dark light

super sioux

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 255 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Charles Kaman, helicopter pioneer, RIP #1131787
    super sioux
    Participant

    Helicopter pioneer dies.

    I post news that Kaman the American helicopter designer, amongst many of his skills has died. Here is what Flight says in his obituary.
    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/01/352636/helicopter-pioneer-kaman-dies-at-91.html

    in reply to: 1, IV and 800 NAS sadly now history #1139023
    super sioux
    Participant

    Local write up of a very very sad day and another display of the ignorance displayed by the current government due to their unfathomable cuts.

    Here is hoping that the number and standards are revived soon.

    On clearing out a pile of A4 papers I found marooned a copy of Flypast dated July 2009 with special features on the Harrier in its 40th year of RAF operation. The foreword by Ken Ellis mentions the fact ‘that on the April 23 BAE Systems announced a contract with the MOD to support the Harrier force through to 2018, with the capability of going beyond that. So there is every chance that the incomparable Harrier will still be operational for the type’s half-century’ . How quickly things change, will BAE return the money? Fat chance! 😡

    in reply to: Bell 47 production to (eventually) resume #1143323
    super sioux
    Participant

    looking after the little ones

    Getting it back into production should be relatively easy…

    …there must be, what, nine or ten parts to a Bell 47? :diablo:

    After 1.5 years doing airframe minor and major servicing on the little ones I think they are a bit more complicated than that;) we spent hours and £’s doing crack and corrosion inspections on the welded airframe, never a sign! The wirelocking on the control runs was a thought provoking job, checked by 2 SNCO’s! But, oh so easy to move when the firealarm was tested just attach a wheel to each skid and whip it outside, whilst the Whirlwind gang messed around (I had done 6 months on them that was enough reskinning for any fitter!) I did 2 years at Ternhill on my last posting, did it help me in my future civvy career, no! I became a fitter in the bakery industry:eek:

    in reply to: Struck off charge; Before, during or after scrapping? #1088677
    super sioux
    Participant

    [QUOTE=Seems a bit of a mine field if you ask me[/QUOTE]
    Clearing a mine field may need a licence!:D

    in reply to: Wolves in sheeps clothing to identify #1098685
    super sioux
    Participant

    [QUOTE=AdlerTag;1683272]I can’t say for certain, but the P51 looks very much like those dressed up for the movie ‘Fighter Squadron’ in 1948. A shot of the Mustangs appears very very briefly on the trailer on the link below- brace yourself for some of the cheesiest war-movie promotion ever seen! 😀

    I thought it was a great film when I saw in 1949, but I was only 8! Saw it again when I was a lot older on the ‘box’ not so impressed. But I did observe a certain Rock Hudson playing a bit part, he must have impressed the USAF because he later played a SAC wing commander in ‘A Gathering of eagles’ starring B-52’s.in 1963:diablo:

    in reply to: RAF Goes Retro . . . #1108246
    super sioux
    Participant

    Bristol back in business.

    Bring back the Bristol Bombay :p

    The newly built aircraft will have to called ‘Mumbai’ ! 😀

    in reply to: Dornier 17P Dorset 27/8/40 #1138505
    super sioux
    Participant

    It is highly likely that Dornier sub contracted/split up sub assemblies production too and built some items in certain factories (i.e. port wing here, starboard wing there) and brought them to a final place for assembly.

    If you had read my thread 21 it tells you everything about Dornier 17 production lines! The RLM (REICHLUFTFARHTMINISTERUMS) had complete control of ordering of and production of all aircraft. Thus any design dept. had to know after the prototype and early production they may end up as Dornier did with the Do17 making parts for other firms to assemble.

    in reply to: 360 'in cockpits' from Musee de l'Air #1139977
    super sioux
    Participant

    Who are VAQAS?

    ‘Visitors are questioned about something!:D

    in reply to: Dornier 17P Dorset 27/8/40 #1139998
    super sioux
    Participant

    Not American copies!

    Does anyone know which P & W engine was copied by the germans .. as the Dornier had the Bramo 323 Fanfir ??

    Siemens owned the aero- engine firm that became Bramo in 1936, the maker of the Bramo 323 Fafnir which had been developed in house with no input from the Americans, just that all radials tend to look the same:D Siemens produced small capacity aero-engines in the twenties and started to assemble Bristol Jupiter engines (131), then using this experience to develop their own engines of 600-760 hp. SAM 322B was the final version built. 2000 for the early Luftwaffe. The SAM 23 the next development became the Bramo 323 Fafnir which powered many German aircraft (5500 built). In Oct. 1938 the first run of the Bramo 329 twin Fafnir achieved its design spec. of 2000 hp! At last Germany had a very powerful radial engine to power its combat aircraft.The factory by then was developing gas turbine engines! The RLM was not interested in its advanced projects and designs but BMW was and took it over in June 1939 stopped the twin Fafnir final development and developed the gas turbines as the mass produced BMW 003 JET ENGINE!

    in reply to: Dornier 17P Dorset 27/8/40 #1141226
    super sioux
    Participant

    On having a closer look at the excellent display I observed that the Werke plates were from two different factories! The Dornier Friedrichshafen one was Werke No. 49R. Do. 17P Assembled 1938. The other Werke plate was Siebel Halle Batch No.122003, Werke No. -96- Do.17P. Siebel produced 223 Do 17 aircraft(W.Nr 5001-) from 1937 (DO17F) and in 1940 went into Ju88 production.
    Was this aircraft a combination of the two? Say after both had suffered such damage that only one could aircraft could fly with parts from the other!:confused:

    After rechecking my source ‘GERMAN AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY AND PRODUCTION 1933-1945’ further info. has come to light! Dornier only built a total of 8 Do 17P in 1938 and Werke no. 49R was not in the batch. All other Do17P production was at other firms including Henschel 100. Blohm und Voss 149 built Jan.1938-Sept.1939. Siebel 73 built 1938- Mar. 1939. Werke No. 96 was the 46th Do 17 P built by them. I now think that no. 96 had an accident which was repaired at Dornier hence the Werke No.49R was attached. There is very little concerning repair practice in the book and I dont know the wartime British procedure for marking aircraft after repair which could have been different.

    in reply to: Dornier 17P Dorset 27/8/40 #1143204
    super sioux
    Participant

    Two Werke Numbers?

    On having a closer look at the excellent display I observed that the Werke plates were from two different factories! The Dornier Friedrichshafen one was Werke No. 49R. Do. 17P Assembled 1938. The other Werke plate was Siebel Halle Batch No.122003, Werke No. -96- Do.17P. Siebel produced 223 Do 17 aircraft(W.Nr 5001-) from 1937 (DO17F) and in 1940 went into Ju88 production.
    Was this aircraft a combination of the two? Say after both had suffered such damage that only one could aircraft could fly with parts from the other!:confused:

    in reply to: Boscombe Down 1-11s "SOS" #1151923
    super sioux
    Participant

    BAC 111

    Please dont put a – in the middle of 111! We call it ‘one eleven’ but write it 111. As a youngster we called the Heinkel 111 bomber the ‘treble one’, later in the RAF a well known fighter squadron was called ‘treble one’ but numbered ‘111’.:D

    in reply to: Where and What? #1095602
    super sioux
    Participant

    Somewhere in England!

    OK, you need a clue. Sorry how the picture is shewn but it will enlarge!:rolleyes:

    in reply to: What's that in the background? #1100322
    super sioux
    Participant

    An insect by another name

    [QUOTE=zoot horn rollo;1654165]You would have thought so, but it’s not an error. She was HMS Cicala and was a member of the Insect Class.

    We are both right! Cicada is an insect type in English. Cicala is the same insect type in Italian! Maybe the Admiralty used the wrong name not being entymologists by trade.:eek:
    Source ‘Janes fighting ships of World War 1’ and ‘The Chambers Dictionary’ (not Morocco bound).;)

    in reply to: What's that in the background? #1100582
    super sioux
    Participant

    Insect class gunboat correction!

    There is an error in the spelling of the vessel shewn i.e Cicala should be Cicada an insect.:)

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 255 total)