Aperture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture

That is indeed the way to set the lens to F8, but it also means that the camera will need to find a shutter speed to match that aperture for the light conditions that you’re shooting in. That may not always be possible, or the best combination.

AF-S denotes the focusing system of the lens, see here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm
AF-s or AF-c when set on the camera relates to single shot or continuous shooting, more info can be found here (one third down the page): http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d50.htm

Based on your questions I would say that you could perhaps use a basic course in photography techniques and exposure. I would suggest doing some reading (books, camera manuals, internet) to get the best out of your gear.

I’ve just watched it and I must say that it was worth watching. It didn’t cover much new ground if you’ve read the biography by Mark Dierikx but it was interesting to hear the opinion of others about him and see some images to accompany the stories.

Have a look here for a badly translated page about the program: Google translation of program info.

It will be rebroadcast on Monday 28th November at 9.50 (in the morning).

Great photos!

I was just reading ‘Tested: Marshall Test Pilots in War and Peace, 1919-99’ this week, a tribute to Marshall’s at Cambridge and in it one of the ex-test pilots describes how he volunteered to fly Spitfires for the BofB movie. The story is that he was sent to pick up Spitfire G-AIST from a civilian contractor to fly it to Duxford. He found a shabby looking Spit with an empty pneumatic reservoir, after convincing a disinterested engineer to provide some pneumatic pressure for the reservoir he strapped in and took off. Shortly into the flight two things became apparent: the pneumatic pressure was disappearing again (engine driven pump not working either) and the cylinder head temperature was moving towards the redline. So no brakes on arrival and that arrival had rather come quickly! Deciding to land on the grass at Duxford for better braking he found that the grass was being cut by a guy on a tractor and a low pass didn’t convince him to get off the grass. Landing on the hard runway instead with the CHT needle on the red line he came to a standstill at the far end. After shutdown one of the mechanics pointed out that the harness was so old that it tore apart from a firm pull…

(Summary from my memory, hope I got it right.)

Interesting to read and compare to the ‘new’ first flight’.

Here is a link to the pic with the support strut between. I’ve seen it several places.

http://www.kheichhorn.de/html/body_heinkel_he_111z.html

That is no support strut. There are a few things about that image that look wrong, I’m guessing it is a drawing/artist impression or something like that. If you look at the leading edge of the center wing section there is a bit of sweepback on both sides of the center engine that wasn’t there on the real thing.

I can see your point, from that image it certainly looks like some form of bracing but there is no structural reason for having that strut there and aerodynamically it is a ‘less than elegant’ solution which makes me think that it was never there. This is substantiated by the other available photos of the Zwilling.

I can tell you that it isn’t from a B-25 for starters. The S-13 connection looks promising but I’m in doubt. The rear end of the nacelle seems to slope down quite steeply on that S-13 photo which isn’t present in the mystery part. The top line of the mystery nacelle seems to continue and extend over the flaps.

Edit: These provide some more clues


(images linked from http://www.aviodrome.nl)

There is a very pronounced vertical line just in front of the leading edge that the mystery nacelle doesn’t have. Based on that I’d say it is not the S-13.

I’ve only got one thing to say to the people who made that (and I don’t care that it is NASA):

Don’t come crying if you get scratched! 😀

In the Mustang’s case I understood that it didn’t necessarily give any increase in speed (beyond that added by the decrease in drag of course), but did create some lift. Could be a load of rubbish of course…

greg v.

The airflow through the radiator ducting of the Mustang will never add to the lift of the airframe. Lift is only produced by an airflow over an airfoil profile and that isn’t present there. The clue is in the previous sentence (highlighted above): the combination of radiator and ducting managed to decrease the total drag of the airframe a bit and that translates into extra knots of speed for the same powerplant and weight.