dark light

Propstrike

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 3,361 through 3,375 (of 3,488 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: VAC fly-ins refused at Turweston #1396218
    Propstrike
    Participant

    When it comes to aviation, we need more Yimby’s|

    in reply to: My last 2004 sunflower photos #1956503
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Andrewman. Are you going to save the heads? Keep tham dry, and away from mice, and you will have zillions of seeds for next year. Furthermore, your hamster will love you.

    in reply to: Worst advert on TV?? #1956509
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Arthur. Sometimes, the debate is so compelling that mere spelling has to remain secondee.

    in reply to: Worst advert on TV?? #1956536
    Propstrike
    Participant

    What about all the adverts that portray men as juvenille, ineffective or just plain stupid. The women, meanwhile are sassy, switched on, not to say rather smug. What about the Heinekin ad, when we are invited to laugh at the truck driver who gets beaten-up and hospitalised by his wife and female marriage guidance counciler, because he is trasporting lager. Luckily, he is white, and male, so that is all ok. Switch it round , so the man is beating up the women, and see how funny it is then.

    Don’t forget the commercial with ‘ Tony and Debs ‘ from Men Behaving badly, where he is obliged to portray an utterly infantile burke, astonished by the delights and surprises resulting from a visit to B&Q.

    Will there ever come a time when men are not characterised as having an obsession with football, or some other bone-headed sport? I couldn’t give a flying fig about ‘footy’ and will go out of my way to avoid it, the crass values and latent aggression which it represents. There is a current commercial where three vacuous males sit unspeaking, transfixed by the images (of football goals) on the microscopic screen of a cell-phone. Is it possible to live a smaller, duller life than this third-hand, fifth-rate existance, to be conditioned into watching a very distorted view of somebody else’s life ( and edited by others who wish to condition your response) rather than actually living a life of your own.

    TV Averts- If they have got what you want, they have got you.

    in reply to: Flying Inverted #1401968
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Are you sure this is not a version of the actual incident when Neil Williams ( aerobatic champion) had a wing on his Zlin begin to fold up. He rolled inverted and made his way back to Hullavington, where he flew at inverted circuit and approach, rolling erect on touchdown, and even cutting a furrow in the turf with the wingtip as he rolled.

    in reply to: Air to air camera ships #1404743
    Propstrike
    Participant

    As Damien says, the Yak 52 is pretty good, and numerous enough to be widely available. It is quick enough to at least hang in there with heavier metal, if they agree to take it easy. With the canopy back , the angles are great, but the noise and wind is disorientating, and will easily whip off a headset. Also, beware of any baggage on the shelf behind you, eg a canopy cover, which will start to jump about, and could easily go over the side/ wrap round tailplane.

    In shooting air/air , shoulder straps will need to be loosened or maybe even undone, as most formating targets will often be slightly behind. Being semi-strapped in , it is important that you persuade the pilot not to apply any negative ‘G’ .

    Tigers are good for atmospheric wing/wires shot, but are very windy, and difficult to twist round in, if the target is astern. Quite slow, but OK for other light a/c. The Lysander was shot from a Tiger, but that has the ablility to go unusually slow. Keeping it on the outside of an orbit allowed it a few more knots.

    Cubs are quite good, but even slower. With the door down/window up, the view is fantastic, and if the photographer is in the front seat, he can lean round and shoot past the struts, for rear 3/4 shots. Quite a gentle, relaxed photo mount.

    Shooting through perspex, you just take your chance on optical imperfections, but it can be Ok. The Rapides were taken from a C-172 through perspex,and the original print was reasonably sharp. Ultimately, though, it is the skill of the pilots which dictate the results; too far away- you get nothing. Too close- photography ceases to be your main concern!

    in reply to: Question for R.weaver #435405
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Daz, this looks like a good idea, in theory, and yes, for many pilots, it has been the way to end up with an aeroplane they really want. But the number of part-finished project indicates that it is not for everyone. The people who I have seen make a success of it are very focussed, rational, dedicated types, who are in a position to set aside many hours per week, and with unswerving application see the build through for however many years it takes.

    I cannot comment on RW’s circumstances, but they appear generally unsettled, and subject to a frequent and total ‘volte face’. There may come a time when a homebuilt project would be a reasonable proposition for him, but it is so far in the future, it would be wise not to select one which requires fossil fuels.

    The best way forward is to join a group, share the costs ,and benefit from a fund of experience. Stay away from VP props, retracts, twins and anything else likely to deliver big bills. I would suggest something like a Rallye, which may look as if it is laying an egg, but is actually great fun, has outstanding visability, a reasonable cruise, great for small strips, and safe. Do 150 hours in that, and then think about trading up. This has got to be a better option than a decomposing Cherokee, lurking in a nettle patch, or some cut-price ‘Classic’ from the States, which turns out to be about as ready to fly as the container it was shipped in.

    in reply to: A packet marked 'Bovingdon Mitchells 23 May 1978' #1410680
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Come on then, Albert -whip ’em out !

    in reply to: A packet marked 'Bovingdon Mitchells 23 May 1978' #1410699
    Propstrike
    Participant

    The arrival of the B25’s was a cause of great excitement for us locals. Bovingdon was used for the ground shots, whilst the flying sequences were completed at Little Rissington. Oddly enough, in the whole film, I do not think there is any footage of either a take-off or landing, though there are some shots of all the aircraft taxiing for take-off, shades of Catch 22.

    Considering the time/expense and hazzards of bringing these bombers to Europe, the flying sequences in Hanover Street are pretty measly, and not very memorable, though this is compensated for by the ‘Mitchells do fly in IMC’ TV production. Funny how J. Hawke was always having trouble with his bomb doors, which required a 200 knot flypast of control towers for a ‘visual check’ !

    The apron where the set was assembled has been nearly consumed by earthworks at the edge of the prison, and the shattered tower, now just a concrete cube, just visible within the embankment. The adjacent taxiway still echoes to the sound of engines, but now, it is old Mk 2 Granadas thrashing themselves to death on the banger-racing track.

    The main runway though, is still in good shape, thanks to the thousands of cars which come each Saturday to the famous/notorious Bovi market, and prevent the weeds from getting a hold. Any B25 hoping to land these days would do well to stop before the light standards, now erected on the market site at the intersection of the runways.

    in reply to: BBMF procedure? #1413191
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Thanks DB and Fluffy;- I knew this would be the place to ask!

    in reply to: BBMF procedure? #1413745
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Mark , Thanks for the photo; I am guessing that you might also have seen that article by Peter Arnold.

    Still no answer on the grass-landing question. Usernamechanged seems to have some association with the BBMF, surely he knows.

    in reply to: BBMF procedure? #1414807
    Propstrike
    Participant

    And another question;

    I have been re-reading a very comprehensive article in Control Column (Vol 2 no 6) about the standisation of the Spitfires’ ‘make-up’ on BoB film.

    ‘AB910; Though never at Henlow, it was re-sprayed at Luton, presumably because of the restriction on grass landing for the Memorial flight’

    Does this restriction still apply? I am trying to recall if I have seen them operating from grass in recent times and cannot really be sure. When the Hurricane had its problem at Duxford this year, was it exiting the hard runway? I am sure someone will know.

    in reply to: Sywell Pictures 26th Sept #1423450
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Colin, No worries, I barely noticed. But please stop posting photos like the Mustang; You are putting me to shame, and making me depressed !

    I know you were only ‘dropping in’ , but there is a keen audience here for great photos. What about your back-catelogue?

    in reply to: Sywell Pictures 26th Sept #1428293
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Thanks Colin. Will you chuck up a few more? That lens of yours really does the business. So I was not the only one hanging around behind the Cat!

    in reply to: Sywell Pictures 26th Sept #1428370
    Propstrike
    Participant

    Many thanks chaps. I will dish up a few more.

Viewing 15 posts - 3,361 through 3,375 (of 3,488 total)