dark light

contrailjj

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 1,053 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Thunderbirds display team gets a female pilot #2596852
    contrailjj
    Participant

    IS she also your co-pilot in your avatar? 😉 😀

    (oh oh oh… terribly male-oriented moment…)

    Unfortunately no… but Captain Malochowski can lead my strike element any day…. or how about this year’s Snowbird 12 (public relations officer – and hey, she’s from my neck of the woods)

    I have to confess to a terrible infatuation with any woman in uniform.

    in reply to: Happy Birthday Me! #2596857
    contrailjj
    Participant

    Wishing you the most Phabulous of days!

    Rhinos rule!

    in reply to: Hurricane news #1267602
    contrailjj
    Participant

    ohhhh boy! keep those fingers crossed… Potter is supporting the Air Show Ottawa in June with 8 of his aircraft including… Harvard, Mustang IV, Spitfire XVI, Hurricane, Staggerwing, Taperwing… all flying in the display. Joined on static by Sandy Thompson’s Sea Fury.

    in reply to: Thunderbirds display team gets a female pilot #2597043
    contrailjj
    Participant

    Interesting…..which brings me to the next question, which air forces use women in their display teams?

    I know Morocco does:

    First female pilot in the Canadian Forces Snowbirds… selected in 2000
    She flew the number 3 position in 2001 and number 2 in 2002.
    Women have been associated with the team in Liaison/Coordinator and support roles for many years.

    http://www.heroines.ca/people/carmichael.html

    contrailjj
    Participant

    Yes, aircrafts of the former Saigon puppet regime is everywhere in VietNam. They don’t need to be taken from the grounds of the Independence Palace, I’m sure the VPAF still have more in a warehouse somewhere, but I guess VietNam have the tendency to surprise oursiders 😀

    Btw, you spent some time in VietNam? Any photos to share?

    A ton of pics- only they’re more tourista and beer drinking shots. All of which slowed my reaction times on the occassions when I could have had a great shot of aircraft.

    contrailjj
    Participant

    Right…

    well, I just seem to be in an argumentative mood tonight. If the UK cares to pull out of the F-35, that’s their perogative. Any nation that puts that much money into a program as an ‘equal’ partner should have access to the techology.

    What’s next… any nation that agrees to purchase these aircraft cannot service them themselves… Lockheed Martin personnel shall be stationed anywhere and everywhere the F-35 shall fly and shall maintain and service them to ‘our’ standards?

    Get real! Share the goodies or get out of it!

    and the same goes for the other thread regarding Israel and F-35… don’t tell/ask them… buy them and install the avionic YOU want.

    Once/if it goes into production and gets delivered, Lockheed-Martin and the US Govenrment have no say over what the end user does with it. If the UK, Canada, Turkey or Australia want the stealth technology… just take one apart and reverse engineer it… Certainly other nations wouldn’t be so scrupulous…

    Anyone who thinks that a nation that has signed on/paid into to the program before now is going to pull out… Must be the old Canadian govenment. For anyone to back out now (or in a year) is just not worth it. L-M has your money (and a little black book that quotes your options). They’ll say – ok, bye bye thanks for the help.

    in reply to: Proof Reading #1268036
    contrailjj
    Participant

    and now some from across the pond…

    I’m a graphic designer who has been fortunate enough to indulge his passion for aviation through various outlets including publication. Many, many a page has passed under my eye/mouse and across my screen.

    I whole-heartedly agree that a) those writing/contibuting should at least put the necessary background reseach into their work, and b) that the publisher should also be responsible (through their editors) for correct content. It is also worthwhile to point out that some would point to excessive editing as leading to infringement on freedom of speech. Fortunately, when dealing with historic, (obviously well-documented background subjects) there is the ability to document and publish in a fairly unfettered manner – so long as the FACTs are adhered to.

    My point does not deal with the historical facts of a subject, more the grammatical. While those in the UK have primarily only the Queen’s English to deal with, please pause for a moment and put yourselves in my shoes. I am in Canada… I work in English (and French, Spanish, German, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and sometimes Russian). Here we have the strange situation of reading, writing and speaking a language which we share with our neighbours, but its NOT the same language (nor is it really the ‘Queen’s English’). Canadian English is based on the ‘Queen’s English’ but has been infiltrated by ‘l’autre langue’ and tortured by linguistic laziness through spell-check.

    So, that said, while working through 300 to 700 pages of a book, I proof-read – on-screen and in hard copy – not because it’s my job, but because I care about what is in that book (and we still spell favour, harbour and neighbour with a ‘u’).

    The idea that someone, other than the writer and the reader, actually cares about what is being printed is unfortunately Quixotic… the desktop computer has laid waste to the typesetters and editors of the world… we (well, not us) will all live on a diet of Wikimygooglegeohistory and MSenglish

    Cheers!… i need a beer after that

    James

    in reply to: can somebody id this wreck #1268041
    contrailjj
    Participant

    I’m still pretty sure its not a real aircraft… some bits and pieces inspired by the real ones.. but it just doesn’t make sense…

    The cowling area just doesn’t belong… reminicent of the Gamecock or the Peashooter (both minus engine and cowl ring in the case of Peashooter)

    Small camels and palms… ahh the joys of the long lens… Long lenses will always foreshorten the shot… shots like that distort reality… all perception of real depth is gone… you really could pose a well botched (now there’s an oxymoron) 32nd scale kit and not really be able to tell…

    Show me the High res version…

    Nahhh, its not a real one. If someone can absolutely, positively ID this as an actual aircraft wreck … the next round is on me.

    contrailjj
    Participant

    bestill by beating heart…is that Chadian SF-260s??… in Chad?? very nice to see more that one in the same spot… anyone have pics of the 2 (i believe) Chadian PC-7s?

    Ohhhh and Zairean (Zairoise?) Chipmunk… simply beautiful.

    and Vietnam?? well I think you’d be surprised to see what can fly there… having spent considerable time there in the last 3 years, I believe they could take the F-5 from the lawn of the old Palace in HCMC or a T-37 from the museum in DaNang and have either one airborne in a few months… Chinooks??.. no worries… who needs military aid when they and the engines, parts and fiddley bits are available on the civil market.

    in reply to: can somebody id this wreck #1268467
    contrailjj
    Participant

    It looks like it almost wants to be Italian but, with the all-metal fuselage, I doubt it. More than likely a movie set mock-up, dumped or sold off.

    the lower line of type reads ‘AEROPOSTALE’

    in reply to: Can you identify this? #1270966
    contrailjj
    Participant

    hmmm, not an actual gun part but built similarly… like this early 40s Japanese machine-gun style camera. Some interesting similarities with the Lewis too, just no mechanism. Could it also be a training dummy for aerial gunnery school – peep through the reticle and keep your target behind the card for ‘acurate’ fire as we shake and move your cupola.

    in reply to: old transports #1271085
    contrailjj
    Participant

    Not even a handful was built, never used operationally, relatively unknown
    and, to be honest, not really a beauty !
    Nevertheless, for me one of the most interesting post war transports,
    the SNCAC NC.211 Cormoran.
    Someone, who has a drawing/picture/artist’s impression, or something
    like that of the pre-project, the even larger NC.210 ?
    (picture from http://www.airwar.ru)

    How about this… larger version, and a quaint little desk-top model. Curious choice of names… I mean, sure the Cormorant isn’t the most attractive bird, but definitely a wee bit more sleek than the NC.211… Walrus maybe??

    http://www.aviafrance.com/aviafrance1.php?ID=600&ID_CONSTRUCTEUR=1141&ANNEE=&ID_MISSION=&MOTCLEF=

    http://perso.wanadoo.fr/aircollection/poinsot.htm

    contrailjj
    Participant

    Some more exotics…

    While the SF260s carry French civil registrations, they are accurate markings for Burkina Faso

    in reply to: Latin American Aviation #1272606
    contrailjj
    Participant

    Ecuador was one of the first latin american countries with Jets.

    English Electric Canberra Mk-6 (1954)
    Gloster Meteor FR-9 ( 1954)

    Lockheed T-33A (1956)

    Lockheed F-80 Shooting Star (1958)

    ooooo, now you’ve got me excited… Those Metoer FR.9s have to be in 1967… thats a pic of the Ecuadoran Aerobatic Team the Aguilas.. Do you have any more of them? or larger scans and/or a clear shot of the emblem on the fuselage. I ask because they would make wonderful reference material for my profiles…

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=891433#post891433

    only other shots I’ve seen of them are from the AF museum – and the aircraft have seen better days.

    in reply to: Can anyone id this bomb, wing tank rack? #1272608
    contrailjj
    Participant

    Peter my friend,

    what you have there is a genuine, certifiable underwing pylon from a CF-104 Starfighter.

    James

Viewing 15 posts - 916 through 930 (of 1,053 total)