NPR

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:16 am

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 9:26 am

mat the expat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 8:56 am

They have to move the Vulcan by land?

Most museum pieces do


the Vulcan is a bit bigger though

That is not the same thing. Museum pieces are cut and shut jobs because they are not intended to run again. In the case of the Vulcan we are talking disassembly to later reassemble in order to maintain operational capability. Just think of the complexity involved! Here is the Jetstream that went from Cranfield to (well, I can't say but it's in Scotland) and it took a couple of weeks and a very large sum of money to do:


Chop job probably 10% of the cost.

If you check what These guys are doing this is not Cut they reassemble the aircrafts. (most mechanics there are likely ex Sud Aviation/Aerospatiale/Airbus)

Check the Alize work, they are redoing the riveting...

Of course these are not airworthy (I think some are ), I am not sure who would have deep enough pockets to fly such a huge aircraft as a vulcan.

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:31 am If you check what These guys are doing this is not Cut they reassemble the aircrafts. (most mechanics there are likely ex Sud Aviation/Aerospatiale/Airbus)

Check the Alize work, they are redoing the riveting...

Of course these are not airworthy (I think some are ), I am not sure who would have deep enough pockets to fly such a huge aircraft as a vulcan.

Maybe "cut and shut" was too strong. The wings are always problem No1 when transporting by road. They usually have to come off and then it depends how they were mounted. Most fast jets will be cut. You have all the stuff like integral wing tanks, electronics and hydraulics to deal with. Unless you are going to operate again (even if only EGRs), then they will simply drain everything and cut anything that isn't necessary for structural integrity. Even if it is needed for integrity, it may not be possible to do anything other than cut and do a patch reassemble. Lightnings have amongst the shortest of wing spans but they are always cut if moved.

In the end, most of these things are little more (sadly) than gateguards with no engines (usually still too valuable, even as scrap) and internals gutted.

{EDIT} I skimmed the video and seems both the wings and tail are pin mounted which means you only have to deskin the seams. That is unusual. Normally the wings would be spar mounted or, like the Jetstream, effectively a single piece onto which the fuselage is mounted.

In answer to your last point, nobody! When she was flying, it was largely down to public donations.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:49 am

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:31 am If you check what These guys are doing this is not Cut they reassemble the aircrafts. (most mechanics there are likely ex Sud Aviation/Aerospatiale/Airbus)

Check the Alize work, they are redoing the riveting...

Of course these are not airworthy (I think some are ), I am not sure who would have deep enough pockets to fly such a huge aircraft as a vulcan.

Maybe "cut and shut" was too strong. The wings are always problem No1 when transporting by road. They usually have to come off and then it depends how they were mounted. Most fast jets will be cut. You have all the stuff like integral wing tanks, electronics and hydraulics to deal with. Unless you are going to operate again (even if only EGRs), then they will simply drain everything and cut anything that isn't necessary for structural integrity. Even if it is needed for integrity, it may not be possible to do anything other than cut and do a patch reassemble. Lightnings have amongst the shortest of wing spans but they are always cut if moved.

In the end, most of these things are little more (sadly) than gateguards with no engines (usually still too valuable, even as scrap) and internals gutted.

{EDIT} I skimmed the video and seems both the wings and tail are pin mounted which means you only have to deskin the seams. That is unusual. Normally the wings would be spar mounted or, like the Jetstream, effectively a single piece onto which the fuselage is mounted.

Dassault engineering ...
Rafale is similar AFAIK

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:57 am Dassault engineering ...
Rafale is similar AFAIK

It's an interesting choice. The reason it's not normally done this way is because whilst it can make transporting in bits easier and maintenance/replacement, it means a lot of extra strength has to go into those areas rather than spreading the loading heading into the manner of a monocoque. Usually this pinning method was more common to carrier based aircraft........ for obvious reasons.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:10 pm

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:57 am Dassault engineering ...
Rafale is similar AFAIK

It's an interesting choice. The reason it's not normally done this way is because whilst it can make transporting in bits easier and maintenance/replacement, it means a lot of extra strength has to go into those areas rather than spreading the loading heading into the manner of a monocoque. Usually this pinning method was more common to carrier based aircraft........ for obvious reasons.

The Rafale was designed for carrier ops. It may be a Delta thing as well. Checking Some Mirage 3 and IV and they are likely to be similar.
the F1 seems to be the Same

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:22 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:10 pm

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:57 am Dassault engineering ...
Rafale is similar AFAIK

It's an interesting choice. The reason it's not normally done this way is because whilst it can make transporting in bits easier and maintenance/replacement, it means a lot of extra strength has to go into those areas rather than spreading the loading heading into the manner of a monocoque. Usually this pinning method was more common to carrier based aircraft........ for obvious reasons.

The Rafale was designed for carrier ops. It may be a Delta thing as well. Checking Some Mirage 3 and IV and they are likely to be similar.
the F1 seems to be the Same

I'd expect the Mirages to have followed the same design philosophy. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:45 pm

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:22 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:10 pm
It's an interesting choice. The reason it's not normally done this way is because whilst it can make transporting in bits easier and maintenance/replacement, it means a lot of extra strength has to go into those areas rather than spreading the loading heading into the manner of a monocoque. Usually this pinning method was more common to carrier based aircraft........ for obvious reasons.

The Rafale was designed for carrier ops. It may be a Delta thing as well. Checking Some Mirage 3 and IV and they are likely to be similar.
the F1 seems to be the Same

I'd expect the Mirages to have followed the same design philosophy. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Dassault for all the innovations was very conservative.

Actually you can find a Mirage IV in the UK



You can see the wing attachment in this.

Live now - Big Jet TV @ RAF Lakenheath

lots of F15 activity

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:07 pm Actually you can find a Mirage IV in the UK



You can see the wing attachment in this.

How TF did you find this?!

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 9:21 am Live now - Big Jet TV @ RAF Lakenheath

lots of F15 activity

Those guys live outside the Forest Gate at Lakenheath

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:47 pm

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:07 pm Actually you can find a Mirage IV in the UK



You can see the wing attachment in this.

How TF did you find this?!

Google Skillz ;)

I had no idea there was one in the UK (or out of France).

laurent wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:47 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:47 pm

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:07 pm Actually you can find a Mirage IV in the UK



You can see the wing attachment in this.

How TF did you find this?!

Google Skillz ;)

I had no idea there was one in the UK (or out of France).

Even weirder that of all the aircraft to choose to feature in the UK, it was that one!

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:34 am

laurent wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:47 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:47 pm

How TF did you find this?!

Google Skillz ;)

I had no idea there was one in the UK (or out of France).

Even weirder that of all the aircraft to choose to feature in the UK, it was that one!

French aircrafts are simply better :P

I think this was just because it was new / being setup.

laurent wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:07 pm Actually you can find a Mirage IV in the UK



You can see the wing attachment in this.

I was doing some stuff at East Midlands Air Museum yesterday and took this to show the more normal use of a pin mounted wing

S2 Buccaneer

Great show for a good cause today

Click for larger size

Jesus, RIP

Calculon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 8:54 pm Jesus, RIP

F**king nightmare. Not that it's important but it was a P63 and not a P51. After Shoreham, we've all been saying we cannot give aviation authorities any more excuses to ground us all. This tragedy is just more bad news.

You cannot have occasional display circuit pilots flying paths that cross one another. Professional display teams like the Arrows rehearse this stuff day after day and still get it wrong. I'll await the full accident report but it looks like the B17 drifted to port from its expected path (maybe wind conditions) and possibly slower than planned (which would have resulted in a tighter turn) and KingCobra is flying a turn coming inside other aircraft in the mass parade: on that turn, by the time he's seen the Fortress not where he's expected it, it's too late.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:35 pm

Calculon wrote: ↑Sat Nov 12, 2022 8:54 pm Jesus, RIP

F**king nightmare. Not that it's important but it was a P63 and not a P51. After Shoreham, we've all been saying we cannot give aviation authorities any more excuses to ground us all. This tragedy is just more bad news.

You cannot have occasional display circuit pilots flying paths that cross one another. Professional display teams like the Arrows rehearse this stuff day after day and still get it wrong. I'll await the full accident report but it looks like the B17 drifted to port from its expected path (maybe wind conditions) and possibly slower than planned (which would have resulted in a tighter turn) and KingCobra is flying a turn coming inside other aircraft in the mass parade: on that turn, by the time he's seen the Fortress now where he's expected it, it's too late.

I was watching this guys analysis earlier, & he shows what occurred from multiple videos, & it looks like it was the P63 that turned a lazier circuit, & drifted into the path of the B17.

My overall impression was that it was a very crowded flight area, & it's very fortunate that no-one on the ground was killed.

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:43 pm
I was watching this guys analysis earlier, & he shows what occurred from multiple videos, & it looks like it was the P63 that turned a lazier circuit, & drifted into the path of the B17.

My overall impression was that it was a very crowded flight area, & it's very fortunate that no-one on the ground was killed.

We'll find out in due course. The key point is how they ended up occupying the same airspace at the same time. Flying mass formations with participants executing different paths that cross and where the planes are operating at wildly different speeds is a recipe for trouble.

And yes, bad enough but if anyone had been killed on the ground, the NTSB would be under massive pressure for a knee jerk response.

So after a accident they stop all Airshows, yet dozens of rugby players get devastating brain injuries that are incidental to the sport. Not accidental, incidental, you play rugby and your brain will impact the inside of your skull (upwards of 70 thousand times during a Career), and rugby carries on like everything else is in the world is just its bitch?

Shut us down, we'll shut you fucking down!!!!

Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:22 am So after a accident they stop all Airshows, yet dozens of rugby players get devastating brain injuries that are incidental to the sport. Not accidental, incidental, you play rugby and your brain will impact the inside of your skull (upwards of 70 thousand times during a Career), and rugby carries on like everything else is in the world is just its bitch?

Shut us down, we'll shut you fucking down!!!!

That was pretty much my point in regards air shows: held to an entirely different standard. Turn up to an F1 event and your ticket says something like "Motor sports are dangerous. By entering the event you accept the injury or even fatality could occur".

We are all grounded in the UK but the 422 lot (AALO) at Stennis have been working to get their Lightning back in the skies** but this kind of disaster might have the same consequence over there as Andy Hill's effort at Shoreham.
** We just exchanged an air turbine gear box with Phil Wallis to get them airborne (I hope) for an Avon 302C which is arriving with us on Saturday,

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:49 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:43 pm
I was watching this guys analysis earlier, & he shows what occurred from multiple videos, & it looks like it was the P63 that turned a lazier circuit, & drifted into the path of the B17.

My overall impression was that it was a very crowded flight area, & it's very fortunate that no-one on the ground was killed.

We'll find out in due course. The key point is how they ended up occupying the same airspace at the same time. Flying mass formations with participants executing different paths that cross and where the planes are operating at wildly different speeds is a recipe for trouble.

And yes, bad enough but if anyone had been killed on the ground, the NTSB would be under massive pressure for a knee jerk response.

Seems like that answer is because the Air Boss on the day was a fucking moron; & who should now probably face criminally negligent manslaughter charges !

Instead of keeping the slow bombers at the 500' line, & the fast fighters on the 1000' line; he had the bright idea to have a maneuver where during the display, they would cross, & the fighters would go to the 500' line, & the bombers out to the 1000' line; all without any vertical separation !!

It was during the execution of this insane criss-cross, that blind, turning, P-63 smashed into the B-17

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/3280 ... ary-report

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:36 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:49 pm

fishfoodie wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 12:43 pm
I was watching this guys analysis earlier, & he shows what occurred from multiple videos, & it looks like it was the P63 that turned a lazier circuit, & drifted into the path of the B17.

My overall impression was that it was a very crowded flight area, & it's very fortunate that no-one on the ground was killed.

We'll find out in due course. The key point is how they ended up occupying the same airspace at the same time. Flying mass formations with participants executing different paths that cross and where the planes are operating at wildly different speeds is a recipe for trouble.

And yes, bad enough but if anyone had been killed on the ground, the NTSB would be under massive pressure for a knee jerk response.

Seems like that answer is because the Air Boss on the day was a fucking moron; & who should now probably face criminally negligent manslaughter charges !

Instead of keeping the slow bombers at the 500' line, & the fast fighters on the 1000' line; he had the bright idea to have a maneuver where during the display, they would cross, & the fighters would go to the 500' line, & the bombers out to the 1000' line; all without any vertical separation !!

It was during the execution of this insane criss-cross, that blind, turning, P-63 smashed into the B-17

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/3280 ... ary-report

Kerrist all mighty.

The only good news from this is that it won't be the safety of the aircraft or the pilots brought into question.

Why Japan lost



Corsairs and hellcats waiting to be shipped to the Pacific theater of war, 1944

Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 11, 2022 5:18 pm Why Japan lost



Corsairs and hellcats waiting to be shipped to the Pacific theater of war, 1944

F4Us, tough as f**k.

Pilot didn't fancy waiting around for the ground crew to bring the stairs .... so decided to test his zero/zero ejection seat works !

Finally got the replacement No1 engine in:

BA A320NEO seats are fucking tight in the back!

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 11:10 am BA A320NEO seats are fucking tight in the back!

All these bucket class ones are designed to shoehorn as many in as possible. All you need then is Hagrid's BO ridden brother in the seat next to you and you have the perfect misery.

Was looking at the Lego Concorde

The Chasse Ambarquée has a new video up.

Time for some Faptastic Rafale Views...

Sad news coming in of the BBMF's loss of what looks like MK356 (Spitfire) from the accident scene pics. Pilot died in the accident.

365 was an unusual MkIX designed for low flight (hence L.F. designation).

Rather easy on the eye and aviation related