dark light

JonathanF

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 575 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Heinkel shot by 9mm Luger #1386314
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Woah, I had skim-read that as 50m!!! It would be damn impressive marksmanship even at that range. Even a rifle shot would be near-impossible at 500m whilst airborne. And as you say, there’s no way a 9mm round would penetrate at that range, even fired from a sub-machine gun.

    in reply to: Heinkel shot by 9mm Luger #1386338
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Too bad the sten wasn’t around in may 1940 :-p

    You take my point though; 9mm Luger may well refer to the ammunition rather than the P08 pistol.

    in reply to: Heinkel shot by 9mm Luger #1386468
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Agreed, would have to be the drum-mag. Quite a feat (and rather lucky IMO) any way you look at it.

    [edit] 9mm Luger is of course another term for 9mm Parabellum, so for all we know he let rip at it with a Sten!

    in reply to: Heinkel shot by 9mm Luger #1386524
    JonathanF
    Participant

    17 rounds?!

    in reply to: La Ferte Alais 2005, 2 quick videos #1387165
    JonathanF
    Participant

    I’d say the you lose control of a plane when it is no longer doing what you intended for it to do and you have to wait for the altitude/airspeed exchange to get you out of the hole you’ve dug. All the while, hoping that you have the altitude and space around you to save yourself.. I think it’s pretty obvious that that was the case in the video.

    Exactly. Hope shouldn’t be a factor in safe flying, display or otherwise. There should be significant margin for error, and failing this I’d have thought rather more altitude than that would be the desirable ‘safety net’.

    in reply to: La Ferte Alais 2005, 2 quick videos #1387328
    JonathanF
    Participant

    anyway could u guys tell me what u mean exactly by “losing the control” of the aeroplane?

    Alex

    I don’t quite understand the trouble you’re having understanding, if that makes sense. But, I’d define it as not having a concerted influence over the attitude and speed of the aeroplane. I’m no pilot, but it looks to have a life of its own for at least a couple of seconds, and at that altitude it could easily have been goodbye Mr Pilot, as well as the loss of an important aircraft.

    JonathanF
    Participant

    And the out-house?

    JonathanF
    Participant

    Just to confuse things further, I’m sure I’ve seen a reference to the radiator structure being called the dog-house. Which is it? The canopy itself would seem to fit ‘greenhouse’ rather better than dog-house…

    in reply to: At a secret airfield 'somewhere in England'…….. #1402551
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Interestingly, the engines on the static replica aeroplanes and dotted around on stands are made of plastic. Amazing what you can do with an airbrush.

    in reply to: Mystery Spitfire image. #1402990
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Nah, fixed tail wheel, clipped wings, guns…….. :p

    I’ll stick with TB752, late-70s after rebuild, before first painting.

    Yes, I spotted the guns on a second glance a few minutes later (see my edit). I didn’t think the lack of wingtips proved much, and frankly from that distance without a closeup I’d be hard pressed to tell a retractable type tailwheel from a fixed. I had an identically posed shot of PL965 sitting next to me when I saw this photo; the power of suggestion I suppose!

    in reply to: Mystery Spitfire image. #1403366
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Wild stab in the dark…PL965? But M12, you say you *have* the RAF serial?

    [edit] Or not. Just spotted the cannon barrels.

    in reply to: Sally B #1415232
    JonathanF
    Participant
    in reply to: First Casualty Of New Ins. Rules.. #1415669
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Please feel free to copy and paste as required!

    Dear Tom Wise,

    I am writting to request your support in a major issue that is about to affect the UK preservation of flying vintage aircraft. Under new European insurance legislation (see link), there is a significant increase in the amount it will cost to operate vintage aircraft such as the UK’s last flying example of the B-17 bomber, as they are being classified alongside commercial airliners. Having used these historic aircraft to free our so called European friends, they now seem intent on grounding them. This weekend see’s the celebration of VE day at Duxford airshow in Cambridgeshire, and the B-17 has been withdrawn from flying at this event as a direct result of the increased costs. Surely this should not be the case?

    I would welcome your support on this issue, as would the many thousands of individuals who attend airshows around the UK. Airshows are not as popular in Europe, as here in the UK, so how can they understand the needs of the UK? An excemption to this European law is required, before its to late.

    http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_138/l_13820040430en00010006.pdf

    No offence intended here, but you might want to run that through a spell/grammar-checker. Personally, I think independently written emails and letters are the way to go. Copy and pasted efforts are just going to be ignored.

    in reply to: Motor torpedo boat at Duxford #1419147
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Do you think IWM North (Atlantic) would have been more appropriate?

    in reply to: Duxford 30/4/05 (19 photos) #1423707
    JonathanF
    Participant

    Nice shots!
    The Teddy on the B17 was Ted White’s personal logo. It was kept as a tribute to the great man after his untimely death, like the yellow/black checker board on Sally B’s engine cowl.

    Me 109 1190 has a Mercedes Benz badge which is not original, but does the job, It is based on a modern day Merc lorry/van badge.

    The other way around, surely? IWM has the original in store, as an anti-theft measure.

Viewing 15 posts - 391 through 405 (of 575 total)