dark light

Archer

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,396 through 1,410 (of 1,614 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Favourite Aircraft Designer #1611390
    Archer
    Participant

    Anthony Fokker gets points as ‘Most cheeky aircraft designer’ IMHO

    It’s been a while since I read his autobiography, but if I recall correctly the main things we can accuse Tony F. of is being a pretty good test pilot and a good salesman. There’s not all that much that he designed by himself after his original Fokker Spin. Did you know that Junkers sued him quite early on for stealing his wing design? The battle between the two lasted for years and was ultimately settled out of court.

    in reply to: Aircraft Registrations #1611753
    Archer
    Participant

    Hmm, just remembered that some of BA’s Concordes did have a sort of ‘dual citizenship’ for a while. They operated flights together with Braniff for a while, and the aircraft were ‘re-registered’ every time they came through Washington, where a Braniff crew would take over and fly the aircraft to Dallas. The reverse operation took place on the flight back.

    in reply to: Aircraft Registrations #1611799
    Archer
    Participant

    The other thing, can an aircraft be registered in two places at once? For example if a warbirds owner lived in one country for six months of the year (say NZ) and another the other six months (say the UK), and he took his warbird with him for each country’s airshow season – does he have to continually re-register it, or can it have dual citizenship? Or would it simply fly under another country’s codes (like they do with shipping?)

    To answer this question, no, an aircraft cannot have ‘dual citizenship’. The C of A (Certificate of Airworthiness) is issued by a national Aviation Authority (AA) and you cannot have two CofAs. The registration is linked to the issueing authority. Now basically you cannot restrict an aircraft with for example a ‘N-‘ registration to that specific country, sorta limits the use of the aircraft! But when you base an aircraft in another country than the one it is registered in, the local AA can impose rules. This is not always possible, but it usually occurs when the owner is locally licensed and based. The reasoning behind this is that the AA is responsible for maintaining standards and upholding regulations and such, but if everyone starts flying aircraft registered abroad they are unable to check that these aircraft comply with local regulations. This may not be a problem with for example an N-registered aircraft flying in the UK, but it could also be a Zambia-registered one or something else from darkest Africa.

    These limiting ‘rules’ differ for each country. And in some cases it is almost not possible to register for example a P-51 in Switzerland. Until a few years ago the Dutch AA (they probably still do) would view a B-25 as a new type since there has never been a civil B-25 on the Dutch register. Trying to get a Dutch CofA for a B-25 would then mean that you would have to go through the whole certification process as if it was a new design (same as when you try to get a new Boeing design on the US register). One way around this is to get an AA to certify an aircraft based on a foreign certification, but not every AA will do this (also dependent on the type). Another way is the ‘experimental’ CofA that some AAs have (Permit to Fly in the UK). Some AAs will let you register anything with wings on such a certificate but usually there is a complexity/weigth limit for these certifications too.

    Hope all this still makes sense :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Tfc P-39 #1792981
    Archer
    Participant

    Of course the other question is how do you get passed by the CAA on a single seater type for which there are no dual trainers? Read the flight manual I guess and then go out there and have a go.

    Under the FAA rules a wannabee P-39 pilot would have to be able to show the FAA that he has a reasonable amount of experience on similar types, or types that are as similar as you can reasonably get (might get difficult for some types to even get close) and you would then get a LOA (Letter of Authorisation) after a recommendation from someone holding a LOOA (Letter of Operational Authority). There are people holding ‘unlimited’ LOOAs, which means that they can recommend you for an LOA for practically any airplane. Checkrides and training programs are often used, but these vary a lot depending on the type in question.
    For an idea of how this works, read through this column by John Deakin on how he got checked out in a Bearcat: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182122-1.html

    in reply to: A handful of 609 Squadron photos #1794211
    Archer
    Participant

    Trumper, have a look here if you’ve got spare time on your hands: http://forum.airforces.info/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23849

    Snapper, thanks for posting those!

    in reply to: Mystery object quiz 495a pt (ii) #1803690
    Archer
    Participant

    More likely this was a Centipede carrier: Vickers Warwick

    in reply to: Mystery object quiz 495a pt (ii) #1803692
    Archer
    Participant

    Better now James? I found it on a page in that orientation and I’ve just tried every other option but it still doesn’t quite look right.

    Glad to help Ashley! 😎

    in reply to: Mystery object quiz 495a pt (ii) #1803728
    Archer
    Participant

    (Or did it fly IN something…)

    Not IN Ashley, UNDERNEATH!

    (I know, it’s not a Wellington, but the system should be similar and I couldn’t find any other photos!)

    in reply to: Mystery object quiz 495a pt (ii) #1803808
    Archer
    Participant

    Well, it’s not the ex-Warwick one that’s at Brooklands, as there’s not that much wood on that example 😉

    in reply to: Mystery object quiz 495a pt (ii) #1803875
    Archer
    Participant

    Hmm, ‘Centipede’ is not listed on G-INFO, so we’re looking at a deregistered object. 😉

    in reply to: Mystery object quiz 495a pt (ii) #1803984
    Archer
    Participant

    Is it one of those lifeboats that could be fitted to a B-17 or Warwick or other type?

    in reply to: Vanguard taxi runs #1805230
    Archer
    Participant

    The image I posted above was taken in 1999, the photo below was taken during its final moment of glory. The Vanguard has now moved across the river Wey into the museum grounds.

    in reply to: tempest Twos in India #1806521
    Archer
    Participant

    I posted a photo of that a while ago, should be able to find it again.

    Yep, here it is:

    in reply to: Help! #1807028
    Archer
    Participant

    I’ll second Lancman’s spelling of the name. No idea on contact details though.

    in reply to: Flypast photo error-July issue #1807518
    Archer
    Participant

    Couldn’t find a photo on the internet, so went and dug out a book. Images from Squadron/Signal’s “B-25 Mitchell”.

    Looks like I was wrong and the small bubble didn’t have any (real) armament installed, but that doesn’t mean that there never was a gun in there as someone may have done a field modification. The first type turret was only used on the B-25A, then from the B model until the G model the small bubble was installed, and the H model and onwards had the larger turret.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,396 through 1,410 (of 1,614 total)