Discussion
Eric Mc said:
At the rate some people were inserting them into their posts, you would spend more time searching what they meant to say rather than reading and enjoying their stories.
Eric, one term 'CAB', in a relevant context, linked to a personal story that was fascinating. prompted your displeasure. Is there a link to a post on this thread which matches your description? I can't even recall a recent thread which would match that description. Eric Mc said:
I think people might take on board what I asked and think a bit more carefully before over using them.
In the interests of balance, have you taken on board any of the comments about trying to look up the terms or ask people politely? On another thread you express shock at someone not knowing about Comet racers made nearly 80 years ago and talk about tip stall and wing plan form... Genuinely Eric, I think the more contributors from every background and experience the better, you have an eye for detail and I don't want to sound antagonistic, but the variation in the level of experiences and qualifications on PH makes this a lovely forum for aircraft related discussion. It just needs a little tolerance. I have no military experience, minimal engineering interest and if a term crops up I don't understand someone more knowledgable can help me out. If everyone has to craft their post to the lowest common denominator we would lose the chance to expand our knowledge! I had never heard of the US Phantom that had to be disguised.. and the lack of ejector seats reminded me of a story an old instructor told me about his time on Gannets.. Try and enjoy the variety, not everyone will understand everything about every post but a bit of tolerance and variety is refreshing
I'm not saying any more on the subject of acronyms etc (on this thread anyway) as I have nothing more to add.
Can we talk about Gannets now - a very interesting aeroplane and worth discussing in its own right.
I don't have any personal experiences of Gannets, apart from seeing them at airshows or in museums (and building the odd plastic kit), but one of the older members of my operatic society was a scientist in the old Royal Aircraft Establishment and told me that he had many hours flying a test observer in the back of Gannets. He said they were quite scary at times because the exhaust of the Double Mamba had a habit of spewing flames right past his observation porthole.
Can we talk about Gannets now - a very interesting aeroplane and worth discussing in its own right.
I don't have any personal experiences of Gannets, apart from seeing them at airshows or in museums (and building the odd plastic kit), but one of the older members of my operatic society was a scientist in the old Royal Aircraft Establishment and told me that he had many hours flying a test observer in the back of Gannets. He said they were quite scary at times because the exhaust of the Double Mamba had a habit of spewing flames right past his observation porthole.
Eric Mc said:
Watching a Gannet fold and unfold its wings is a performance in itself.
Yes, quite a sight! Carrier-borne aircraft are always heavier than land-based and the wing-fold mechanisms added extra complexity too. Deck-landings/Catapult-launches are extremely stressful to an airframe. When the Ark retired, it probably came at the right time for the Gannet.
They were a high-maintenance cab and besides the usual system failures, I remember a case of cracking in the wing-fold locking plates on the last trip I did. At least they were right in your line of sight and accessible for repair/replacement when the wings were folded.
Yes, when on station the Gannet would shut down one engine to prolong flight time/save fuel.
One prop was feathered (turned to present minimum profile to the airflow). When you wanted to re-start, the prop was reversed and the airflow quickly spun the engine up.
We lost a C.O. (and his crew) when he feathered the "wrong" prop - unfortunately at low altitude. Some controls on the Gannet were a bit close-grouped on the LH side.
Flt Lt ****** (RAF), practising "go-arounds" selected "flaps up" as he ran along the runway for the next take-off - but he selected "undercarriage up".
We've maybe all seen the fast-jet boys do this and as they clear the deck - whumph! - up they go, those pesky legs/tyres leaving a nice clean aircraft just feet from the deck - looks great! The old Gannet isn't heavy enough to keep those legs down, so one crushed APS20 radar - crew were fine but we never saw Flt Lt ****** again. A good guy - used to bring his crew a half-bottle rum from a wardroom bash sometimes. Alcohol figured largely in the RN/Fleet Air Arm.
Random memory; the sight and sounds of the flight deck - especially at night - what a workplace!
Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White gives an interesting flavour of the Ark Royal and her cabs, to an interested civvie it's fascinating, although it details a mission with the Bucaneers rather than Gannets or Phantoms. It certainly highlights the loss of capability before the Falklands.
one story from my ex F-4 driver friend is of 'dog fighting' with the Gannet. He was playing at trying to get a heat seeking missile lock on the Gannet exhausts. Each time we manoeuvred into position to get a lock the driver of the Gannet would shut down the engine with exhausts on that side and start up the other engine, or so the story goes.
Now if it was for real the F-4 Cab-driver would naturally drop back a bit and take a longer range shot, or 'switch to guns' and 'splash one bogie'...
Now if it was for real the F-4 Cab-driver would naturally drop back a bit and take a longer range shot, or 'switch to guns' and 'splash one bogie'...
When attacked, our jockey would switch both engines off, feather the props, fold the wings and dive like a stone.
Passing 1000ft, he would reverse the props, fire up the engines, open out the wings and swoop at wave height back to the Ark - just in time for tiffin.
Just kiddin' - maybe.
Passing 1000ft, he would reverse the props, fire up the engines, open out the wings and swoop at wave height back to the Ark - just in time for tiffin.
Just kiddin' - maybe.
V8 Fettler said:
Gannets would have provided much needed airborne early warning during the Falklands war, although would also have needed HMS Ark Royal (which would have made Phantoms and Buccs available).
That is an opinion that is often trotted out regarding the Falklands conflict but I'm not sure it's actually realistic. While better than nothing, it is unlikely that the Gannets could have achieved a seismic shift in the balance of the Argentine air threat.The Gannet carried the AN/APS20 radar that first flew fitted to a Grumman Avenger in March 1945 (and which, in many respects, owed its lineage to the H2S ground mapping radar of 1943); this radar was subsequently operated by the FAA in the 1950s in the AEW role using the (by then obsolete) Douglas Skyraider, before being grafted on to the Gannet in 1958. As such, not only was the system extremely old, but it had some serious shortcomings with clutter rejection against low level targets over water, as well as a somewhat limited range; this was quoted as a maximum of 200 miles but a more realistic figure was around 80 miles. It was also very operator intensive, for example the operator had to mark targets on the small screen in chinagraph so as to discover whether they were moving on successive sweeps because the system lacked 'afterglow' on the display tube. Finally, given the littoral nature of the Falklands air war the AN/APS20's performance would hvae been really limited. Indeed, he only real way to have used the Gannets, had they been available, would have been to put them well forward along the threat axis (which gives you all sorts of problems with defining where this threat axis (axes) actually was (were) vs limited assets and the additional problems of range from 'Mother'.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
V8 Fettler said:
Gannets would have provided much needed airborne early warning during the Falklands war, although would also have needed HMS Ark Royal (which would have made Phantoms and Buccs available).
That is an opinion that is often trotted out regarding the Falklands conflict but I'm not sure it's actually realistic. While better than nothing, it is unlikely that the Gannets could have achieved a seismic shift in the balance of the Argentine air threat.The Gannet carried the AN/APS20 radar that first flew fitted to a Grumman Avenger in March 1945 (and which, in many respects, owed its lineage to the H2S ground mapping radar of 1943); this radar was subsequently operated by the FAA in the 1950s in the AEW role using the (by then obsolete) Douglas Skyraider, before being grafted on to the Gannet in 1958. As such, not only was the system extremely old, but it had some serious shortcomings with clutter rejection against low level targets over water, as well as a somewhat limited range; this was quoted as a maximum of 200 miles but a more realistic figure was around 80 miles. It was also very operator intensive, for example the operator had to mark targets on the small screen in chinagraph so as to discover whether they were moving on successive sweeps because the system lacked 'afterglow' on the display tube. Finally, given the littoral nature of the Falklands air war the AN/APS20's performance would hvae been really limited. Indeed, he only real way to have used the Gannets, had they been available, would have been to put them well forward along the threat axis (which gives you all sorts of problems with defining where this threat axis (axes) actually was (were) vs limited assets and the additional problems of range from 'Mother'.
Indeed though Ark was all but knackered back in 78 and budget cuts made sense to loose her. The Falklands where easy to take because we ignored the warnings and made signals that we really had little interest in the islands, we could easily have sent a warship south a fortnight before the invasion following the landings on South Georgia.
V8 Fettler said:
In the real world, the minute detail of the Gannet's performance would have been immaterial. The projection of power by Ark Royal would have been sufficient to prevent the invasion in the first place.
Then why state: "Gannets would have provided much needed airborne early warning during the Falklands war" if you are merely going to move the goalposts when it is pointed out that your assertion is not necessarilly correct? It's all moot anyway since Ark had been pensioned off 2 years earlier (and she was knackered by that stage anyway).
What is criminal IMO is that Searchwater had been in service with Nimrod MR2 since August 1979 yet no-one had thought to fit it to RN Helos in the AEW role (despite it being a world leading multi-mode radar with an excellent air to air capability).
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Tuesday 12th August 00:14
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
V8 Fettler said:
In the real world, the minute detail of the Gannet's performance would have been immaterial. The projection of power by Ark Royal would have been sufficient to prevent the invasion in the first place.
Then why state: "Gannets would have provided much needed airborne early warning during the Falklands war" if you are merely going to move the goalposts when it is pointed out that your assertion is not necessarilly correct? It's all moot anyway since Ark had been pensioned off 2 years earlier (and she was knackered by that stage anyway).
What is criminal IMO is that Searchwater had been in service with Nimrod MR2 since August 1979 yet no-one had thought to fit it to RN Helos in the AEW role (despite it being a world leading multi-mode radar with an excellent air to air capability).
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Tuesday 12th August 00:14
IanMorewood said:
Indeed though Ark was all but knackered back in 78 and budget cuts made sense to loose her. The Falklands where easy to take because we ignored the warnings and made signals that we really had little interest in the islands, we could easily have sent a warship south a fortnight before the invasion following the landings on South Georgia.
There was no sense in losing Ark Royal with no immediate replacement available. The lack of Bucc, Phantom and Gannet made it much more difficult for the UK to liberate any island dependencies subsequently invaded by a foreign power. Ark Royal provided both deterrence and capability.In reality, we didn't need to send a warship south a fortnight earlier, we just needed to create a belief that a sub was in the area, 1977(?)
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff