europe.
Training was also improved, with the emphasis being on the low speeed handling and landing approach techniques. This drasticly reduced the number of pilot error-related crashes.
The early B26’s were also used as torpedo bombers (!) in the Pacific theatre, flying from bases in Australia. As can be imagined, it was not a great success in this role and the B26 was largely withdrawn from the theatre within a few months. Likewise, when they were first deployed in Europe they were under 8thAF command, and a series of tactical misjudgements led to them being badly mauled (all but one aircraft was lost on the second raid, and that waso nly because the survivor turned back early with engine troubles).
After all this however, the B26 became highly successful (or so it seems) with the USAAF in Southern and Northern Europe, and with the RAF and SAAF in the Med. theatre.
So, my question essentially is what led to this drastic reversal of fortune and why did the type seemingly survive so much better than it’s peers (eg.B25)?
Ant.HThanks for the replies, but it doesn’t quite cover what I was thinking. If you imagine a gunner firing rearwards into the front of an attacker, would that not cancel out the reduction in velocity caused by the speed of the gunner’s aircraft? The effect as I’m imagining it would be like firing from a stationary gun into a stationary target, being as the attacker would have to be travelling at the same if not greater speed.
I’m down with a cold/flu at the moment, so my brain is pretty pickled at the minute and I’m probably talking twaddle (as usual :D).
Sign In
