Only 15cm or so here – and its only been here for about a month. Unfortunately the average temp has been around -15 since the snow arrived. Neither the cold nor the snow show any sign of leaving any time soon.
I know, I know – its supposed to be here, but that doesn’t mean I’m supposed to like it.
That chick Mother Nature sure does have a bad sense of humour.
Reckon they’re optical Ilyushins meself…
(old jokes are always the best)
William
ooooh, so bad its good!
I think the bg got psed…
thats what we’ve been trying to say… but someday I think I’ll get myself a lens that blurs a few inched around central objects anyways… 😀
otherwise its not a bad looking aircraft – it will be interesting to see what the future holds for it.
he’s a very funny man…
Sorry to burst any bubbles but that photo has certainly been PS’d. I’d like to know what kind of ‘classic film based photography’ you’re using. Oh, and before you reply yet again to me that ‘I wouldn’t know Photoshop if it bit me’ (similar response – now deleted – to my post on the FC-1 thread last April) you should realize that I do have a background/education in design AND photography (real film and lenses) and have been using Photoshop professionally for almost 17 years.
oh, and just because a photo has a media or press agency mark on it does not make it authentic – anywhere in the world.
‘nuf said
Best of luck to the MNANG Museum… sounds like typical political lunacy – why do for yourself what someone has already done and you can take away.
EAJ…
A little pure speculation here but…
If these aircraft were owned by Kingwell and Jones (assuming 2 individuals) could the EAJ not actually be the initials of perhaps Ethel? And could she not possibly be a daughter/wife? My thoughts being that the aircraft were ‘named’ and thus emblazoned with the stylized initials of a significant woman in the owner’s family.
We may be looking at the photo assuming that Ethel and Stanley are the 2 in the rear seat – but perhaps Ethel is the aircraft and Stanley is the taller figure seated therein.
James
Hey Janie…
Thats ‘EAJ’ – just have to love the ‘art deco’ period – typography was one of my ‘fun subjects’ in college.
only other info I can offer up comes from G-INFO… they have 2 504Ks that match the partial Registry… G-EACB (E1671) and G-EBCB (H221) – both De-registered, no further info listed.
Any chance of a higher resolution scan of the little bit of type aft of the cockpit?
James
More Angolan AF;)
so, what’s with the faked photos?… nice to see a HIP can run with the exhausts plugged.
Sure seems possible… there’s still enough power and wing area
Here’s a Crusader from VMF235
http://www.vmf235.com/crusader2.html
and I seem to recall a report of either (or both) a USMC and/or Aeronavale 8N taking off with the wings folded and the pilot successfully completing a circuit before landing. Possibly even a SLUFF or 2.
I think the C-17 is the perfect choice in this case. The CF have sorely lacked a truely strategic airlifter. The MBT issue is a minor one – in that this is the first time in over 50 years that they’ve had to be deployed with any real ‘urgency’ (and probably one of the rarest of occasions for the CF).
Hitch-hiking with allied forces and chartering civillian transport only goes ‘so far’ in the world. As far as I understand, the USAF C-5 fleet is fairly well utilized and not likely to be partially offered up for sale – and I don’t think re-starting production is a truly economically viable alternative. Some nay-sayers moan on and on about the A-400 ‘Blunderbus’ but when the Government’s requirement is ‘immediate’ and tangible, it’s senseless to place an order for a ‘crate’ that has yet to fly. Antonovs??? capable, but not (IMHO) a smart choice for NATO inter-operability.
Given the current (and even forcast) strength of the CF, four (I would have preferred 5) ’17s offers a global capability (even without our own boom-equiped tankers) and the utility to get the personnel and materiel into the areas that our Government decides to send the Forces. The general replacement rate of CF equipment has proven to be such that acquiring an aircraft such as the C-17 will ensure that they will continue in service for a very long time.
Hooray! Finally a military aircraft purchase that is ‘correct’ AND without the drawn-out tendering process to fill everyone else’s pockets.
Just so we can all read and share in my personal happiness over this…
O’Connor announces military plane purchase
Updated Fri. Feb. 2 2007 2:44 PM ET
Canadian Press
OTTAWA — The $3.4-billion purchase of four huge Boing C-17 military transport planes will scatter spinoff benefits across the country, but the Conservative government wouldn’t say Friday which regions of Canada will get the biggest slice.
Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, Public Works Minister Michel Fortier and Industry Minister Maxime Bernier, said the regional industrial benefits from the contract will bolster aerospace firms across the country.
Bernier said Boing will announce specific contracts at a later date, which will help clarify where some some $577 million in spinoffs will land.
Earlier reports suggest Quebec companies are expected to see about 40 per cent of the money, but the government would not touch the subject Friday.
The first of the aircraft is expected to be delivered in the “August-September” period, said O’Connor, with a second before the end of this year and two more in 2008.
“Gone are the days when we had to rely solely on our allies or commercial companies for airlift to respond to crisis situations,” said O’Connor.
“Gone are the days when the Canadian Forces had to wait for years to get equipment they need for their jobs today.”
The first aircraft to be delivered is currently being built as part of a U.S. Air Force contract, but the American military has agreed to permit Canada to “step into the assembly line,” said O’Connor, in order to get the plane more quickly.
The purchase of the strategic airlifters fulfils a promise the Conservatives made in the last election campaign.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised the planes in December 2005, saying they would give the Canadian Forces the ability to haul heavy loads, including the disaster assistance relief team, to distant locations without having to lease aircraft or beg a ride with allies.
“To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment where they are needed, when they are needed,” Harper said at the time.
“To put it bluntly, hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don’t get to pick the route or the timing.”
Opposition politicians complained that the purchase was made without the usual tendering process, but the government countered by saying the plane is unique and no other aircraft can duplicate it.
The C-17, which first flew in 1991, is widely used by the United States air force. Britain’s Royal Air Force has four and plans to buy another and Australia took delivery of the first of four planes last December.
The planes are big — 53 metres long with a 52-metre wingspan — and can haul as much as 76 tonnes. They can be refueled in flight, giving them virtually unlimited range.
Despite their size, they can operate from runways as short as 1,100 metres.
The Conservatives are also in the process of seeking replacements for the aging fleet of C-130 Hercules transport planes, which have been the workhorse of the air force for decades, but which are rapidly coming to the end of the service lives.
Has anybody in the Canadian military said that they would be used for transporting tanks “around the world” even the US rarely uses them for that purpose. What is needed is some decent battlefield helos to transport around the world, forget the tanks ,oh dear I forgot the Navy cant take the tanks either as the replenishing vessels to supply the navy overseas are to be taken out of service.
Thats one of the big problems with our media – the propensity to dumb-down a subject. In their eyes anything with armour (or any military vehicle) is a ‘tank’. And yes the C-17 will help them deploy tanks (Leopards) – it may only be to assist in getting them home after the Afghan mision ends.
Ro-Ro’s – I dunno, I’m only an aerogeek – I’ll leave the boats to the boatnerds.
First word out of my mouth when I saw that was Jee – susss!!! 😮 It sure looks like a ‘Cobra’ – even beyond the 90 degrees, although I’m sure the MiG and Su officianados will say it wasn’t enough :diablo:
Anyone know how things are going with their Lysander restoration?
I’d have to say she’s almost done judging by this…
http://secure.warplane.com/pages/restoration_lysander_update.html
Would not give too much thought to that.. Looks like they differ from aircraft to aircraft.. Refer to the pics below.. As often said – T.I.A. (This is Africa)
TIA.. well said!… it all comes down to who the painter is and just how much or a perfectionist or how much he really cares about his task.