Errr, Thanks, I think…..

Thanks for the link Geoff,

So basically I need to find a group of lads and lasses who all bear a remarkably strong resemblance to Concorde then…… 😮

I guess it will be easy for you lot to recognise me – I’ll be the twerp walking around looking lost, who keeps looking at the crowd through a wide angle lens 😀 😀 .

Will try and find you and introduce myself on Sat 9th, lets hope for decent weather.

Paul F

Will it be at (Jet) Legends?

What about a Supermarine Swift (Whatever happened to the one being slowly restored at Hurn a few years back……..)

And a Supermarine Scimitar…..

A couple of F104’s in the circuit to make that wonderful howling noise…

And don’t forget a Victor “towing” a couple of F4’s (or better still a pair of shiny Lightnings!) on it’s wing refueling drogues……

Paul

Opps, sorry, lost track of reality for a moment or two…Just off to lie down in a darkened room… 😮

Will it be at …….

‘ Nuff said :rolleyes:

Slip Wing Hurricane – Wing Release

Although the released upper wing would presumably tend to pitch up and then flutter leading edge over trailing edge as suggested, I suspect that the intantaneous tendency to pitch leading edge upwards at moment of release would also mean a loss in forward airspeed of the wing section as the broad under-surface hits the oncoming airflow. However, the Hurricane below would not decelerate at same rate – and would probably actually accelerate slightly due to los sof the extra drag? Nett result would be that by the time the wing starts to tumble/fall the Hurricane itself has probably moved on and is clear of being hit :confused: ?

Well, that’s my suggestion anyway.

As for connections, I suspect that apart from the explosive bolts or retractable pins at the joints at the top or bottom of the wing pylons the only other “conection” would be the fuel feed line. This could easily be fitted with a weak link section and a non-return/self sealing valve beneath the point of separation.

One book (can’t remember which) lists details of trials of this sytem on the Hilson Bi-Mono aircraft which was a one-off prototype desgined as a test bed I think before it got as far as the Hurricane tests.

Another option for adding fuel tankage for ferry purposes is described in one of Eric Brown’s books, whereby a wing-shaped fuel tank would be attached to the mainplane of a fighter by two long thin booms(one joining each mainplane at about mid span), such that it would trail behind the tailfin/plane. The profile shape of the tank itself would generate lift and so help overcome the added weight. The boom attachements would be hinged at teh attachement point on the parent aircfat’s wings so that the towed tank could float above/below the chord line of the mainplane as fuel was used etc, so helping avoid de-stabilising the towing aircraft (a rigid fixing would place a varying fuel load at a fixed point well aft of the normal CofG). I believe this set up was first trialed on a Magister, and never got as far as being tested on a Hurri or Spit?

Paul

At risk of adding nothing to this discussion….

All comments so far are perfectly valid.

Having taken older in-laws to Shuttleworth Display at Old Warden, they really enjoyed the intimate “garden party” atmosphere, even the Mum-in-Law ( 😮 ) found the day bearable 🙂 . Although I never took them to Legends, I feel that they, not being particularly “WWII aircraft lovers” would have found endless WWII machines a little tedious. Also, if they get bored and want to look around static aircraft the nature of Duxford mena sthey will either have some very long walks, or miss a lot of gorund-bound exhibits, whereas Old Warden is about the size of two small ish fields, with a relatively compact set of hangars, and a fairly short static park. Personally I would enjoy either show, but then I’ll watch just about anything that flies!

So, if the oldies in question just fancy a good day out but are not particulalry WWII fans I would recommend OW as favourite. However, if they have a hankerring to see loads of Mustangs or Spitfires, or other WWII hardware then Legends might be better bet.

As Moggy says, Dx and OW are geographically fairly close, so unless you live on doorstep of one or other travelling to either would probably be similar. In either case try to convince them that an early start is worthwhile to avoid sitting in traffic queues on way in, and at OW you might even be able to watch flying from the car should it rain (perish the thought- rain in UK in July, surely not! 😀 ).

Doubt this has clarified your choice much :confused: , but best of luck whichever you choose.

Paul F

Looking forward to tomorrow – programme just gets better and better

Just thinking back to the last flying display I saw at Dunsfold – one of the BAe Families Days back in the mid 80’s (Gulp, thats 20 years ago 😮 ).

PArticipants included the “house” team of Hawk Demonstrator G-HAWK, Harrier G-VTOL (Now at Brooklands), a two seat Hunter used to test the Blue Vixen Radar for the Sea Harrier program. Also flying were a Sea Harrier (a type still basking in it’s successes so far “Down South”), Doug Arnold’s Spitfire, Stampe SV4C and others. The Reds did a flypast, but did not display.(Will try to dig out and scan some of my 35mm slides from the show and post next week if anyone is interested?)

At the time so many of the “acts” seemed so “run of the mill”. Twenty years on and the Sea Harrier is retiring, G-VTOL is in a museum, Hunters are out of service, and BAe Dunsfold is no more. (35mm also seems so “old hat” now too 😮 ). Doesn’t time fly!

Weather forecast for the local area for tomorrow is dry (with chance of some sun), so we should be in for a good day, and some very worthy causes should benefit.

Look forward to seeing you all there.

Paul F

Supersonic Propellors?

I am no aeroengineer :confused: , but my understanding is that propellors lose efficiency very dramnatically if they are rotating at or near the speed of sound. The shock wave destroys the airflow properties of the blade and so efficiency is lost.

The critical speed is that seen at the propellor blade itself, so a rotating propellor blade tip will effectively reach the speed of sound (due to its rotational velocity)long before the forward airspeed of the whole aircraft reaches mach 1. This is why the propellor on a Harvard trainer (for example) reaches supersonic speed (and thus gives off that loud rasping noise) even though the aeroplane itself remains far below mach 1.

My understanding is that traditional thinking is that propellors become so inefficient as they reach the speed of sound that “supersonic” propellors are currently deemed unfeasible/impractical.

Even the turbine blades on jet engines lose efficiency if they rotate at the speed of sound, which is why most(?) modern supersonic jets have fancy intake systems to effectively reduce the speed of the incoming airflow to below mach 1 before it reaches the engine. The lateste suercruise supersonic fighters must have overcome this problem I guess, but I don’t know exactly how.

Any experts out there who can confirm or contradict this with “latest thinking” on the matter of supersonic propellors?