• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Aviation Thread - News, facts, questions, photos, videos, etc.

Started by Taaroa, June 04, 2017, 09:15:23 AM

GravitySucks

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 06, 2018, 09:14:02 AM
May as well go here as anywhere. Today is D Day. On this day in 1944, began the push back of German armour and troops from France. If you ever find yourself in Brittany or Normandy, you'll see and feel a very real gratitude to the American, British, Australian, and other allied troops, pilots and sailors who sacrificed their lives on that and the forthcoming days on those beaches and small towns on the coast.

Amen. Not sure we could find that many willing souls today.

Taaroa

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 06, 2018, 09:14:02 AM
May as well go here as anywhere. Today is D Day. On this day in 1944, began the push back of German armour and troops from France. If you ever find yourself in Brittany or Normandy, you'll see and feel a very real gratitude to the American, British, Australian, and other allied troops, pilots and sailors who sacrificed their lives on that and the forthcoming days on those beaches and small towns on the coast.

A couple of A10s from a squadron that participated in the landings did a flyover of Normandy to mark the occasion.

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/279397/107th-returns-normandy





Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 06, 2018, 09:14:02 AM
May as well go here as anywhere. Today is D Day. On this day in 1944, began the push back of German armour and troops from France. If you ever find yourself in Brittany or Normandy, you'll see and feel a very real gratitude to the American, British, Australian, and other allied troops, pilots and sailors who sacrificed their lives on that and the forthcoming days on those beaches and small towns on the coast.

I some how missed this. 

My Dad was there that day.  A few hundred yards off Omaha Beach.  Fortunately, he was relatively safe on his Destroyer and not caught up in all that hell.   He was involved with the North Africa, Sicily and Okinawa invasions as well and he would talk about them freely.  As far as Omaha Beach, he would just say it was a helluva mess.

albrecht

Quote from: Walks_At_Night on June 06, 2018, 09:31:26 PM
I some how missed this. 

My Dad was there that day.  A few hundred yards off Omaha Beach.  Fortunately, he was relatively safe on his Destroyer and not caught up in all that hell.   He was involved with the North Africa, Sicily and Okinawa invasions as well and he would talk about them freely.  As far as Omaha Beach, he would just say it was a helluva mess.


Aa a kid I used to go by this 'old guy's' place who refurbished chairs, traded in antiques, etc who was on the Beach and went through further. I'd always want stories but he wouldn't talk. Wasn't a talker anyway. The strange thing that stuck in my mind was that he never knew his birthday. But "figured" and then used the birthday he gave recruiting office when he volunteered underage. From a rural area in Virginia and poor as dirt. Said they questioned but let him in. No idea what, really, it was. Both his birthday or what was the war.  Never would give me the blood n guts but crazy thing that sticks was me asking him (I'm a kid) "how did you know when to have your birthday party" and he looked at me and just shook his head.

GravitySucks

According to this the B-1s are grounded because of a failure of an ejection seat component. What is strange is that the crew landed safely after the malfunction, albeit as an emergency landing.

I wonder what type of emergency they really had that caused them to think ejection was the preferred option. Duke?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/8/air-force-grounds-b-1-bombers-due-safety-concerns-/

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: GravitySucks on June 08, 2018, 01:15:48 PM
According to this the B-1s are grounded because of a failure of an ejection seat component. What is strange is that the crew landed safely after the malfunction, albeit as an emergency landing.

I wonder what type of emergency they really had that caused them to think ejection was the preferred option. Duke?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/8/air-force-grounds-b-1-bombers-due-safety-concerns-/

I thought B1's had an ejection pod like the old F111s, no? That aside the component could be safety critical but didn't deploy/actuate, and it was good luck rather than design it didn't injure the crew. I think ejector seat timers are still clockwork, even though a rocket punches them out.

GravitySucks

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 08, 2018, 01:33:44 PM
I thought B1's had an ejection pod like the old F111s, no? That aside the component could be safety critical but didn't deploy/actuate, and it was good luck rather than design it didn't injure the crew. I think ejector seat timers are still clockwork, even though a rocket punches them out.

B-1A had the module. B-1B has 4 ejection seats. 

http://www.ejectionsite.com/b1seat.htm

They had an engine fire and tried to eject. It doesn’t say whether they used auto or manual ejection sequence but the first one blew the hatch and then failed.

https://taskandpurpose.com/b-1b-lancer-emergency-landing/

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: GravitySucks on June 08, 2018, 01:53:12 PM
B-1A had the module. B-1B has 4 ejection seats. 

Which makes you wonder who tried to eject who.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/b1seat.htm

https://taskandpurpose.com/b-1b-lancer-emergency-landing/

"It was eliminated )escape pod) when the B-1 project was restored due to concerns about servicing the pyrotechnical components of the system."

I know a couple of retired ex airforce F111 mechanics (One was based at Upper Hayford in the UK and later on R&D with the F111) and they told me though it was a good idea in theory it was also responsible for a few crew being killed because of it. The sequencing was pretty state of the art stuff (In fact the aircraft had a lot of stuff now fitted as standard on more modern aircraft). A cable ran the length of the canopy halves to the nose of the pod, secured with a big ring bolt. The other end of this cable went to the parachutes mounted just behind the canopy on the top. On ejection, the avionic conduits and cockpit O2 supply to the rest of the air frame were guillotined with blades mounted on the inside lower edge of the pod. Explosive bolts all round went bang and then a rocket mounted behind the cockpit ignited and blasted the pod up well out of the way, the internal O2 supply initiated, and the parachutes deployed on the way down together with flotation pontoons mounted underneath.

Apparently the natural top heaviness of the pod (It incorporated part of the leading edge of the wing at the top) meant landing on water/rough sea was potentially fatal if the crew didn't get out in time between unstrapping the seats, opening the cockpit and getting out before it turned over.


Here's one we made earlier.



GravitySucks

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 08, 2018, 02:24:38 PM
"It was eliminated )escape pod) when the B-1 project was restored due to concerns about servicing the pyrotechnical components of the system."

I know a couple of retired ex airforce F111 mechanics (One was based at Upper Hayford in the UK and later on R&D with the F111) and they told me though it was a good idea in theory it was also responsible for a few crew being killed because of it. The sequencing was pretty state of the art stuff (In fact the aircraft had a lot of stuff now fitted as standard on more modern aircraft). A cable ran the length of the canopy halves to the nose of the pod, secured with a big ring bolt. The other end of this cable went to the parachutes mounted just behind the canopy on the top. On ejection, the avionic conduits and cockpit O2 supply to the rest of the air frame were guillotined with blades mounted on the inside lower edge of the pod. Explosive bolts all round went bang and then a rocket mounted behind the cockpit ignited and blasted the pod up well out of the way, the internal O2 supply initiated, and the parachutes deployed on the way down together with flotation pontoons mounted underneath.

Apparently the natural top heaviness of the pod (It incorporated part of the leading edge of the wing at the top) meant landing on water/rough sea was potentially fatal if the crew didn't get out in time between unstrapping the seats, opening the cockpit and getting out before it turned over.


Here's one we made earlier.

I’m very familiar with the 111’s. I was stationed at Plattsburgh AFB for 4 years where we had two squadrons of FB-111 nuclear bombers. Heavier landing gear and slightly bigger wingspan than the F-111s. I knew a crew that ejected inverted at 500’, landing a couple of hundred yards from the airframe and somehow survived. We also had a crew that srewed up and didn’t eject in time. They apparently forgot they had their wings swept and tried too tight of a turn at low speed/altitude.

Taaroa

Letters to the editor opposing Heathrow expansion:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/08/heathrow-and-the-aviation-mafia

I particularly liked this one:
QuoteThere is one vital element of the Heathrow runway debate that has not been aired this time (again) and is surely the central point. In the 1970s, an energy study warned us of the finite nature of oil-based transport. According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in 2016, there are 1.3tn barrels of proven oil reserves left in the world’s major fields, which at present rates of consumption should last 40 years. So if it takes 20-30 years to build the third runway, that means just 10 years of use. And that does not take into account current population expansion rates and the likelihood of greater demand on oil reserves over the next 30 years. A third runway at Heathrow is utterly futile and pointless. Air travel in its current form is dying. We need new solutions, new energy sources â€" not tired out old arguments.
I always see a lot of noise made about expanding Heathrow or building a new London airport, but never Gatwick. Would've thought expanding that was a better idea considering that although technically a two parallel runway airport only one can be used at a time due to insufficient separation between the two.



Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Taaroa on June 08, 2018, 07:45:22 PM
Letters to the editor opposing Heathrow expansion:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/08/heathrow-and-the-aviation-mafia

I particularly liked this one:I always see a lot of noise made about expanding Heathrow or building a new London airport, but never Gatwick. Would've thought expanding that was a better idea considering that although technically a two parallel runway airport only one can be used at a time due to insufficient separation between the two.




If you get 'Private Eye' in the UK (No online version) Gatwick Airport regularly take out full page ads to promote the idea of them rather than Heathrow having another runway.

As far as getting to either airport is concerned, that depends on where you're coming from. The M25 is a carpark at the best of times, Heathrow just off it near the M4 at the western end, and Gatwick on a spur at the south. I doubt BA would move across to Gatwick as they have millions invested in Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Virgin I think made noises that they could/would. Not sure if that is still the case. I don't see how they get 20-30 years to build a runway from. Unless they mean including t he time it takes to compulsory purchase people's homes, bulldoze the village, and such?

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: GravitySucks on June 08, 2018, 02:40:03 PM
I’m very familiar with the 111’s. I was stationed at Plattsburgh AFB for 4 years where we had two squadrons of FB-111 nuclear bombers. Heavier landing gear and slightly bigger wingspan than the F-111s. I knew a crew that ejected inverted at 500’, landing a couple of hundred yards from the airframe and somehow survived. We also had a crew that srewed up and didn’t eject in time. They apparently forgot they had their wings swept and tried too tight of a turn at low speed/altitude.

I was amazed at the size of the main undercarriage. The retraction is pretty nifty, folding the wheels underneath before the legs lift into the well (And using the extended door as an airbrake)  I thought the beefy undercarriage was because there was talk of it being for carrier operations too in it's initial spec, or have I got that wrong? I spoke briefly to a retired WO at McClellan museum who had flown in one. He was leaning over the static cockpit display (Itself the result of an ejection in NV after a bird strike) explaining to his grandkids how the bombing run was all automated.

GravitySucks

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 09, 2018, 01:45:43 PM
I was amazed at the size of the main undercarriage. The retraction is pretty nifty, folding the wheels underneath before the legs lift into the well (And using the extended door as an airbrake)  I thought the beefy undercarriage was because there was talk of it being for carrier operations too in it's initial spec, or have I got that wrong? I spoke briefly to a retired WO at McClellan museum who had flown in one. He was leaning over the static cockpit display (Itself the result of an ejection in NV after a bird strike) explaining to his grandkids how the bombing run was all automated.

I’m not sure if the FB-111s used the same gear as the F-111Bs or not. They built a few for the Navy but I believe the visibility on carrier landings were the main issue.  I think the Navy eventually decided on the F-14 so all of the work that was done evaluating swingwing and the Phoenix weapons system wasn’t wasted.  There are some YouTube videos out there for the F-111Bs doing carrier ops.

Taaroa

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjU4cWDRwKI

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on June 09, 2018, 01:36:58 PM

If you get 'Private Eye' in the UK (No online version) Gatwick Airport regularly take out full page ads to promote the idea of them rather than Heathrow having another runway.

As far as getting to either airport is concerned, that depends on where you're coming from. The M25 is a carpark at the best of times, Heathrow just off it near the M4 at the western end, and Gatwick on a spur at the south. I doubt BA would move across to Gatwick as they have millions invested in Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Virgin I think made noises that they could/would. Not sure if that is still the case. I don't see how they get 20-30 years to build a runway from. Unless they mean including t he time it takes to compulsory purchase people's homes, bulldoze the village, and such?
I think I did see an ad for expansion at Gatwick in London once, but the idea just makes sense really since the airport isn't surrounded by built up areas and being practically single runway is lunacy.
I've only ever gone through Heathrow, which is a fairly painful experience as it is. I know the Piccadilly line goes directly there, but there's a special place in hell for people taking suitcases onto the Tube, and riding it before or after a long haul flight isn't particularly appealing. Gatwick has a direct train from Victoria Station (and I think is along the trainline to Brighton), so it's not like it is lacking in the transport department either. It's not a matter of say shifting one airline's entire ops to Gatwick, but rather adding capacity for the region in general.

20 years for just a runway and support infrastructure is pretty ridiculous even with compulsory acquisition etc - for comparison an entire international capable airport (West Wellcamp) was built in a year and a half in Queensland recently, and Dubai rebuilt one of their runways in 80days.


Taaroa

An article about a Virgin 737 pilot who owns a Fw 190:
http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/06/butcher-bird-one-mans-passion-to-fly-his-very-own-focke-wulf-fw-190/

Interesting that he mentions having to wear an oxygen mask in flight because of carbon monoxide risk from the engine exhaust locations.


Quote from: Taaroa on June 11, 2018, 05:58:26 PM
An article about a Virgin 737 pilot who owns a Fw 190:
http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/06/butcher-bird-one-mans-passion-to-fly-his-very-own-focke-wulf-fw-190/

Interesting that he mentions having to wear an oxygen mask in flight because of carbon monoxide risk from the engine exhaust locations.



How awesome is that?  Thanks for posting!

GravitySucks

Quote from: Walks_At_Night on June 11, 2018, 06:14:33 PM
How awesome is that?  Thanks for posting!

I think his father must have escaped with some Nazi loot if he can afford all those planes.



ItsOver

Quote from: Taaroa on June 11, 2018, 05:58:26 PM
An article about a Virgin 737 pilot who owns a Fw 190:
http://australianaviation.com.au/2018/06/butcher-bird-one-mans-passion-to-fly-his-very-own-focke-wulf-fw-190/

Interesting that he mentions having to wear an oxygen mask in flight because of carbon monoxide risk from the engine exhaust locations.


Sweet.  Thanks for the article.

Taaroa

Quote from: GravitySucks on June 11, 2018, 06:15:51 PM
I think his father must have escaped with some Nazi loot if he can afford all those planes.
I was wondering that, since aviation fuel/hangarage/landing fees/insurance is very expensive in Australia let alone for a few warbirds. Assuming he's a 737 captain, Virgin's salary is ~$196k aud ($149k usd) which still doesn't sound like enough to afford it.

GravitySucks

https://youtu.be/ZyQBPB1wnyk

Real ones have a much higher angle of attack when landing and taking off.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: GravitySucks on June 15, 2018, 11:50:30 AM
https://youtu.be/ZyQBPB1wnyk

Real ones have a much higher angle of attack when landing and taking off.


The restrictions of models...power to weight ratios. One guy has got a build log on YT, 13 foot long B1 bomber. The undercarriage (built by his dad) was a work of art, just like the real thing. He made the plugs, the molds and the panels from fibreglass. It was to be powered with four Jetcat turbines ($5000 each) and he had it on display at a B1 squadron dinner, the crews loved his workmanship (he was invited)...But. He then did the arithmetic. It wouldn't fly. He worked out that it's final weight would need 80% of all four turbines just to keep it airborne. The full size can cruise on something like 20% dry thrust. He was pretty pissed off, and not surprising, he put a lot of work and a hell of a lot of money into it.

Yorkshire pud

Meanwhile, the dynamic soaring gliding speed record was broken the other day.. 545 mph = 0.826 Mach (Though allowing for the altitude and air pressure it's nearer .73)  = 799.3 ft / sec. The wind speed was 51mph gusting up to 81..(I bet that was fun to try and stand up in)... That speed is transonic.

https://youtu.be/MoaWlKC3wIM


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: GravitySucks on June 15, 2018, 01:10:52 PM
Here ya go YP

https://youtu.be/ZeL3LhrmeME

I saw that at an r/c event..Looks good in the air. Yeah...Barkston Heath. The BMFA ran the NATS each year there. Not sure if they moved it because it's still an RAF base, annexed to RAF Cranwell (CFC).


Rix Gins

June 19, 2018.  Italians commemorating the 100th anniversary of fighter ace Francesco Baracca's death.
https://youtu.be/WIyEOzUNFLg

Yorkshire pud

I thought I'd gone to town detailing my big glider. This is pathological! Just get a look at the rivet counting. It hasn't flown yet, it's due it's maiden flight later this summer. And yes the fin insignia isn't correct, that's because it's been illegal to display the swastika in Germany for decades. They're pretty picky about it. The sound is wonderful from the twin rotary engines. (I think they're Moki 250 cc)



https://youtu.be/ntptoMWqB_w

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod