Low Flying Business Jet

[magnum]

Driving through Perthshire on the A9 yesterday i was overtaken (just about) by a small business jet (Gulfstream of some sort i reckon). It can't have been flying at much more than a couple of hundred feet through a deepish valley. Illegal? I was quite envious given the traffic situation on the road.

[Truckosaurus]

Might have been an RAF trainer like a Dominie, as they look like business jets.

[magnum]

Aye that makes sense. Wasn't a dominie though. horizontal stabiliser sat right at top of tail. Nacelles were mounted in the same place mind you.

[rich1231]

CIA kidnap ?

cool

[magnum]

Nah, Prescott not wanting to miss lunch i suspect.

[tonyvid]

couldn't have been unless it was a Hurcules!

[Eric Mc]

Yhe Dominie is based on the Hawker Siddeley HS125 executive jet - so it is a business jet at heart.

I wouldn't class a Gulfstream as small either. The only business jets that tend to be larger are executive versions or airliners.

FR Aviation in Bournemouth operate a fleet of Dassault Falcon 20 business jets as target towing and attack simulation aircraft on behalf of the Royal Navy and the RAF. It might have been one of those. They are about the same size as an HS125/Dominie.

[lord summerisle]

i was heading to a job at Glasshouses in North Yorks, had just passed the golf balls just off the A59 and was heading down into the valley beyond when i saw the rotors, and a flash of green wizz past infront of me further down the road.. not often do i watch a helicopter go past from above!

[r988]

magnum said:

Nah, Prescott not wanting to miss lunch i suspect.

That probably as much altitude as they could get with him on board .

[KITT]

Low flying rules state that you're supposed to keep minumum 500ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. And if flying over a city it's 1000ft. So if it was indeed a business jet it's breaking the law.

[Trooper2]

rich1231 said:

CIA kidnap ? cool

This time they probably kidnapped one of there own agents, dip-shts.

[Flat in Fifth]

KITT said:

Low flying rules state that you're supposed to keep minumum 500ft from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. And if flying over a city it's 1000ft. So if it was indeed a business jet it's breaking the law.

Indeed I've had the Battle of Britain flight twice pass ~500ft over my house and it was blooming loud..............

















but oh so blinding fabulous!!!!!

[apache]

Could have been one of FRAs Falcons, was it blue and white?

>> Edited by apache on Friday 6th January 11:46

[eharding]

apache said:

Could have been one of IFRs Falcons, was it blue and white?

One of these hooning about then?



NB - the military are exempt from Rule 5....

[Eric Mc]

Dominie in the "new" training colours. I still can't fathom why the powers that be think that gloss black is more visible than the old gloss white and red training colour scheme.

[apache]

Eric Mc said:

Dominie in the "new" training colours. I still can't fathom why the powers that be think that gloss black is more visible than the old gloss white and red training colour scheme.

I think it may have been the result of that awful mid air collision with a TACEVAL scramble from Bruggen hitting a line of German Alphajets in the late 80's. One of our crews was killed and the RAF began experimenting with different coloured fins on the Tornados. I remember the result being that a solid black was more visible against a blue sky

[eharding]

Solid black is much more visible in the air, in most light
conditions (and pure white can be practically invisible,
which is why spotting gliders is difficult..)

>> Edited by eharding on Thursday 5th January 17:36

[Eric Mc]

I presume Tornados in Germany would have been in the overall grey and green camouflage scheme - designed specifically to make them HARD to see. Luftwaffe Alpha Jets were also camouflaged in a similar grey/green scheme. Even though they had a training role, they also had a secondary ground attack role - which is why they were camouflaged. Some of them sported day-glo panels on the wings, nose and tail to aid visibility.

It's hard to see how that affected the colours of UK based RAF training aircraft at the time.

>> Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 5th January 18:18

[apache]

I am presuming the connection admittedly but I remember our jocks discussing it and the fact that black came out as a winner against sky. As for camouflage wouldn't that be effective from above only? the concern at the time being for mid air avoidance

[mojocvh]

Even as far back as WW2 the RAF was experimenting in was to make aircraft less visible esp head on. One of the most succesful was to have a set of mid powered lights along the leading edges of the wings and in the nose.................guess black is the opposite. It does work.

Mojo.