dark light

Kenneth

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 843 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Any Ju52 flying with Bramo Fafnir 323 engines ? #824291
    Kenneth
    Participant

    According to Ju-Air’s homepage, HB-HOY was been retired from flying in 2016.

    in reply to: Any Ju52 flying with Bramo Fafnir 323 engines ? #824706
    Kenneth
    Participant

    There only seven airworthy Ju 52, only the three in Switzerland have BMW engines and those are BMW 132 according to JU Air’s website.

    in reply to: Civil Magister schemes, show me some pics! #824820
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Two were registered post-WW2 in Denmark, pictures of one here (b/w photos, have no clue about the colors):

    http://www.oy-reg.dk/register/187.html

    in reply to: Sea Vixen, G-CVIX #826096
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Well, I’ve landed several Cessnas several times, but I also landed a Bölkow Bo 209 successfully on my third solo with a major engine issue, so maybe that’s why I think differently :stupid:

    in reply to: Work starts on the CL-44 Guppy #826097
    Kenneth
    Participant

    I’m not being negative, I’m just pointing out an important part of the total package which seems to be missing at the moment.

    I have no doubt that the group behind this aircraft are technically brilliant and dedicated, and that the aircraft can and will probably be restored to the most pristine condition. If however the paperwork is not or cannot be sorted out, then it’s all to no avail. The statement “… can satisfy safety checks… “ is an exact summary of this caveat. If it can, then that’s just great!

    Yes, “several other restorations have been funded” in this manner, but the only restoration of a comparable technical and formalistic magnitude I can think of is the Vulcan. Remember how much was involved in this respect in terms of ensuring approved manufacturer/industry support? Without it, it would never have flown again. Similarly, “work carried out and overseen by a real licensed engineering company” is indeed what is also required, but has exactly that been ensured (cf. the underlined passages)?

    This is not the restoration of an Auster on a Permit-To-Fly for a PPL and one/two passengers to enjoy on a Sunday afternoon; it’s the sole survivor of a complex, four-engined, turboprop transport aircraft, modified from its original form in limited numbers – and proposed for commercial operations to boot!

    If you want to be involved with any flying aircraft today, you’ve got to keep abreast with EASA/CAA/FAA/whatever requirements, whether you like it or not. It’s a very unfortunate and tedious fact, but non-compliance will keep even the most fantastic aircraft firmly planted on the ground. Those are facts, they can be called “negative vibes” or whatever, but it won’t remove the problem.

    in reply to: *Fun* with Convairs… #826119
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Are those the aircraft that are part of a package recently offered for sale which also included the type certificates?

    in reply to: Sea Vixen, G-CVIX #826121
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Indeed, well done to the pilot, what a display of airmanship and coolness!

    The report mentions that the flying controls are also hydraulically powered, and that he was justifiably concerned about loosing that part of the system as well. Yet, in the face of this additional concern, and faced with a wheels-up landing at a higher than normal approach speed, he still had the wit to “…shut the left engine down at two feet above ground level and shut the right engine down at touchdown”!

    And then there’s this: “After the aircraft had stopped the pilot made the aircraft safe, satisfied himself there was no imminent danger and replaced the ejection seat safety pins.” I think I would have jumped out, started running and would not have stopped until I’d reached the next parish…

    Incredible, this fella deserves a medal of some sort. I’d fly with him in anything, anytime, anywhere!

    Secondly, I’m impressed with the amount of attention that the AAIB devotes to this incident. The last airworthy example of a very rare and exotic aircraft, which in all likelihood will never fly again, and in addition to the incredible amount of detail they’ve go into already, they are still investigating the source of the hydraulic contamination. When I think about the amount of fumes incidents in airliners and engine stoppages in light aircraft which the German equivalent (the BfU) is not investigating, apparently being short of manpower to do so….! Give these guys a medal too!

    in reply to: Work starts on the CL-44 Guppy #826368
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Buffalo Airways is fully licensed and strictly overseen by Transport Canada (I’m actually not sure whether they’re carrying passengers at the moment; seem to remember reading something about this having curtailed), with aircraft with full CoA’s, so no comparison. It’s not just a question of whether it’s a new or an old aircraft; cf. e.g. the Lufthansa-Stiftung’s Ju 52 where you can be dead-sure that their paper work is up to the same level as that of Lufthansa (the airline) itself.

    As enthusiastic and hard-working they probably are, the group behind the CL 44 seems to stick their heads in the sand (judging from the responses here) as far as the necessary paperwork for their planned commercial operations is concerned. It’s a costly and very complex operation to set up and have an AoC approved in today’s EASA-world, even more so with such an exotic aircraft. There are also some rather gloomy comments in this regard in the corresponding thread in pprune.org.

    It may be boring and very theoretical, but the fact of the matter is that no operation is going to take off in today’s world if an immense amount of paperwork is not in order. That’s simply reality. Please do set your sights lower and aim for a one-off ferry flight to a place where it’ll be preserved. Everything else is totally unrealistic.

    in reply to: Any Chance of a Flying Viscount #826381
    Kenneth
    Participant

    BAe revoked the type certificate for the BAC 1.11. Did they do the same for the Viscount?

    in reply to: From Japan to Guam and back again #829490
    Kenneth
    Participant

    In 1964 that was, not in 2017 by when many lessons had been learned (except in Egypt).

    in reply to: A rare find in Switzerland #829491
    Kenneth
    Participant

    So everybody wants to see NX611 fly again – but preferably without consuming any parts still around? Difficult nut to crack that is…

    in reply to: P47 "No guts no Glory" heading home #829492
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Let’s see…
    An American airplane, ex-USAAF, in American colours, on the American registry.
    And it’s heading “home” to the UK?
    Neat trick.

    The forum needs a “like” button!

    in reply to: RAFM shoots itself in the foot…again…? #833518
    Kenneth
    Participant

    I’m all for not living in the past, but this is not in the very best taste. Those fellas in black & white ran to put their lives at risk and some may not have returned…

    in reply to: Work starts on the CL-44 Guppy #834179
    Kenneth
    Participant

    Have you got an AOC set up to operate it?

    in reply to: Monospar wreck #834181
    Kenneth
    Participant

    As far as I known, the Danish Monospar is no longer at Egeskov (nonetheless worth a visit) but in Helsingør, north of Copenhagen. I was an active member in the Danish Aviation Historical Society in Copenhagen in the early Eighties and followed its restoration there at close range. It was restored single-handedly by a former shop foreman of Skandinavisk Aero Industri A/S of KZ-aircraft fame), Ove Alexandersen, and to a very, very high standard. The one in New Zealand perished around this time; FlyPast had an article on it just before it happened.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 843 total)