Author Topic: Aircraft we like..  (Read 227406 times)

Offline VirginiaJim

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10981
  • Country: england
  • I've forgotten more than I'll ever know...
    • Kawasaki 1400GTR
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #75 on: November 17, 2013, 02:44:50 pm »
Thank you, Charlie!  Bombers are my favorite and I do have soft spot for Vulcans.

The art is going to take a bit of detective work.  No XH number that I can see but there are some distinctive markings on it so maybe I can determine something from that.  The art is 'signed' by a Carol Steed, dated 1978 and the aircraft is landing.  At least I hope it is...the parachute is deployed.  Not good form to do that on a take off..

Narrowed down to 44 (Rhodesia) Squadron...based out of RAF Waddington.  Squadron was disbanded in 1982 :'( .

What a beautiful aircraft....sigh.
"LOCTITE┬«"  The original thread locker...  #11  2020 Indian Roadmaster, ABS, Cruise control, heated grips and seats 46 Monitoring with cutting edge technology U.N.I.T is Back! 2008 C14 Moved on to a new home, 2016 RM traded in.

Offline VirginiaJim

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10981
  • Country: england
  • I've forgotten more than I'll ever know...
    • Kawasaki 1400GTR
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #76 on: November 17, 2013, 03:18:58 pm »
In doing a search for the aircraft I found that RAF Brize Norton (Oxfordshire) is 'Alive!'.  I thought that base died when US forces left in 1965.  Also found out it was one of the bases used for temporary deployments of the B/RB-36.  They came over for visits (that's how my Dad met my Mom), but they never overstayed their welcome.  Brize Norton was also a SAC Reflex base for the B-47.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2013, 04:25:56 pm by VirginiaJim »
"LOCTITE┬«"  The original thread locker...  #11  2020 Indian Roadmaster, ABS, Cruise control, heated grips and seats 46 Monitoring with cutting edge technology U.N.I.T is Back! 2008 C14 Moved on to a new home, 2016 RM traded in.

Bergmen

  • Guest
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #77 on: November 19, 2013, 02:53:10 pm »
If the -71 was too expensive to operate the -72 most assuredly will be.
The big problem with the -71 is all the tooling to make parts was ordered destroyed while the craft were still in use.
Notice they say the -71 was put in service in '66? The planes were built in '61, as evidenced by their serial numbers.
I have a couple friends who were part of the U2 and SR program. They have some neat stories from their travels around the world with HABU.

The A-12 (forerunner of the SR-71) first flew on April 25, 1962. The first flight of the SR-71 was on December 22, 1964.

Dan

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5631
  • Country: us
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #78 on: November 21, 2013, 10:12:58 am »
I like this one.

Boeing 747 jumbo jet stuck after mistakenly landing at tiny Kansas airport.
The airfield where the plane landed is around thousand feet too short for the huge airplane to take off.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/massive-boeing-747-jumbo-jet-stuck-after-mistakenly-landing-at-tiny-kansas-airport-8954408.html
Thank God for good men willing to do extreme violence.

Offline ManWorkinghere

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
  • Country: us
  • 2001 Kawasaki Concours ZG1000A
    • Avatar database
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #79 on: November 21, 2013, 10:55:38 am »
I like this one.

Boeing 747 jumbo jet stuck after mistakenly landing at tiny Kansas airport.
The airfield where the plane landed is around thousand feet too short for the huge airplane to take off (SAFELY)


Planes can always takeoff from any runway but doing so successfully does depend on the length of said runway
after 2012 Rallybefore 2012 RallyCOG#9292:-)

Offline Rhino

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3963
  • Country: us
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #80 on: November 21, 2013, 11:12:14 am »
I like this one.

Boeing 747 jumbo jet stuck after mistakenly landing at tiny Kansas airport.
The airfield where the plane landed is around thousand feet too short for the huge airplane to take off.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/massive-boeing-747-jumbo-jet-stuck-after-mistakenly-landing-at-tiny-kansas-airport-8954408.html


I read this one. Jabara airport is located to the NW of Wichita and McConnell AFB is to the south about 10 miles apart. Jabara has runway 18/36 6100'x100'. McConnell has runway 19/01 12000'x150'. Jabara has white-green beacon, McConnell has white-white-green beacon. The list that differentiates these 2 airports is endless. Soooooo I give up, how does one get into the left seat of a 747 and make this mistake?

Offline gPink

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5631
  • Country: us
  • MMVIII C XIV
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #81 on: November 21, 2013, 11:49:04 am »
The owners of the plane says if they dump payload and fuel they can fly it out. Unconfirmed radio report.
Thank God for good men willing to do extreme violence.

Offline Cholla

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #82 on: November 21, 2013, 12:46:27 pm »
Officials say they are good to go.
6100 feet should be enough to get it flying. Thing is they will be dragging it out and then do a max climb after getting a bit more speed. Hope there are no obstacles at the end of the runway and I hope there is a bit of a headwind.

Another question is they were in contact with ATC. Why weren't they told they were going to the wrong airport and that plane shouldn't be landing there?
I haven't seen where there was any cargo aboard, but they were stopping at McConnnell to pick up cargo.
Somebody's butt is going to be in a sling.
Beware the Black Widows...Feared throughout the land!

Offline Rhino

  • Arena
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3963
  • Country: us
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #83 on: November 21, 2013, 03:55:31 pm »
Officials say they are good to go.
6100 feet should be enough to get it flying. Thing is they will be dragging it out and then do a max climb after getting a bit more speed. Hope there are no obstacles at the end of the runway and I hope there is a bit of a headwind.

Another question is they were in contact with ATC. Why weren't they told they were going to the wrong airport and that plane shouldn't be landing there?
I haven't seen where there was any cargo aboard, but they were stopping at McConnnell to pick up cargo.
Somebody's butt is going to be in a sling.

Good question!

McConnell tower 747 heavy on final runway 19
errrr.... no your not!


gwocni

  • Guest
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #84 on: November 21, 2013, 05:31:21 pm »
Did someone mention Spitfire.................................... :chugbeer: :chugbeer:

Spitfire under bridge


The most recognisable aircraft and engine in the world.....................

gwocni

  • Guest
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #85 on: November 21, 2013, 05:36:57 pm »
As I understand it the V bombers (Valiant / Vulcan / Victor) were designed at a time when SAM technology was poor and the mind set was if you flew high and fast nothing would hurt you................................you guys lost a U2 to a SAM in the Gary Powers incident.  Hence the SR71 a plane that was only publically acknowledged years after its first missions......................That loss of your U2 caused a major rethink of the British mutually assured destruction defence scenario with the government of the day buying Polaris.................................in the stop gap years before that system went live we had to defend ourselves so the low high low mission profile was employed with the V bombers.......................................The Valiant did not stand up to the massively increased airframe stress that low level flying brought and after a series of accidents the fleet was x-rayed and grounded after the main wing spares were found to have fatigue fractures.  You are correct Jim in saying that the Victor went faster / carried more further than the Vulcan but the Vulcan handled the low level work far better than Victor.  The early Victor fleet had already been converted to tankers so the Mk2's went the same way........................The Vulcans at the time of the Falkland's had already been scrapped and the planes were put back to service much to the delight of the public.  The Victors were still in service years later in the Gulf topping up allied planes.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=v+bombers&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4ADRA_enGB430IE526&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=q1qFUvOHKM-ThgegrYDwBQ&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=587#facrc=_&imgdii=uiXiQF8ouM6-gM%3A%3BN_aeICQYyU1FgM%3BuiXiQF8ouM6-gM%3A&imgrc=uiXiQF8ouM6-gM%3A%3BPe_afdeFxDv1LM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fspeedreaders.info%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2010%252F04%252FVbombers1.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fspeedreaders.info%252F191-profiles_of_flight_by_windle_aamp_bowman%3B498%3B368

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?sa=X&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4ADRA_enGB430IE526&biw=1366&bih=587&tbm=isch&tbnid=9xVHNb1agL2MxM:&imgrefurl=http://www.wingweb.co.uk/aircraft/The_Handley_Page_Victor.html&docid=HWqzGrnQTcZbZM&imgurl=http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/450-Handley_page_victor_b1_hp.jpg&w=450&h=313&ei=MVuFUrG_KdKThQet4oCgDA&zoom=1&iact=rc&page=2&tbnh=187&tbnw=237&start=9&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:19,s:0&tx=127&ty=122

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?sa=X&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4ADRA_enGB430IE526&biw=1366&bih=587&tbm=isch&tbnid=wJQ1xt4WYsBIhM:&imgrefurl=http://tailspinstales.blogspot.com/2009/04/falkland-mission-impossible.html&docid=MjyNWQOwQJf9QM&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_NFtqCMIGTKU/SePWG8-IiOI/AAAAAAAACQw/45xAk5YjuxQ/s400/vulcan3.jpg.jpeg&w=400&h=266&ei=MVuFUrG_KdKThQet4oCgDA&zoom=1&iact=rc&page=2&tbnh=183&tbnw=216&start=9&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0&tx=110&ty=99



I concur :)

gwocni

  • Guest
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #86 on: November 21, 2013, 07:14:12 pm »
My top three...............

1.... Achtung Spitfeuer.
Spitfire under bridge


2. EE Lightning.......
English.Electric. Lightning story.


3....... I worked on the PR9s......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Electric_Canberra

Only in the Royal Air Force..... :finger_fing11:

gwocni

  • Guest
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #87 on: November 21, 2013, 07:24:40 pm »
And finally, that's the way to do it..........
Aircraft Marshalling 12 Sqn way

Offline Two Skies

  • Arena
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 213
  • Country: 00
  • Road? What road?!?
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #88 on: November 21, 2013, 08:27:14 pm »
The owners of the plane says if they dump payload and fuel they can fly it out. Unconfirmed radio report.


From what they said on NBC news, they brought in a new crew, that was able to get it off the ground and into the air.  Here's a link to a local story about the successful takeoff.

Jumbo 747 Dreamlifter takes off after being stranded at tiny Kansas airport

2006 w/50,000+ miles and a few bruises.

MCL Fork Brace & Handlebar Risers.  Bergmen Quick Release Tank Kit, Pilot GT Front/Avon Venom Rear tire.  Trunk w/spoiler.  NGK DR8EIX plugs.  Piece of foam in airbox.  Beads on seat.  Bafflectomized.  Murphs Kneesavers & Fuse Block.  Cee Bailey Winscreen w/vent.  Heated grips.  'Custom' mirrors.

Offline Rick Hall

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 587
  • Country: us
  • Eruption
Re: Aircraft we like..
« Reply #89 on: November 21, 2013, 09:16:32 pm »
Good question!

McConnell tower 747 heavy on final runway 19
errrr.... no your not!

Mostly... except for...
I've flown into many (OK, at least ten) towered airports in a light plane. The radio call from tower is typically "call three mile base one one right..."

In a LARGE plane, the radio work is typically: ATC sez: contact Denver approach 122.95. And this is from 50 miles out. Denver approach will say Contact tower 125.35. Tower will say "cleared landing one one right" from 5-10 miles out. Keep in mind LARGE planes fly substantially faster than a Cessna 152.

How they screwed up landing at that airport is beyond me, but I know it *could* happen. In theory ;)

In their defense (and mine too?), their short field landing/take-off skills are 110%. I quiver a bit when I have to land on a 50' wide 3000' PAVED runway in a 182 at altitude (6,000').

Rick
Rick Hall     1994 ZG 1000 "Sam"      xCOG #1914 (CO)
  GfNi H.P.   DOD #2040   1kQSPT 14.16   IBA #3274
    The Kawasaki Concours page at: www.zggtr.org