SOCATA Rallye Guerrier

[ATTACH=CONFIG]250098[/ATTACH]

Two MG pods each with two 7.62mm AA52 and two six-round Matra F2 68mm rocket pods.

Manufacturer & Model ASCC Codename
================================================

Technically all ASCC reporting names are classified*, so posting a list on a public forum isn’t really definitive even though we ‘know’ most of the older ones to be accurate.

Secondly the ASCC names were sometimes counterproductive, for example HALO being easily confused with ‘helo’ or ‘heli’. And as for SHIPWRECK…

* in the UK they were classified as ‘For Official Use Only’, the lowest general classification but still grounds for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

Unfortunately reproduced on newsprint but here’s the PNG DF CN235 0502 on home turf at Tabubil. It was operating a food shuttle in conjunction with MAF following droughts.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]245584[/ATTACH]

… but from Wiki … “but Hawker Siddeley was allowed to continue as supplier of the aircraft’s wings due to the advanced stages of design and the reluctance of other nations to take over the wing design.”

Yes that is rather a Wikification of what happened. In fact VFW-Fokker were allocated the wing work due to Britain’s ten-year huff about Airbus and their design had been selected over the Aérospatiale proposal. And then the UK returned and the wing was given back to HSA since, really, that’s all that the UK could contribute at that late stage without ripping-up the design.

Exactly the same happened with the A310, the new VFW-Fokker wing was well into advanced design having beaten-out an MBB rival. And then the UK came back and said they wanted a part on the A310. There wasn’t any appreciable difference in wing performance between BAE and VFW-Fokker and again it was a political choice.

Not unexpected. The CAA is accountable to no-one and sets prices in a non-competitive vacuum, so little wonder they laughed-off the petition and carried on regardless.

Give that they made a profit of £5.5 million last year, and that disposing of a couple of Board members would free-up another £0.5 million, they’re not exactly short of cash but apparently see this as a good opportunity to swell the coffers.

IIRC, the deal was brokered in such a way that actual ownership rested with a trust and that they were to be ‘gifted to the nation’, ie the Hovercraft Museum, for £1.

It’s really not clear as to the status of the hovercraft.

Over the past decade volunteers / staff at the Museum have reported that whilst the SR.N4s were declining in condition, with numerous roof leaks, they were prohibited from performing repairs because they didn’t own them. The Museum Trust had apparently approached the owner several times to purchase them but were rebuffed.

Sadly the outcome was that they sat and rotted on someone else’s land, until that Someone Else decided that it was time to earn some money. I can’t really blame them, they had been patient for 12 years…

So why does the CAA think they need to be involved in this? The real experts of risk assessment are insurance companies, and they price their premiums accordingly.

Public liability coverage for an airshow pre-Shoreham was at £50 to 100 million for even a small provincial show precisely because the insurers had already taken into account the risk to non-attending public that the CAA had ignored all these years.

Suddenly the CAA decides that something Has to Be Done, and of course They will be the ones to Do It. Even though they’re not yet sure what exactly happened, or why. Hence, wishy-washy policy documents like this full of media-aligned statements about ‘protecting the public’

Does the Duchy of Sealand fancy organising some shows…?

In my previous abode I had an up-and-over garage door made by Westland! I wish I’d had the foresight to take a photo of the manufacturer’s plate proudly embossed WESTLAND, YEOVIL but I spent most of my time swearing and slamming it to make it close.

Huh, according to this page even their garage doors were licensed from North America 🙁

http://www.garagedoorsonline.co.uk/garadorupandoverdoors.php

In 1948 Westland formed Westland Engineers Ltd, a strategy to diversify from military applications. Westland Engineers Ltd bought a licence to manufacture one piece garage doors from Canada and during the 1950s was, essentially, the only UK manufacturer of this type of door.