dark light

Archer

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,614 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Film found showing the Vulcan may fly again…. #917653
    Archer
    Participant

    It will fly, but in a galaxy far, far away….. :p

    in reply to: Dewoitine 551 recreation #917656
    Archer
    Participant

    I like the fact that the’ve got professionals on the job!
    http://www.aerobuzz.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L350xH267/replicair_d551_chat_pel-be8c9.jpg

    in reply to: VC10 at Cosford #917939
    Archer
    Participant

    http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/whats-going-on/news/vc10-rebuild-is-now-complete/

    A great job by GJD Services and all the companies that assisted them!

    in reply to: Duxford Diary (2015) #920614
    Archer
    Participant

    Interesting – I was about to post that some do have 2800s but any info I find online says F-AZXJ has a 3350.

    The engine that was removed certainly looks like an R-3350.

    in reply to: Fokker F.VII Querry #921473
    Archer
    Participant

    Actually ‘wing’. not plural.

    You are correct of course, that was a typo on my part. It was also partly the reason that the Fokker types fell out of grace in the US after some crashes where the wing structure was found to be weakened.

    in reply to: Museuo del la Aire Cuatro Vientos #921882
    Archer
    Participant

    I have visited the place a few years back using the public transport. This is certainly possible although I don’t know if you’ll be able to do it within half a day. I cannot recall the exact route but it involved a metro to a station outside the centre and then a bus which dropped us off near the entrance. It is certainly worth visiting, you will not regret it!

    in reply to: Fokker F.VII Querry #922048
    Archer
    Participant

    The Fokker airliners used a mixed construction. Wooden wings and a fuselage of steel tubing covered with fabric.

    in reply to: Capt. C.P.B.Ogilvie #845595
    Archer
    Participant

    G-EACN BAT FK23 Bantam which was donated to Shuttleworth Collection after Ogilvie’s death, then sold to Koolhoven Aeroplanes Foundation who restored in it Holland. It should still be there. (P)

    It is, but it moved from the Aviodrome museum to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam a few years back (2011?). It is on permanent display there. See here: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/NG-2011-1

    in reply to: RAFM Hampden – tail done #852687
    Archer
    Participant

    There’s an interesting statement in that article:

    One of two remaining Wellingtons, the aircraft at Cosford is the only complete example of its type…

    So the fact that R for Robert at Brooklands is without the covering makes it ‘incomplete’? In my view an incomplete aircraft is one where wings or tail units are missing but I guess you can stretch the argument a bit. I will certainly do my best to comfort the old thing at Brooklands when I visit next, I certainly don’t see it that way!

    in reply to: Contra props and single props #854373
    Archer
    Participant

    As eye4wings already mentioned, the problem was in harnassing power. A contraprop will:

    • Have more surface area for a smaller diameter prop. Might help with installation/undercarriage design issues.
    • Have less blades per hub, leaving these less complex.
    • Produce no asymmetric effects, very useful with large engines!

    But then again:

    • The prop needs a more complex gearbox, meaning more weight and some additional (small) losses.
    • The prop itself is heavier (meaning both of them together).
    • The flow from the front prop will impinge on the rear prop, this may cause the total installation to be less efficient, compared to a single prop with the same surface (blade) area.
    • There may be vibration issues from aerodynamic interplay between the various blades.

    And so on.

    The only aircraft that I can think of that flew with both a single and a contra prop on the same (or almost the same) engine is the Spitfire XIX which is currently stationed in France. Apart from that one each prop installation is a specific application to a particular airframe/engine combination. There is no way to compare between those. That’s why I don’t think we can answer the original question fully.

    in reply to: Contra props and single props #855180
    Archer
    Participant

    Do you have a specific aircraft in mind? I don’t think it is possible to provide an answer to your question without some additional caveats.

    in reply to: Blenheim engines #856628
    Archer
    Participant

    There are three aspects to this.

    Thirdly, from the point of pilot’s view, the Mercury may be taller but it is shorter. Just which aspect of the pilot’s view is the more important?

    Also, the role of the aircraft meant that all-round visibility wasn’t as important as it would have been on a fighter. Even on more modern twins with significantly smaller engines the view to the side can be severely restricted. It’s something you learn to live with as a pilot.

    in reply to: What Does This Man Call? #863043
    Archer
    Participant

    He is practicing his jodeling skills but started the engine to prevent noise complaints.

    in reply to: Mystery Spitfire at Ypenburg #866819
    Archer
    Participant

    I later had the same thought about it being the Dutch East Indies, but I’ve asked for a larger scan and we’ll go from there. Thanks!

    Edit: and here’s a gratuitous shot of MJ271 posing as ‘MH424’ in the then-Aviodome at Schiphol sometime in 1990.
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]240792[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Mystery Spitfire at Ypenburg #867123
    Archer
    Participant

    That completely answers my question. Many thanks Mark12!

    To keep things interesting, Herman also has this photo showing a slightly tatty looking example. Any ideas when and which one this may have been (location is most likely a Dutch airfield).
    http://www.hdekker.info/registermap/vragenfoto%27s/Spit%3bderelict.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 1,614 total)