So are the ones from the link I gave, they are the official charts from the UK governing body, and up to date.
He’s already hinted he wants airport charts, not en-route charts

Who rattled your cage!!!!! what I mean is that they are “Really” real charts and they have been flying all around the world on a real aircraft. I also know he wanted airport charts, but rather than throw hundreds of en-route charts in the skip I thought he might like some.

He asked for some charts, I said I could send him some, you sent a link….. nuff said. :rolleyes:

It smacks of a bad design if the RAT was superfluous. I have read of other aircraft (the F4) engaging the RAT and relighting etc. then making it home. Sounds like a Harrier was all or nothing. And it is not as if the engine was extra reliable.

I now have even more respect for Sharkey, Morgan and their colleagues.

Bad design!! It was designed in the sixties when most military aircraft flew at high to medium altitude, and they didnt even know what final role they were designing it for.

The decision to remove the RAT was based on experience. The GR1/3 operated at low level (100 feet or less) which means you have seconds to react to an engine failure. (any aircraft with an engine failure beow 500 feet is not going home) So they deleted the RAT. This particular RAT would deploy when hydraulic system pressure dropped below a certain figure (which I can not recall but something like 1000 psi) which would be caused by engine failure or hydraulic pump failure or system damage, it deployed slowly and took time to run up to speed. It provided enough pressure to operate the flight controls (slowly) or lower the gear (even slower).

The SHAR did three jobs, air defence, recon (high level) and strike (low level) and from memory the RAT on SHAR provided electrical power not hydraulic. So if you were flying at FL20 and the engine failed you could report the failure and your position etc before you ejected.

So your F4 (with 2 engines) flying at high altitude had plenty of time before they hit the ground. The F4 RAT provided electrical power and deployed instantly on command or automatically as a result of a failure and I mean instantly!.

As for re-lighting, it depends on the nature of the failure, a turbine letting go is terminal, a flame out can be recovered.

The Pegasus is and always was a reliable engine, I think you will find the majority of failures at low level are caused by bird strikes which result in physical damage to the engine.

If the Harrier was a bad design it would never have been built let alone entered service, and they are still operating today so it must be a very good design.

I do agree that it would have been better to base the FA2 on HarrierII, but good old British industry sold the idea as a cheap upgrade (based on experience of the Falklands conflict), It went massively over budget and was 5 years late. It should have entered service in the late 80s, before the UK had bought into HarrierII.

What I believe we need now is the “Spanish” version with AMRAAM and Radar for fleet air defence.

I believe the F-16 pic is a fake/photoshopped one……:(

It certainly is fake. All the “Desert Falcons” are in USAF grey. I took this one in 2005. Notice that it is now the Royal Bahraini Air Force.

If anyone want a hires copy please PM me.

It also keeps the engines further from the ground, less risk from FOD on rough strips.

No,

Lift is generated by airflow over the wings. If the conveyor belt could match the acceleration of the aircraft the aircraft would remain stationary, no airflow no lift.

In fact, the conveyor belt would not even need to match the acceleration of the aircraft, it would only need to slow it down enough to prevent the aircraft reaching V1 (the speed at which the airflow over the wings creates enough “lift” to counter act the weight of the aircraft allowing it to climb).

In the same way, you can not measure the “genuine” top speed of a car on a rolling road, without the resistance of the air in front of the car the speed would be higher.

However, eventually (in theory) the aircraft would generate so much thrust without the drag induced by the airflow that the speed of the conveyor belt and the aircraft wheels would be so high they would most certainly fail, resulting in the u/c legs contacting the conveyor belt and the whole lot would very quickly turn into an expensive heap of junk.

Bahrain F16s

Not really an intercept but 2 Bahraini F16s escorted a new Avro RJ85 into Bahrain in Nov 2001, unfortunately I was not onboard, my oppo took these 😡

I took these pics of a Air Koryo TU134 at Halim Perdanakusuma while I was working there during 2003, unfortunately I only had an old camera with me at the time.

[img=http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/5393/koryo15cj.th.jpg]

[img=http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/901/koryo22oo.th.jpg]

[img=http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/3678/koryo38iq.th.jpg]