Haven’t they heard of electrolysis – that procedure is said to be a permanent solution for unwanted hare :D.

Paul F

Ringway – mid sixties I guess..

Some time in the early/mid sixties, when I was growing up in Marple, Cheshire, I remember being taken out to Manchester/Ringway on a Sunday afternoon by my Dad to watch the ‘planes. I have distinct memories of sitting on the car roof, watching four-engined propliners crossing the road ahead of us on finals, and then touching down opposite us in a somewhat “tail down” attitude with puffs of smoke from the wheels. I remember being particularly struck by the fact that the road we were on (or another one we used that trip) had traffic lights on it to stop the cars so that planes could land across it. My memory tells be the planes had brightly coloured tails with an “E” on them. Subsequently I learnt these would probably have been British Eagle flights – Viscounts perhaps? or Britannias? (No doubt someone here will correct this if I’m wrong).

That Christmas (IIRC) my favourite present was a battery operated tin-plate and plastic Boeing 707 in BOAC markings with red transparent plastic engine nacelles. It had a huge wingspan (to a five year old anyway!), made a roaring noise and then taxied forward a couple of feet with it’s engines flashing away (tiny light bulbs inside), before stopping, and then repeated the process. I seem to remember that the engines were frequently broken off, and Dad had to reattach them with Bostik. The noise must have driven my parents crazy… So started a lifelong passion for aviation.

Paul F

IIRC the Fairchild prototype YA-10 first flew in 1972 or 73, with first production example flying 1975. So the ‘Hog is pushing 35yrs old now…

What’s the minimum age for a paticular type to be allowed in this section of the forum? And is that “age” taken as being from the first flight of a prototype, first flight of any “proof of concept” demonstrator that can be clearly seen as a clear fore-runner of the type, first flight of the first full production example (that in itself may be diffcult to define), or from first flight of a specific sub-type or mark under discussion?:diablo:

While simple inclusion in a museum seems a bit of an arbritiary classification(after all isn’t one of the prototype F22s now in a museum – and they’re hardly a candidiate for the term “historic”!) I’m with Moggy on this one.

No doubt this has been discussed before, but as modern, complex, aviation designs take ever longer to reach service, and then have their “shelf lives” extended by (mid-life) upgrades, many types in front line service will soon be able to appear on both Historic and Mod Mil forums!!!!!:confused:

Paul F (long since “historic”)

And the speeds you quoted are conservative on both wind speed and carrier speed.

Not being sure of the detail I was inclined to be cautious – total over the deck windspeed of up to 40Kts – 45Kts closer to the truth perhaps? As you say, it must have made life interesting for those on the flight-deck trying to do their “day jobs” and stay on their feet in the face of a constant 40Kt gale 😮

Quote (CSheppardholedi):”I would think that the whole argument does boil down to whether the wheels can stand twice takeoff speed. The engines will act normally, less the drag of the axle friction being doubled, the wings will produce just as much lift. If it can reach rotation before the tires fail, it will lift off. IMHO” Unquote

No, take off is purely related to airspeed over the wings, ground speed relative to the moving conveyor belt is totally irrelevant. If the aircraft remains stationary relative to the surrounding ground (i.e not the moving belt surface), then, unless ambient wind speed equals take off speed, the ‘plane will NOT take off.

Paul F

Don’t forget, it’s the “airspeed” (i.e. speed of the wing relative to the air it is passing through) of a plane on it’s takeoff run that generates lift, not it’s ground speed (speed relative to a fixed point on the ground).

So, as has been said earlier, a plane is not propelled by it’s wheels, but by the thrust of it’s engines, thus if the wing remains stationary then airsped is zero, so no lift is generated, and no take off can happen.

Conversely of course, if the plane is stationary (i.e. parked), but the wind speed is sufficient (say 200mph) and blowing stright on the nose, then even a fully loaded A380 could theoretically take off vertically, as despite experincing zero ground speed, the wings would be experiencing a 200mph airspeed, and thus generating sufficient lift (subject to suitable flap/slat settings) to lift the beast off the ground. Now theres a worrying thought!

If in any doubt, try it out on MS Flight sim, using a small Cessna 172 – set ground level wind speed to a steady 80 -90kts, and you should be able to take off and land near-vertically simply by setting the flaps and working the control column – though if you haven’t got the plane pointed dead into wind then it’ll probably be turned over pdq!

Ask pilots of light aircraft with good STOL characteristics, such as Austers – a strong gust of wind (say 15 – 20mph) immediately after touch down and can easily get the aircraft airborne again as the wing starts to generate lift again as a result of the increased airspeed. It’s unlikely to happen to quite the same extent on an airliner, because spoilers tend to be activated very quickly so as to ensure lift is destroyed, as much as to slow the aircraft down, but from experience I know that a gusty 40Kt wind down the runway at Guernsey can lead to an interesting final approach/landing/roll out for something like a BAe146 😎 , as the wing sees sudden increases and decreases in apparent airspeed, even though ground speed is fairly constant.

Paul F

As i suspected, BH-5 and BH-9 are very closely related to each other.

– Many thanks for the information (and excellent photos ) Rumcajs

Regards
Paul F