dark light

Paul Holtom

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 119 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: What Happened To The Amjet Sea Venom? #1118911
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    Being an RAN aircraft I wonder why she is in RN colours??

    The “Z” on the tail was the deck code for HMS Albion during the late 50s before it changed to “A” around 1960. The Pheonix is of course 809 squadron RN.

    Paul.

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1118967
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    From pictures it seems the RN Phantoms were always jacked up for take-off, don’t forget the British Spey aircraft were heavier and more draggy than the US counterpart, maybe this was an influence on the mod.?

    Ahh yes! that would possibly be the correct answer. Would a higher AoA not also add to the drag?

    Paul.

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1119139
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    Thanks pagen01 I think your right about the extra length being 4-ish foot.

    Buccaneer and Scimitar were just lifted up at the nose until they sat on their tail skid, I don’t think the F4 had a tail skid hence the need for the nose extend.

    The USNs F4Js were launched from Ark Royal many times during cross decking without problems. So maybe the F4k needed the extra AoA only if configured with certain stores and fuel load?

    Paul.

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1119174
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    There is an excellent picture of a Bridle being fitted to a F-4 on the USS Independence . The front and rear bridle catcher lanyards are clearly visible.

    Excellent photo! Clearly shows the rope which retained the bridle to the catapult after the aircraft launched. The same system was used on Ark Royal in the 70’s.

    The F4J on the cat has the nose undercarriage fully extened. The F4K used by the RN had a much longer nose undercarriage extention, giving a much greater angle of attack on launch. I never worked on Phantoms so not sure if I am right in saying this was due to the Ark having a shorter -and more powerful-cat than the USN carriers. Anyone know how much longer the nose extend was? or explain why it was necessary?

    Paul.

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1121739
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    I do remember it was in colour. As Vic was discribed as “The most modern carrier in the fleet” I would imagine it was quite early after the re-build. I can’t remember the aircraft on board.

    I think the film was intended as an instructional film for aircraft maintainance ratings. One scene shows an aircraft maintainer unable to carry out his duties due to a hangover, it was emphsised that drunks maintaining aircraft were dangerous:p

    Paul.

    in reply to: RAF Phantoms – the good old jet #1122984
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    The following pic’s were taken by me at Abingdon early 1991. Feel free to use them. Paul.

    [ATTACH]192602[/ATTACH]

    [ATTACH]192603[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1124477
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    Thank you Obi for your excellent info 🙂

    I once seen a RN produced movie titled “HMS Victorious” on the first frame came the sub title “The most modern Carrier in the fleet” We were shown it in the camp cinema whilst sprogs under training at Lee-on-Solent during 1973.

    I searched the FAA muesum shop for a copy without success. I would love to see that movie again.

    I remember our Chief Petty Officer trainer laughing out loud at shots of matlots in their dressing gowns on their way from mess deck to bathroom came up. We were cautioned this was purely for the camera and if we followed suit (wearing dressing gowns) when on board any ship we would be branded “Brown Hatters” the more usual term nowadays is Gay! I waited until leaving the Navy before buying a dressing gown…..

    Looking at Obi’s photos it would appear Flyco on the port side of Vic’s island has been rebuilt sometime between the first and the Sidney harbour photo were taken. I hadn’t noticed this before. The movie I seen would have been better Titled “The most re-built carrier in the fleet”.

    Paul.

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1127486
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    I have wondered myself why the strop catchers weren’t fitted premenently to carriers before Ark’s Phantom refit 1967-1970. Or how the results of the 1962 trials were interpreted.

    Eagle was in the process of a major rebuild during this time which was not complete until 1964; enough time to fit her with strop catchers if they wanted to. It may have been down to cost of conversion v cost saving in re-using the strops.

    If anyone can answer this it would be “Obi Wan Russell” who’s knowledge on British naval aviation never fails to impress me! Over to you Obi 🙂

    Paul.

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1127708
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    The weak link for the hold back gear on board Ark Royal consisted of one or possibly two iron bands (they looked a bit like large piston rings). They held a clamp around a “Y” shaped bracket which on the Buccaneer was located under the tail just forward of the airbrake petals.

    Prior to the A/C taxiing to the cat the “Y” shaped bracket was put in the lowered position by the “Badgers” who would then attach the hold back gear to it. The hold back gear attached around the tail of the “Y” bracket which had shoulders at the very end. The other end of the hold back gear was hung from the airbrakes until the A/C was on the cat where it was secured to a slot in the deck.

    The end of the hold back gear that attached to the aircraft looked like a split tube which enclosed the tail of the Y bracket on the aircraft. The iron ring/rings were then slid into position clamping the two parts of the split tube around the Y bracket. When the cat fired and the A/C moved forward the shoulders on the Y bracket were pulled from a recess inside the split tube which expanded and snapped the iron ring/rings. the A/C was then released to travel down the cat. Hope you get the picture!

    The bit you refer to which looked like rope was in fact a nylon sock which was pulled up over the split tube. It was used to contain the bits of snapping rings from flying accross the deck and hitting somebody or causing damage to the aircraft. Paul.

    in reply to: Carrier ops #1128594
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    Sorry for all the posts, but a bit more info, the strop recovery system was first trialled on Hermes using Scimitars in 1962, Ark Royal appears to have been the only carrier so fitted operationally and had them in place by the time of her last refit which ended in early 1970.

    re post #7 the US Navy were already using bridle catchers on its carriers.

    Victorious had a strop catcher fitted during the early 60’s. I was unaware Hermes ever had one fitted.

    The RN seemed content with the once only use idea until the F4 was introduced on Ark Royal. I read somewhere the cost of the strop for a F4 had an increased cost to the point it was considered uneconomic to allow it to fall over the side after every launch.

    As an 809 squadron air mechanic, during my time on Ark Royal ’75 to ’77 I remember the strop catchers weren’t always used. Any ex “badgers” out there know if we had a different strop for the Bucc’s and Gannets?

    Eagle would have sported a pair of strop catchers had she been Phantomised post 1972.

    Below is a pic of Victorious with a rather weedy strop catcher fitted.

    in reply to: How dead is dead? #1089554
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    I know it’s not an aircraft, however very interesting when talking about originality. Is anyone aware of the the court case around the late 1980s which surrounded the famous 1920s racing Bentley “Old Number One”.

    The case proved the original parts of the car which were disgarded after an accident including the bent chassis, which were collected, repaired and build into a car with a reconditioned original engine from “Old Number One” was not “Old Number One”.

    The repaired car with new chassis, new coach built body, and new engine was deemed to be the original. As repair and replacement were part of it’s history!

    in reply to: RN cvarriers on Yankee station #2014858
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    In keeping with the scenario outlined in this thread, thought I would share these pic’s.

    Paul

    in reply to: USN Aircraft Identification needed please #1097492
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    Thanks for the replys and excellent info guys. Here’s another view of Ark with some more Sea Hawks, Gannets. And just for you Mike (last poster) WYVERNS!:D:D;) PS and a Skyraider by the round down!

    in reply to: USN Aircraft Identification needed please #1099085
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    Excellent research Badger! I would like to have witnessed that launch, full afterburn down the length of Arks deck, quite a spectacle.

    It raises the question why after having problems with the hold back gear the a/c wasn’t recovered back on Saratoga rather than carrying on with the cross decking to smaller unfamiliar ship.

    Wonder if the Skyray was also launched off Arks cats on afterburner? On Eagle when carrying out trials with the F4k a large metal plate was fixed to the deck in front of the JBDs which was cooled with a fire hose after each launch. Of course after the Phantom refit (1967-1969) Ark had water cooling on the JBDs and deck where needed.

    Thanks for your info Badger:)

    in reply to: USN Aircraft Identification needed please #1099170
    Paul Holtom
    Participant

    The Sea Hawk in the first pic belongs to 898 squadron, the ones in the pic with the Wyverns appear to be 800 sqn.

    Here is another Sea Hawk pic, looks like 898 again this time with an Ark Royal tail code. Not sure if this was taken before or some time after the “B” tail coded 898 Sea Hawk with the Demons.

    Could that be a Wyvern on Arks side-lift?

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 119 total)