There’s a good history (with photos) of this airframe on Ruud Leeuw’s site: http://www.ruudleeuw.com/phpby.htm
It confirms that the aircraft was converted to an aerial firefighter by Field Aviation for Avalon Aviation. There is a photo showing it in Avalon colours here: https://abpic.co.uk/pictures/view/1482432
They don’t need wings, they need blades and a gearbox! 😀
This has been discussed at length on PPRuNe, the pilot in question has flown at that airfield many times, but in a different type with a smaller rotor disc. He may have unconsciously parked in the ‘usual’ place, forgetting that he needed to leave more space for the disc. Initially it looked like it hit the roof when he lowered the collective, but that first video appears to show the blades hitting the building at a lower level. Fortunately there were no injuries!
If only this one was still flying….
Photo from Peter Arnold collection, see here for more: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?131687-Malloch%92s-Spitfire-%96-The-story-and-restoration-of-PK350%85A-new-book
Interesting illustration of the military Concorde! Just my two cents but those three Blue Steel missiles are going to wreak havoc with the airflow going into the engines. At supersonic speeds you will get shockwaves off those missile nosecones, fins and attachment rails, which will bounce off the underside and the other missiles. This will seriously disturb the inlet airflow. I’m sure it was an interesting thought at the time but from an aerodynamic standpoint I would label it as extremely unpractical.
I asked someone who is closely involved with G-BBDG and he confirms that there is nothing like that in the structure. The Concorde wing was never designed to carry anything. As has been mentioned above, the performance penalties of such a modification would most likely prohibit supersonic flight or at least knock a very large margin off the fuel economy (if any) of the aircraft.
Aaaahhh, so that’s where it was going!
I was surprised to catch it at EHLE this morning, obviously for a fuel stop:
Norseman_EHLE_260517 by Jelle Hieminga, on Flickr
(with apologies for the crappy photo)
The pole could be an attempt to create a true static pressure source. On later types such as the 1-11 and VC10 a trailing static ‘bomb’ was used for this. It is needed to calibrate the static source on the aircraft.
The NMM in Soesterberg, The Netherlands has a nice (static) Buffalo replica but unfortunately it is not on display. I realise that this is a bit of a red herring but it’s the only one I could think of!
Edit: Wikipedia is your friend! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F2A_Buffalo#Survivors
I was going to say that any first soloist should be well acquainted with PFLs before the big day. This is a nice and slow biplane that you can land in any reasonably sized field and it looked like she was certainly within gliding distance of a lot of usable fields the whole time.
I was thinking of Bach’s ‘School for Perfection’ as well! 😀
On that fourth photo, the entire surface is white with oxidation, so that half of the clevis has suffered a complete fracture a while ago. The other side looks like an instantaneous fracture to me, almost as if the metal is brittle. Good of you to bring this to everyone’s attention, even though aircraft have been standing still for quite some time, there may still be some surprises lurking in the structure! (Something like this has happened to a VC10 in the past….)
A lot of aircraft engine types run rich at sea level, and on larger engines this is not uncommon as far as I know.
That would be my guess too, part of the prop hub and the blade root. I know absolutely nothing about German props though….
I assume is like a power egg where you take one off and bolt t’other on?
Exactly that. An engine complete with accessories, all hoses and pipes, cowling etcetera, ready to be bolted onto a firewall. I assume that they’ve had to incorporate some quick release fittings in some of the lines to accommodate this option.
Am I the only one that thinks this is a bit daft?
Having given this some more thought, no you’re not. Looking at the photo in post #1 again, it does look a bit like a step back. They’ve gone to so much trouble to get the shape, looks and sound of a G-12 back and then they go and bolt a Merlin back on. But I also can see the advantages from a training/economic aspect.
As for the two seat Buchon, there’s not really a need to recreate that is there, seeing as one turned up in Texas? :p