dark light

XF828

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 95 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The XH558 Discussion Thread (merged) #1134879
    XF828
    Participant

    A difference of nearly £220,000 from the NONE AIRCREW WAGES, which surely must account for aircrew wages

    There are at least 7 aircrew so that would be costs of about £31K or so each (assuming each paid the same, but it really doesn’t matter), from which PAYE, NI and employer’s NI will be deducted leaving take home pay for each person at around the £21.5K mark.

    I’m sure you’ll agree this is a pretty poor wage for aircrew.

    in reply to: Buccaneer information required #1115422
    XF828
    Participant

    The way you phrase the question is a bit worrying to be honest. ‘The’ manual isa multi-volume set of APs, which you won’t find as a download, and if you didn’t know that then should you be working on the aircraft’s undercarriage?

    Would suggest you contact the Buccaneer Society and ask for qualified help:

    http://buccsociety.conforums.com/index.cgi

    in reply to: VAC Fly-In, Sywell Today. #1082535
    XF828
    Participant

    VAC flyin? I think you mean Sywell Jubilee flyin. Nothing to do with VAC.

    in reply to: Phantom to Bruntingthorpe??? #959532
    XF828
    Participant

    Well if someone didnt appreciate it being posted on this forum, a short note to the mods would have seen it pulled in time..

    The PPRUNE poster was who I was referring to. That original post was both reported to mods and the poster asked to remove it. Neither responded and then the “news” was picked up on many other forums, and the deal soon died. The desire by certain people to be first with juicy gossip has undone more than one “deal”.

    As for Everett you need only look at the tiny number of Jags that have ended up in preservation from the huge numbers he bought, and what state they were in after he’d stripped them so the bits could be sold separately. Those Phantoms may as well have gone for scrap, they certainly have no chance of blasting down a runway now.

    in reply to: Phantom to Bruntingthorpe??? #960538
    XF828
    Participant

    Unfortunately the deal fell through and the aircraft was disposed of elsewhere, due in no small part to the deal being blabbed about on forums before it had been concluded. Hopefully the person responsible will keep their mouth shut in future. 😡

    in reply to: XH558 airborne again.. #965299
    XF828
    Participant

    Do they have two then? As the 558 web site woudl indicate it is unserviceable on the ground at Doncaster.

    in reply to: Vulcan Suffers Engine Damage #1012637
    XF828
    Participant

    At least one of the two serviceable engines that are currently installed (perhaps both?) will have been in situ since she flew in 2007. It’s likely to have used up a good chunk of its 200 hours, so this is likely to be the limiting factor on future operations even if there are no other unexpected incidents.

    Bearing this limitation in mind, surely it’s going to choke off donations for what’s likely to be a much shorter lifespan in the air?

    See post #21 this thread

    It’s already been suggested that if you stick anything into an intake, whether it’s a dessicant bag or a sack of pickled frogs, a tag visible from the ground provides a useful hint that it’s still in there that can not only be seen by the person responsible for checking the intakes, but to everyone on the ground who looks at the intakes.

    Would the absence of a visible tag be proof enough to you that the item is not there?

    What if the tag had come away from the item?

    A nice idea but a physical check inside the intake would be required anyway so the tags would be actually introducing a problem of their own.

    in reply to: Sea Vixen landing incident at Hurn #1040097
    XF828
    Participant

    If PK and team can’t fix the old girl, nobody can. Hope to see her back in the air where she belongs soonest.

    in reply to: Red Tails new film #1040111
    XF828
    Participant

    I have seen the first 30 minutes of Red Tails. I couldn’t take any more.

    By far the most gash attempt at WWII action ever committed to celluloid (or USB stick). Michael Bay style cartoon rubbish CGI with a script that makes it clear that the film’s intended audience is the mentally sub-normal.

    Compare to this Pearl Harbo[u]r was a cinematic tour de force. And at least that had some nice grey ships in it.

    in reply to: 60 years of the de Havilland 110 Sea Vixen #1068381
    XF828
    Participant

    I can’t be certain as I’m away from my sources & APs, but I thought that the production machines did retain the gun bay mounting structure (possibly wrong term?) complete with the distinct four cutouts under the main cabin floor, the high pressure air bottles and airbrake were fitted in the rear of that space, and the rocket cells in the front.

    I would be surprised if this were the case as the layout and structure of the nose in the first three DH.110s was significantly different to that of the production Sea Vixen in many ways. Mind you it would not be unlike DH to do the minimum possible work to make a production aircraft from a prototype…

    in reply to: 60 years of the de Havilland 110 Sea Vixen #1069286
    XF828
    Participant

    The new prototype, XF828, designated the Mk.20X made its first flight on 20 June 1955 at the hands of Jock Elliot and John Allen from Christchurch, where the whole DH.110 programme had now transferred to. The aircraft itself still looked pretty much the same, however it was now becoming an integrated weapons system and a far more complex beast, especially in regard of control systems. The Ferranti integrated weapons, instrumentation, and sighting systems, and the decision at this stage that it would be guided missile armed, for the first time guns/cannons were deleted, were firsts on British combat aircraft. The structure of all Sea Vixens retained the gun bays.

    The latter points about deletion of guns/cannons from XF828 and retaining gun bays in all Sea Vixens are incorrect.

    XF828 initially flew with guns (see photo, though I believe they were never fired) and the gun bays were made up of the cannon bay, ammunition boxes and barrel bays. The ammunition boxes were located behind the observer’s seat (which hinged forward to allow access). The 30mm Adens themselves were located behind the nose gear bay and this area was used on the Sea Vixen to house the air brake (on XF828 split dive brakes initially occupied the top and bottom of the rear fuselage, various brake configurations were trialled on the belly location later on before arriving at the final spec). The barrel fairings were later replaced on XF828 by dummy rocket packs and once the layout of these was finalised the FAW.1 was produced with all of the various gun bays now gone – even the area for the ammunition boxes was used for something else.

    Other than that an excellent summary however and well done for marking the date.

    in reply to: Duxford Skyraider wing query #1070272
    XF828
    Participant

    I am not a qualified aircraft or stress engineer but need reassurance.

    There, there. Everything’s fine.

    What a pointless thread. And no doubt insulting to those involved.

    in reply to: TSR2 thoughts #1071661
    XF828
    Participant

    Damien’s book covers fighter (really aew/interceptor) versions. Not an idea taken at all seriously and not at all a planned use for the raf’s buy.

    in reply to: ebay Westland Wessex`s new home #1073189
    XF828
    Participant

    Used to go into work every day past this old girl. Such a shame that she seems to be doomed to be a nomadic airframe slowly losing more and more bits as she travels around from owner to owner, as she was in excellent condition on the gate at Fleetlands.

    in reply to: RAF Museum New Arrival #1078564
    XF828
    Participant

    It was two trailers, one with a pointy thing under a cover, the other with pointy thing’s wings under a cover.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 95 total)