MerlinXXOf course most of us tend to overlook the most common many bladed prop, the bypass section of a turbofan. There was an idea years ago, before turbofans had such high bypass ratios, of making the bypass fan variable pitch. Don’t know what became of that though.
I visited Renishaw probes in Gloucestershire some years back and remember that they had a variable pitch RR fan engine somewhere in the facility. From what I recall it was similar in size to an RB211, and designed to reduce engine noise in built up areas.
MerlinXXIt may be worth contacting the City of Norwich Aviation Museum, as they have a 100 group section.
There is also a 100 group association that may be able to help, and can be contacted through a link on the museum website. This association is made up of people who served in 100 Group, and their relatives. They often have photos from the different squadrons in the group, although I can’t personally recall seeing any from 23 squadron.
Rgds,
James
MerlinXXIt would be great if they did start making them again. I have often wondered with today’s technological improvements whether the engine would be more powerful, fuel efficient and reliable. I guess there isn’t much need these days for such large pistons, but I wonder if it could actually be a commercial success to begin manufacture again.
Not to upset the purists but I would imagine a number of warbird/classic operators would be interested if a new one would cut down on maintenance and fuel costs.
Rgds,
James
MerlinXXPersonally I think Rolls-Royce engines are the best. For me, I find it slightly comforting to look out of an aircrafts window and see the Rolls-Royce badge looking at me. On a development note, has anyone ever seen the turbofan they developed with variable pitch fan blades? If I remember correctly, it was designed to cut down noise for inner-city airports but I guess was shelved. A company called Renishaw used to have the engine in their plant, but I am not sure if it is still there.
MerlinXXI think this article is just trying to scare people. For one, aren’t the wings also designed in the UK? If its not produced in the UK then I’m pretty sure BAe won’t let their design team be used or give up their knowledge so easily.
Regarding the government subsidies, I think it makes sense to provide loans to businesses if it is going to reduce the amount of government expenditure on unemployment welfare. I for one wouldn’t mind paying an extra £1 a week in tax if it meant there was more job security as a whole, and increased technological knowhow.
Also, Boeing gets money from the US taxpayer, but never has to give it back and it isnt called launch aid. How much of a profit do they make on every missile, and other such military equipment? Good ol’ George has certainly been firing off a few of them in the last few years and who pays for that – the taxpayer.
MerlinXXVery lucky escape from what could have been potentially a lot worse. Whilst on the subject, this is taken from Thai-air’s website:
http://www.thaiair.com/About_Thai/Newsroom/Press_Release/Press_Year_2005/press0405-wu127.htm
Thai Airways International Public Company Limited’s Corporate Communications Department provided clarification on an incident involving THAI’s Airbus 330-300 aircraft, flight TG602, on the route Bangkok – Hong Kong at 19.50 hours on 19 April 2005. Prior aircraft takeoff at Bangkok International Airport, the pilot-in-command realized that there was irregularity regarding the right wing and therefore had a technician conduct an investigation. It was concluded that the wingtip of the right wing had fallen off, whereby at the same time the company’s operations center reported that an aircraft part was found on the wing of Singapore Airlines’ aircraft flight SQ 068 that was parked at Parking Bay 52 whereby the aileron on the left wing had been torn at a certain length.
After irregularity was discovered, the pilot-in-command requested a change of aircraft. During that time, 183 passengers were in transit at the international terminal, with flight departure from Bangkok at 23.15 hours and arrival in Hong Kong at 03.52 hours (local time). It was concluded that there may have been 2 causes of the incident, as follows:
Whether or not Singapore Airlines’ aircraft was parked in the right position
Whether or not THAI’s aircraft reversed in the right route
Currently, THAI has set up a committee to investigate for clarification on the causes of the incident, which will be advised further in the near future.
If the pilot did not notice this, does anyone think this could have been a lot worse too?
MerlinXXSome airlines such as Qatar aren’t profitable (and basically don’t care) since they are financed by the oil $.
Maybe some other think the same.
I think you could be on to something there. Perhaps the Arab states are buying all of these fuel-thirsty jets to keep world oil demand high, and hence keep the price of oil up. Maybe over the course of an aircrafts life, it may even pay for itself in increased oil revenues!!! I have always wondered what they are going to do for money though when the oil runs out?
MerlinXXIt has been interesting to read all of your posts on this. Now for my 2 pence worth. Firstly, I think that Airbus complaining is pretty pathetic and doesn’t give me the impression of a world-class manufacturer. Secondly, in the above article it says the ‘French Airbus’. If I am not mistaken, Airbus is a European company and by no-means wholly French.
Also, who can tell what the commercial aviation market will look like in 10 years time? I believe the 787 will be a success (if it meets it projected targets) but I also believe there is a huge market for the A380. India’s population will overtake China’s before long, and with the massive increase in passenger numbers there will not be enough airport capacity unless carriers do use the A380.
Regarding the A350 development, I think people are forgetting that Airbus has just developed a new aircraft, and so may well already have good foundation knowledge of aerodynamics and systems that Boeing are having to develop now.
MerlinXXI have many, many fond memories of Mildenhall. It was always the first aishow of the year I visited, and was a perfect start to the season. It was a sure bet that no matter what the weather, you would still go home with a sunburnt face.
I don’t have any photos to post at present, but a few of my favourite moments were when the B1-B made a high-speed pass of the base and seeing the Herc’s do their almost vertical landings. And of course, who can forget the great burgers!!
MerlinXXGoing slightly off topic now but hasn’t the introduction of the requirement for the secure cockpit door practically eliminated any commercial flying of old planes e.g DC-3 etc. I seem to recall someone saying that the cost of installing the door is far too prohibitive to make it commercially viable.
MerlinXXGoing slightly off topic now but hasn’t the introduction of the requirement for the secure cockpit door practically eliminated any commercial flying of old planes e.g DC-3 etc. I seem to recall someone saying that the cost of installing the door is far too prohibitive to make it commercially viable.
MerlinXXI flew with Virgin in Upper Class last year and I am sure they gave us metal cutlery to use. Maybe hijackers only fly economy!?! To be honest however, I think that the plastic knives are just as dangerous and would penetrate the skin if used with force. Also, you could use a fizzy drinks can if you wanted a sharp object, or even one of the many glass bottles carried on board.
I think the idea of banning these objects was to try and put the public at ease, rather than actually preventing another attack. Also, regarding the cigarette lighters, I am sure it was only ‘torch’ lighters that were banned, but I do not know why as they all burn.
MerlinXXI flew with Virgin in Upper Class last year and I am sure they gave us metal cutlery to use. Maybe hijackers only fly economy!?! To be honest however, I think that the plastic knives are just as dangerous and would penetrate the skin if used with force. Also, you could use a fizzy drinks can if you wanted a sharp object, or even one of the many glass bottles carried on board.
I think the idea of banning these objects was to try and put the public at ease, rather than actually preventing another attack. Also, regarding the cigarette lighters, I am sure it was only ‘torch’ lighters that were banned, but I do not know why as they all burn.
MerlinXXAs long as you do not break any immigration rules I can’t see why it would be a problem. One thing not too dissimilar is back-to-back ticketing which the airlines are extremely firm about. This applies mostly to business travellers I would think, and is briefly explained in the link below:
MerlinXXAs long as you do not break any immigration rules I can’t see why it would be a problem. One thing not too dissimilar is back-to-back ticketing which the airlines are extremely firm about. This applies mostly to business travellers I would think, and is briefly explained in the link below:
Sign In
