Jump to content

Recommended Posts

One of the best edited videos I've seen of the Rafale with plenty of other good aircraft.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have really grown to love the Rafale. Thanks for sharing.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is a replica as I don't think there are any actual flying originals left but still is amazing! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spanner said:

I believe this is a replica as I don't think there are any actual flying originals left but still is amazing! 

 

they built six replicas as I recall, and they fly on F-5 engines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which means they’re more powerful than the originals! But yes, they were built by a firm in Texas as I recall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How's this for a w-what! pic?  A low pass with three props feathered!

5ded08db6a8d724caeeb6d0ba934b93c--histor

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a Shackleton. Those Griffon engines were monsters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does very much look like a Lancaster but I was never aware they were ever were fitted with 4 blade props, perhaps this was a test or development variant hense the feathered engines.. 

Doesn'treally look like a Shackleton..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another photo of a Lancaster in a similar angle, minus the ventral turret..

 

images.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft in question may well be an Avro Lincoln:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lincoln

"Ventral turret" is probably actually a housing for ground-mapping /bomb-aiming radar.

Edit: The Lincoln doesn't appear to have been fitted with Griffon engines either, but it had larger, more elongated engine nacelles that look like Griffon installations.

Edited by F-ZeroOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, F-ZeroOne said:

Aircraft in question may well be an Avro Lincoln:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lincoln

"Ventral turret" is probably actually a housing for ground-mapping /bomb-aiming radar.

Edit: The Lincoln doesn't appear to have been fitted with Griffon engines either, but it had larger, more elongated engine nacelles that look like Griffon installations.

I think you nailed the Aircraft Ident F-ZeroOne.

 

As far as I'm aware, no British-designed bombers got a full-blown belly turret, Lancs and other Avro designs had their Radar and/or Jamming equipment in that ventral dome.

Some Brit bombers had "Ventral Turrets"... but nothing as effective [or pant-soiling] as the Sperry Ball-Turrets on the '17s and '24s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a pretty obscure one, isn't it? I know I've heard of it before but its a name that seems to be virtually unmentioned in the Lancaster family, even the civilian versions seem to be better known.

As you say, I'm also not aware of any British designs that had belly turrets in the US sense. There were a few that had ventral gun positions and a few that had the odd machine gun fitted in that position (often removed, then once the threat of "Jazz Music" - upwardly firing guns mounted on nightfighters attacking from below - was realised sometimes reinstated).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you got it F-ZeroOne. Now I remember, the Shackleton had contraprops. Good call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, a Lincoln! Thanks for the ident. I thought the nacelles looked a little wide, but I didn't catch the flat panels of glass in the nose.

But this, is a Lancaster low and on three!

219d6b609e918a5e1fe4e7ae3f8ec670.jpg

 

Edited by Thom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'd better point out that before I start getting a reputation as some sort of elite rare aircraft spotter, that all I did was type "Griffon engined Lancaster" into Google and notice the similarity of an image of a Lincoln  to the one depicted here on one of the results...! :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot the deliberate mistake in this article:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/17/heathrow_new_radios_northrop_grumman/

"Heathrow Airport is to get new air traffic control radio systems with a surprising amount of internet connectivity baked into them.

Northrop Grumman, of "horrendously expensive F-35 fighter jet" infamy, is supplying Britain's busiest airport with its Park Air T6 air traffic management product."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(First post here, be gentle)

Planes you say? I love me some planes. Which I suppose makes sense, being a Macross fan and all. In fact I work at Tangmere Aviation Museum (home of Neville Duke's record breaking red Hawker Hunter).

Anyway, I got a Great Wall Hobby 1/72 Strike Eagle for Christmas, and whilst it seems like a nice kit (crisply molded, good parts breakup etc) I'm not an expert- is it a good model or will it require corrections to be accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEGO voted no to the awesome new shuttle---but maybe a turbofan will have a chance?  I know I'd buy one if it gets enough votes to be put into production: 

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/f18a11c6-f704-4827-b06a-fba84e5818df

5083269-o_1c475bjj5hfs2lr1smseks174me-n5

5083279-172897004_small-VLUN_Kn0igawqA-t

Seems that the main intent is for classrooms etc, to show the mechanics/workings etc.  But either way--if they make it, I'll buy it.  :D  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This jet is so ugly. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Japanese GDSF have lost a AH-64 - they only had 13 of them. According to eye witnesses, the main rotor "detached" and footage exists of the helicopter falling out of the sky; it crashed into a fortunately empty building. Reports are that one of the two crew members were killed; if its true that the other survived then it says something about how tough AH-64s are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor update to this incident, house AH-64 hit was in fact occupied but resident managed to escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah no kidding, was there some structural defect, or poor maintenance? 

I once worked with a guy who had experience doing maintenance and forward deployments with the Apaches, he told me that the mechanics hate those birds, they were maintenance intensive as heck, and after every few months of operation, they virtually had to rebuild the bird from the ground up, the only thing they wouldn't have replaced was the airframe itself, the rotors, the canopies, everything would get stripped.  Most of them wished the army just stuck with the Cobras and never went with the AH-64s, because the former was apparently much more robust.

Edited by kalvasflam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously until theres an official report, its going to be speculation but the original English-language Japanese news reports about the incident mentioned that they had learned of a shortage of maintenance staff for the Japanese AH-64s and overwork of the existing staff. Its also worth pointing out that its possible the AH-64 started falling and the rotor detachment was a result of that, not the cause.

I'd also heard that AH-64s are maintenance intensive, anyone know if the newer variants are a bit more upkeep-friendly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2018 at 2:39 PM, kalvasflam said:

yeah no kidding, was there some structural defect, or poor maintenance? 

I once worked with a guy who had experience doing maintenance and forward deployments with the Apaches, he told me that the mechanics hate those birds, they were maintenance intensive as heck, and after every few months of operation, they virtually had to rebuild the bird from the ground up, the only thing they wouldn't have replaced was the airframe itself, the rotors, the canopies, everything would get stripped.  Most of them wished the army just stuck with the Cobras and never went with the AH-64s, because the former was apparently much more robust.

Safe way to go about it i suppose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to say both crewmembers in the GSDF AH-64 crash are now confirmed to have died. Its also being reported that the AH-64 had its main rotorhead replaced a couple of days before the incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, that's sad to read; and it's looking more and more like maintenance f-up where someone forgot to properly torque the bolts that secure the main rotor head... the final report will tell what actually happened and why, but it doesn't look good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wot, no Fairey Battle?

I recently read a neat story about the Beverley; a RAF aircrew were on approach and monitoring the radio behind a USAF jet that was itself queuing behind one; air traffic control advised the USAF pilot that he would be next to go in after the Beverley had landed and the RAF crew overheard the pilots reply: "I don't know what a Beverley is, but theres a goshdurn [1] combine harvester in front of me!".

The Roc gets a lot of stick but then it was probably never intended to go mano-a-mano with Me109s; it was a Fleet Air Arm aircraft and its intended use was probably to intercept and shoot down lone enemy "shadowers" operating hundreds of miles away from land-based air cover; it was never envisaged that the Luftwaffe would wind up living practically next door (we'll leave aside the fact that most of those shadowers could probably have outrun it anyway... ).

The Tornado F2/3 also gets beaten up a lot for not being a F-16, but the it was never intended to be; its job was to shoot down the Soviet bomber hordes, again hundreds of miles out between Scotland and Norway... its interesting to consider what people would now be saying about the F-16 if it had never been revised from the original design intention of a day-only "dogfighter" armed only with two short range missiles and a cannon...
 

     [1] The original story uses an alternative for "goshdurn" here.

Edited by F-ZeroOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, F-ZeroOne said:

 

The Tornado F2/3 also gets beaten up a lot for not being a F-16, but the it was never intended to be; its job was to shoot down the Soviet bomber hordes, again hundreds of miles out between Scotland and Norway... its interesting to consider what people would now be saying about the F-16 if it had never been revised from the original design intention of a day-only "dogfighter" armed only with two short range missiles and a cannon...

 

But the RAF could've had F-15s for less cost and less headache.  Though TBH, I'm glad they didn't because the Tornado F.3 is a pretty cool looking jet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vaguely recall reading that one of the possible issues with the F-15 for what the RAF intended to use it for was that it was a little short on endurance (and bearing in mind the RAF tanker fleet wouldn't have been as large as the USAFs). Not sure how true that is, but it may have been one factor,along with the usual politics and the always seductive and often fatal kiss of "commonality"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×