OK here’s one that had me scratching my head:
Gulfstream business jets have what are called ‘Nutcrackers’. They are essentially squat switches mounted on the main gear legs. I am told their name comes from a naval/marine component but have not been able to find out why or what. Gulfstream’s long association with naval aircraft is the key. Gulfstream pilots all know about their ‘nutcrackers’ but I’ve yet to meet one who knows where this term comes from. :confused:
Just finished Antony Beevor’s ‘Stalingrad’. All I can say is I’m shocked.
Now started a review copy of Lane Wallace’s ‘My 10 Best Flights’. Looking forward to the U-2 experience!
Thanks Tony. Have already tried that. Siai Marchetti themselves do not respond to these types of enquiries sadly.
here we have Cessna’s N500CC and what Pratt & Whitney called ‘Number 2’. But I’m not sure if that means the second aircraft built or 0002.
What is apparent is that 0002 was delivered in 1971 and 0001 the following year, in 1972, so should I be assuming that Pratt & Whitney’s ex aircraft is 0002?
Colour pic is of sn 0002, obtained from South Africa. What was its original US registration and is this P & W’s test aircraft; CF-CPW aka ‘no. 2’?
N501CC has been preserved by the Smithsonian. I didn’t know that wieesso, even though it’s a very much later Citation 1/SP. That’s great. They also have the earliest surviving Lear 23. Other iconic business jets must be the Gulfstream G11, Jetstar, HS125 (of course) and arguably the Falcon 20 (or Mystere 20).
I wonder what sn, the oldest flying HS125 is.
I’ve asked Cessna about the FanJet 500 prototype but no one there seems to know much about it.
wiesso
It appears CF-CPW and ZS-ONE are the same aircraft. The B&W photo of CF-CPW is taken from Pratt & Whitney’s own book on their company history. They say it was later sold on to a charter company.
I see from the Flight Global archives, the writer, Hugh Field, said that N502CC is ‘number one off the line’. He also said there were two aircraft giving demonstrations at NBAA that year. One of them had been delivered to United Aircraft of Canada for JT15D testing. He flew in N502CC.
N502CC then must be 0001 and United Aircraft’s example, 0002; ‘ZS-ONE’. 0001 must have been used by Cessna until it was delivered in 1972, which explains why 0002 was delivered first in 1971.
Did Cessna only fly one prototype Fanjet 500? I would be amazed if Cessna only had one prototype.
Flip. Now that throws a spanner in the works. I see that Citation 1/SPs ended their production run in 1985 and the last serial number was 0689!
According to the National Air & Space Museum:
CESSNA CITATION 501CC
This Cessna Citation, the second built, first flew on January 23, 1970. It spent its life as a test bed vehicle for subsequent Citation series aircraft and engines, instruments and components, systems evaluations, and icing testing and certification.
So 701 was never sold – maybe 700 is the original FanJet 500 prototype.
Thanks David
Wonder what else is in that bone yard.
So we have established the origins and fates of 699 and 701. That leaves 700 (Can’t open XL). Was 700 perhaps a static test frame. Of course 701 bears little resemblance to its FanJet 500 roots as it has been consistently developed to almost production standard (1/SP).
They are owned by the property owner as mentioned in sentence 1 of post 1. It’s his private collection.
Oops, apologies Jack!
I’m shocked.
Who owns these airframes?
Imagine if there was a Spitfire amongst them: The language would be somewhat stronger guys. As it is, to see amongst others, a rare Sea Hawk dissolving amongst bushes is bad enough – how about an exposé in Fly Past?
Looking forward to reviewing your book Tangmere.
Come on Tangmere – give it a miss. There’s a simple answer, don’t click on the thread. You are under no obligation to read anything here mate. :confused:
Well said Pagen.
Anyway, I think the mods have a difficult job, they just need to realise when they have been a bit ridiculous and admit it rather than defend a point of view that is basically indefensible. You only brought it upon yourselves. 😮
Bomberboy – I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say.
Well said Pagen.
Anyway, I think the mods have a difficult job, they just need to realise when they have been a bit ridiculous and admit it rather than defend a point of view that is basically indefensible. You only brought it upon yourselves. 😮
Bomberboy – I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say.