dark light

ericmunk

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 1,519 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Plane stupid #864910
    ericmunk
    Participant

    Not to labour a point but has it ever happened that spectators have had the misfortune of an aircraft landing/crashing on there head’s on the approach path? Apart from one reply regarding a motorcyclist (who probably was just in the wrong place at the right time) I have never heard of such a thing?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/4141360.stm

    Sprang to mind. I’m sure there are others, unfortunately.

    in reply to: Newbie and some recent finds on the beach #866294
    ericmunk
    Participant

    4.00 x 3 1/2 slick was fitted to (amongst others) Hurricane, Hector, Martinet, Master, Proctor and I believe some marks of Spitfire.

    in reply to: Motor Glider ID #867073
    ericmunk
    Participant

    Seems like a homebuilt using tail and wings of a Spatz?

    in reply to: Newbie and some recent finds on the beach #871028
    ericmunk
    Participant

    You sure that’s 3 1/4, not 3 1/2? Looks a lot like 4.00×3 1/2 Palmer slick tyre, which was a fairly common tailwheel for a wide range of aircraft from WW2 (including I believe some marks Spitfire, Hurricane, Anson, etc.). I see them quite regularly re-used on vintage gliders.

    in reply to: Military markings exemption for Annex-II glider #878117
    ericmunk
    Participant

    The RAF Air Events Team at RAF Northolt were – I am delighted to say – extremely helpful, and we now have formal permission to display the original markings on the glider.

    in reply to: T.21 Restoration #886028
    ericmunk
    Participant

    The T21 is coming along ever so nicely. Lots of little jobs finished. Control cables are in, tail all rigged and tweaked, new deeper seat bases finished (and test flown on another T21).
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]229305[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]229306[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]229307[/ATTACH]

    Also, the Rhönlerche is starting to look like an aircraft again…
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]229308[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Looking for AP4309A Vol. 5, parts 2, 3 and 4 #895046
    ericmunk
    Participant

    Try

    http://www.rent-a-glider.com/view/p-1229/Downlaods/

    Thank you for that Tony. Didn’t know about that one, despite an intensive Google-search… The link has yielded the Daily Servicing Schedule as a new document. It confirms there’s a schedule for Minor and Major Servicing, and that is what I am still looking for, either as seperate Service Schedules, or as part 4/5 of the mentioned AP…

    If it does not turn up there are ways around it, but finding them would be the most easy and elegant way…

    in reply to: Looking for AP4309A Vol. 5, parts 2, 3 and 4 #895345
    ericmunk
    Participant

    Eric,

    Have you looked on ‘Scale Soaring UK’ website library.

    Dave

    Yes I have Dave, but they only have Volumes 1, 2 and 6, which is what I already have. Same with the VGC and the usual suspects… But thank you for pointing me in the direction of SSUK’s excellent site.

    in reply to: Military markings exemption for Annex-II glider #898183
    ericmunk
    Participant

    Thanks for that Dave. I understand from a few phonecalls that the RAF Events Team at Northolt now seems to be the place to ask, and I can skip the CAA as they don’t ‘do’ Annex-II glider CofA’s. Permission from the RAF seems to be the only thing I need nowadays…

    in reply to: Q: last aircraft design incorporating a dive-brake? #898186
    ericmunk
    Participant

    … In extremis you might pop the brakes if you’re wildly out of control, but even then you’d probably only be stopping the speed increasing rather than reducing it.

    In my experience spoilers are rather less effective than airbrakes on glides, but this may just be the implementation in the gliders concerned.

    Depends on the glider concerned. Any ‘classic’ wooden glider was built to the requirement of not exceeding Vne in a vertical dive with airbrakes extended, so will in most cases suffer a reduction of airspeed when airbrakes are deployed, rather than just stopping the increase (.e.g. 45 degree dive above Vm with airbrakes fully open will see a decrease generally). Same goes for some modern ships, but only in very shallow dives (a lot were built to the certification requirement of not exceeding Vne in a 45 degree dive with full airbrakes).

    Spoilers are as you say quite ineffective on most gliders, and require sideslipping as well (T21, Rhönlerche, etc.) to properly reduce L/D. There’s hardly any of them used for that reason after the 1960s.

    There is another form of airbrake, apart from the vertical one, hinged one at the back of the wing, and the spoiler system. Quite a fair few of aircraft from the 1940s to 1960s have peddles: spoilers hinging outwards from the wing (often above and below) on arms. Compare the T34 for instance.

    in reply to: Q: last aircraft design incorporating a dive-brake? #898189
    ericmunk
    Participant

    I always understood the purpose of spoilers was to destroy lift and not specifically to reduce speed.

    Depends on the phase of flight. In landing the are to reduce L/D and give you a far better way to aim for a tight landing than just sideslipping. In cloud flying (for which they were designed originally) they are specifically for reducing speed. Same with dives, intended or unintended.

    in reply to: Military markings exemption for Annex-II glider #899020
    ericmunk
    Participant

    See

    https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=123&pagetype=90&pageid=136

    http://www.maa.mod.uk/linkedfiles/regulation/1000_series/ra1120.pdf

    🙂

    Thanx Tony, but the problem is that the aircraft involved does not have a CAA CoA or a CAA PtoF, but a BGA CofA and operating on a Dutch permit. Both the CAA and MoD have been unable to help when I rang them. I have gotten a different lead from a fellow pilot who managed to get permission from a different branch of the MoD some years ago, for an Annex-II glider, so I will try his route (thanks Astir8!)…

    ericmunk
    Participant

    It is a Neukom Elfe, and to be precise a Neukom Elfe S3D. The Neukom company still exists as a composite specialist company, and some of the aviation staff have started their own aviation related businesses as well.

    in reply to: Military markings exemption for Annex-II glider #899665
    ericmunk
    Participant

    Look at para 16 onwards. Don’t know if it will help.

    http://www.maa.mod.uk/linkedfiles/regulation/1000_series/ra1120.pdf

    Thank you Lynx815, but that paragraph 16 rules us out, as it is only appliable for CAA-issued CofA’s (Part M, SAS, etc) and/or CAA-issued PtoF’s. Ours is a BGA issued Annex-II CofA… I have not yet come across any regulation we fall under, which of course is only all the better for us.

    ericmunk
    Participant

    Not German, first flown 1964. Seven examples built of this exact version, but about 100 were built in all different versions together. One of the early prototypes was probably the first glider to use laminar airfoils.

Viewing 15 posts - 661 through 675 (of 1,519 total)