Aviation shite

[wackywacerwill]

Hey VC10dan, I'd be happy to run up in the tranny and take that scrap off your hands

 

Back when I was in 56 squadron Woolwich ATC I flew one of these on a few occasions

 

It was an amazing experience which I'll never forget. I got to do barrel rolls, loop the loop but best of all stall turns. It was 20 years ago give or take but it still turns my belly thinking about it now.

 

Back then and still now these were the stuff of dreams

[Spiny Norman]

I was at Duxford years ago and took a whole pile of pictures. I've stuck some of the best ones in an album, there are too many to post on here in a one-er but feel free to have a rummage.

http://imgur.com/a/qE8D1#0

 

Here's a few as a taster.

 

[Guest]

My very own (shared) bit of aviation shite, 1969 Beagle Pup 150:-

 

[Guest]

Also...

 

Knackered old Brit thing with some French oily bits (gearbox), pictured in front of knackered old French thing with some British oily bits (engine). That's the Dassault Mystère which mysteriously lives out its twilight years at Andrewsfield airfield in the leafiest bit of Essex. It's a lovely airfield, and is where I flew my first solo back in 1999.

 

[Chip]

Hawker Siddeley Trident, anyone?

 

 

Could have been a world beater as a jet for shorter routes and smaller airports, but stupid, stupid BEA wanted smaller engines as they operated from big airports.

 

Meanwhile, Boeing came up with the near identical 727, used bigger engines, and it outsold the Trident by 18:1

 

(Oh yeah, I've been lurking on here for ages and have only just remembered my old login)

[ChinaTom]

There are a load of these (rotting away) on the remains of the old BaiYun airport in Guangzhou, China. For Government use only though. You can still just see the top of the tails but building work will soon hide them away.

 

Once flew from Madeira to the Azores on a Boeing 720 - the coupe version of the 707.

[Wilko220]

 

 

Back when I was in 56 squadron Woolwich ATC I flew one of these on a few occasions

It was an amazing experience which I'll never forget. I got to do barrel rolls, loop the loop but best of all stall turns. It was 20 years ago give or take but it still turns my belly thinking about it now.

I don't want to hijack the thread with a plug but, as wackywacerwill has mentioned it and we now have VC10dan on here representin' the RAF, I thought I would just put a quick word in for the Air Training Corps.

I too was a cadet several years ago but these days I'm still involved as a volunteer - it's a fun way of whiling away some spare time. The organisation is recruiting adult volunteers all over the UK now so if anyone's looking for a new hobby check out the opportunities here: http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/wanttoj ... nteers.cfm

.

[RichardMoss]

I hear your Comet and raise you Nimrod, more precisely MRA4. Surely the single worst British military development.

It's worth pointing out that almost all of the bad decision making on this project falls squarely on the shoulders of the MoD. I was at BAE at the time of the project (I'm an ex-RAF pilot and was working at the BAE flying school at Prestwick) and I can tell you that the company suggested to the MoD that the best way to go was to build new airframes from scratch, to modern design standards and with all the required modifications included. The MoD insisted on refurbishing the old ones.

 

The Nimrod crash in Afghanistan was caused because a temporary mod installed for the Falklands conflict was never fully integrated in e design - again, the MoD was not prepared to spend the money.

[morris_ital_lover]

I hear your Comet and raise you Nimrod, more precisely MRA4. Surely the single worst British military development.

It's worth pointing out that almost all of the bad decision making on this project falls squarely on the shoulders of the MoD. I was at BAE at the time of the project (I'm an ex-RAF pilot and was working at the BAE flying school at Prestwick) and I can tell you that the company suggested to the MoD that the best way to go was to build new airframes from scratch, to modern design standards and with all the required modifications included. The MoD insisted on refurbishing the old ones.

 

The Nimrod crash in Afghanistan was caused because a temporary mod installed for the Falklands conflict was never fully integrated in e design - again, the MoD was not prepared to spend the money.

 

Tis fair enough.... I was less wise on government procurement when I typed that and having just watch the DfT procurement process from a far I can believe that the MoD was wholly responsible for that particular clusterfuck.

[pompei]

Are they Nimrods which fly from Waddington with the flying saucer shaped projection on them?

[Wilko220]

Are they Nimrods which fly from Waddington with the flying saucer shaped projection on them?

 

No, that's the E-3D Sentry - http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/sentry.cfm

[pompei]

Thanks for the info

[Jozza]

My very own (shared) bit of aviation shite, 1969 Beagle Pup 150:-

 

 

Aahh, the Pup. A bold attempt by a British builder to take on Cessna/Piper/et al. By all accounts they have some of the sweetest handling of any light aircraft, if not the same outright performance and refinement (rather like a classic British sports car). Beagle managed to go bust with full order books because they were selling them at below cost price. It's not surprising to learn that the ultimate owner of Beagle in its last years was British Leyland. Definite top-rank Aviashite.

[CreepingJesus]

I would post this in the Stupid Question Amnesty, but it's more appropriate here: seeing as the reg of the plane above is G-IPUP, and it's a Pup, are 'private' reg's easy to get on planes? Doubt I'll ever own one, but it's just one of those useless facts I'd like to have!

 

Also, further to the discussion much earlier in this thread, I got a copy of Howard Moon's book about the Tupolev TU-144, and it's a real eye-opener. How not to build a plane in so many ways. Well recommended.

[AeroNautiCal]

I would post this in the Stupid Question Amnesty, but it's more appropriate here: seeing as the reg of the plane above is G-IPUP, and it's a Pup, are 'private' reg's easy to get on planes?

 

Yes, and for any other aircraft too.

[Guest]

Beagle Pups handle beautifully, are aerobatic, and are far better made than the boring spamcans produced by Cessna and Piper at the time, but they are over engineered, too heavy, and, as noted above, were sold at a loss. The Pup was developed to become the Bulldog, used by the RAF, Swedish Air Force, and various ex Colonial forces.

 

There is also a G-OPUP G-PUPP, G-TPUP, and others.

 

The Pup was partly designed by the bloke who did the Lotus Europa. The interior is laid out to resemble that of a GT sports car, but with proper sticks and not horrid steering wheels, as in spamcans. The designer wanted gull wing doors or a canopy, but the stupid marketers said no, so the Pup got its annoyingly crap doors instead, and you lose the horizon when inverted in a loop.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

[messerschmitt owner]

man with wings by messerschmitt owner, on Flickr

[RichardMoss]

Beagle Pups handle beautifully, are aerobatic, and are far better made than the boring spamcans produced by Cessna and Piper at the time, but they are over engineered, too heavy, and, as noted above, were sold at a loss. The Pup was developed to become the Bulldog, used by the RAF, Swedish Air Force, and various ex Colonial forces

i agree - I used to fly the Bulldogs from RAF Leeming when I was on the Air Experience Flight there after leaving the RAF. Great aeroplanes, but they could sometimes be tricky to start when the engine was hot.

[Guest]

That is true. You need three hands for a hot start in a Bulldog.

 

The Swedish ones are best, as they have a seat in the back, but the ex African ones are good too, as they had little use in the military. Most of the ex RAF Bulldogs are pretty knackered, after years of thrashing by studes. I used to fly one of the ex Hong Kong Fuey ones, with Chinese lettering on the side.

[forddeliveryboy]

Concorde is nothing more than a wonderful failure. It's like the Citroen SM of the plane world. I'm glad it happened, but you have to wonder who thought it made commercial sense. The running costs must have been horrific, yet you could barely get any passengers on board. This applies to both car and plane.

 

Disagree with you entirely, Dollywobbler. Concorde didn't fail - but was a victim of famously protectionist American politics from start to finish. Similarly the Comet failed because BOAC (having demanded the ability to take off and land on short runways) didn't like the higher fuel consumption which dented profits, so bought Boeings which needed longer runways but used less fuel. Had BOAC specified low fuel consumption, no doubt our world-class engineers would have trumped Boeing.

 

Citroën's tour-de-force in the SM may never have made much money for the company, but for a long time Audi was making huge losses on the A8 - it's a commonly accepted business model since the glamour rubs off on the entire range. See how many overpriced little A3s and A4s sell because of image alone. Equally, the uber-rich will pay through the nose for the exclusivity of something which makes no financial sense - if the experience is superb. After Concorde was bought from the government by BA in the 80s, it became lucrative as its potential to attract many wealthy clients was developed.

 

I know relatively little about aircraft and Concorde's engineering but I do have a good working knowledge of old Citroëns - those designed and built by them, not the PSA variety. The SM's demise was purely political. The car could easily have stayed in production as long as the Traction Avant or DS with the right sales and marketing, had a engineering-led and progressive company bought the French giant, rather than Peugeot. Honda would have been a fine suitor.

 

There has possibly never been, nor ever will be again, such a masterpiece of elegant, exquisite and super-functional engineering as the SM, in my 'umble. I'm anything but blind to Citroën's shortcomings - not least that their maintenance is Ferrari-esque, requiring specialists if things aren't to be damaged. I doubt I will ever see anything as beautiful as Concorde gracing our skies in my life.

 

The SM was super-fast, super-refined and quite economical on a long run at high speed and had the stability and roadholding only old Citroëns offer, then some. The sort of person buying such a car wasn't concerned about taking the family to Butlins - just as someone buying an E-type Jaguar wasn't.

 

Having been taken over by Peugeot which was more used to turning out respectable, worthy cars with just as much refinement as the public demanded, the new owner was quick to sit on Citroën's flagship, introducing the 604 as their own in the same year the SM's production was halted. There was little of exception to note other than its interior space and French ride/handling compromise. Even though they sold in relatively small numbers (just 7000 in 1981 and 155,000 from start to finish), profits were made since so much was shared with the 504.

 

 

[gricer]

Similarly the Comet failed because BOAC (having demanded the ability to take off and land on short runways) didn't like the higher fuel consumption which dented profits, so bought Boeings which needed longer runways but used less fuel. Had BOAC specified low fuel consumption, no doubt our world-class engineers would have trumped Boeing.

 

 

That'll be the VC-10 you're talking about, not the Comet.

 

Comet had other problems, well documented. By the time the stress fatigue problems had been fixed and the Comet 4 developed, the 707 and DC-8 were ready - effectively a generation ahead of the Comet and therefore able to take the market.

 

Concorde, like Comet 1, was a first-generation product. The Americans screwed up the second-gen SST (Boeing 2707) by focusing on Mach 3 performance, swing-wings and titanium structures. It really was never going to work. Once that opportunity was lost, and oil prices started to soar in the 70s, SST projects were back-burnered (though were still under development, eg BAE's AST). Airlines focused on volume traffic (747 etc) so the high-speed premium market never developed.

 

One day, perhaps, we'll get a 2nd gen SST. But don't hold your breath.

 

Meanwhile don't let anyone say Concorde was a failure. It's one of the high-water marks in human technological achievement, killed ultimately by a perfect shitstorm of circumstances.

[willswitchengage]

Concorde is nothing more than a wonderful failure. It's like the Citroen SM of the plane world. I'm glad it happened, but you have to wonder who thought it made commercial sense. The running costs must have been horrific, yet you could barely get any passengers on board. This applies to both car and plane.

 

Concorde was introduced in the mid 70s, just when the supply chain went a bit tits up and we realised how scarce and expensive oil really is. The 80s was Concorde's heyday, an era when the price dropped due to new finds in the North Sea and Alaska - but that decade of plofrigacy was a glitch in energy supply and the world economy (Reagan-Thatcher years). By the 90s exorbitant corporate spending and cheap oil started to end so Concorde became somewhat redundant. Air travel is barely sustainable economically as it is, Concorde was the ugly face of it, yet somewhat magnificent at the same time.

[Partridge]

This is a really interesting OT thread. Can we have it imported to the open forums, please?

[Wilko220]

Oh, behave yourself...

[Partridge]

Haha! Just think there's interesting stuff here and the thread could probably get some more miles on the clock in the OT section.

...I've stuck my neck out, I know

[Cavcraft]

OMG THIS THREAD IS SHIT NOTHING TO DO WITH CARS IT'S FAVOURITISM BOO HOO

[Wilko220]

Cheers for the bump, Piers

[Partridge]

Piers?

[daveb47]

Flew many times in Beverlys & Hastings while i  was at RAF Abingdon.

Most memorable was when a Bev shed a left inner prop blade over the welsh mountains,got backk ok.

My favorite plane however is the Lockheed F104 starfighter.

Remember being at Bentwaters airshow when 9 of them ran in from behind the crowd extremely fast.

Woman next to us fell off her chair and peed herself!

They then flew along the flightline line astern at 5 second intervals about 100 foot up And very close to crowd at just below sonic.

Never forget it.

Once you c

have heard the J79 yowl you will never forget it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozIRwMhRVRY

 

There is one almost ready to fly in Norway