Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 1)

[Nick_F]

D-Angle said:

Eric Mc said:

The single seat Gnat was quite a different aircraft to the two seat trainer.

The Gant had a much faster rate of roll than the Hawk.

Eric, any background as to why the Red Arrows moved to the Hawk? Was it just to use a more modern airframe with continued tech support, or were there other reasons?

Edited by D-Angle on Tuesday 21st July 19:13

I always thought it was because the Hawk needed selling...

[jimpritchard]

Heres my little contribution....

[D4VE 3LL]

From RIAT on Saturday,









Dave

[perdu]

sorrento205 said:

What makes the Gnat more special than a Hawk other than nostalgia?

good question

lots of it IS nostalgia for me

but Gnat displays seemed just a bit "crisper" possibly because as Eric says the Gnat had a fantastic roll rate

I know that isn't fair to the Hawk blokes, but the Gnat had had its day and the RAF were into the Hawk bigtime.
They couldn't keep flying "displays" in old kit.

Blimey they'd still be chucking Vulcans and Shackletons about wouldn't they?

[perdu]

dr_gn said:

perdu said:

SMKurt said:

IforB said:

Was this taken yesterday, in my back garden? 'Cause yesterday, i was having a nice sleep in when 'wwwwhhhhoOOOOOCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH!' one of them flew over making me fly out of bed! Buggers! Any ideas what they where doing at Teeside/Durham Tees Vally airport?

was it a Gnat? (as in the picture)

or was it a Red Arrow, in a Hawk

I'd love to have a Gnat come whistlng over my garden, pretty rare these days I think

but the Arrows do displays in all sorts of places, short "shows" where invited often if returning from other events, so I understand. Could have been one of those affairs

Yup

they can come and wake me up too

but I would really love to see a Gnat again, in flight.

Anyone know who operates any these days?

Here you go:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dorset/content/articles/2008/...

great link thanks

is G-NATY still flying displays this year? anyone seen her?

[Eric Mc]

Nick_F said:

D-Angle said:

Eric Mc said:

The single seat Gnat was quite a different aircraft to the two seat trainer.

The Gant had a much faster rate of roll than the Hawk.

Eric, any background as to why the Red Arrows moved to the Hawk? Was it just to use a more modern airframe with continued tech support, or were there other reasons?

Edited by D-Angle on Tuesday 21st July 19:13

I always thought it was because the Hawk needed selling...

The Hawk replaced the Gnat as the RAF's advanced trainer in 1979. The Red Arrows switched to the Hawk for the 1980 season onwards. Although having the Reds fly the Hawk obviously wouldn't have harmed sales, the prime reason was that the Red Arrows needed to have the same aircraft as the training units - for comptability and maintenance purposes.
There would have been no point in maintaining the support infrastructure within the RAF for a mere ten Gnats.

[Ayahuasca]

[eharding]

Eric Mc said:

Nick_F said:

D-Angle said:

Eric Mc said:

The single seat Gnat was quite a different aircraft to the two seat trainer.

The Gant had a much faster rate of roll than the Hawk.

Eric, any background as to why the Red Arrows moved to the Hawk? Was it just to use a more modern airframe with continued tech support, or were there other reasons?

Edited by D-Angle on Tuesday 21st July 19:13

I always thought it was because the Hawk needed selling...

The Hawk replaced the Gnat as the RAF's advanced trainer in 1979. The Red Arrows switched to the Hawk for the 1980 season onwards. Although having the Reds fly the Hawk obviously wouldn't have harmed sales, the prime reason was that the Red Arrows needed to have the same aircraft as the training units - for comptability and maintenance purposes.
There would have been no point in maintaining the support infrastructure within the RAF for a mere ten Gnats.

As an aside, my sister's father-in-law was an instructor on the Phantom at the time (later one of the first Tri-National Training Establishment Tornado instructors) - he asserts it was something of a retrograde step when the first generations of Hawk-trained pilots came through to the front-line types vs. those trained on the Gnat, in terms of fuel management awareness - the Gnat was far less forgiving in that respect than the Hawk.

[Charmless man]

Not as cool as a couple of those low flying shots and not exactly a great photo.

However, is Pepsi cooler than Coca Cola?



I apologies to the old hands who have seen it all before, I must've been under a rock as I've never seen it and I found the accompanying story interesting..

http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/pepsi.ht...

[Bernie-the-bolt]

Charmless man said:

http://www.concordesst.com/history/events/pepsi.ht...

Very interesting site and worth a look around

[Fabric 2.2]

jimpritchard said:

Heres my little contribution....

Can't remember which site I found it on, but the history behind the pic is, that was a senior pilots final flight, bound for Leuchars. Although apparently he managed to dislodge some poor chap repairing one of the hangar roofs, propably from the fright alone, never mind the pressure, chap broke a few bones. Pilot was immediately ordered back to base and "discharged". Worth it though Apparently the pic was taken by a colleague who didn't believe he'd actually have the balls to do it, was pre planned as his last flight through!

[SMKurt]

Lots and lots of cool pictures like the above ones in this chaps Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/damopabe/

[D-Angle]

Found this on another forum, it apears to be a Chinese attempt at an AWACS version of the TU-4. Note the turboprops.

[D4VE 3LL]

Edits from RIAT











Dave

[Jonny671]

Amazing pictures there, Dave!

[Bernie-the-bolt]

A bit HDR'ish which I think looks quite cool

[D4VE 3LL]

Bernie-the-bolt said:

A bit HDR'ish which I think looks quite cool

They are, I know they're hated by some people on here though but I'm not trying to make out that the scene was actually like it. I like them though

[Sixpackpert]

D-Angle said:

Found this on another forum, it apears to be a Chinese attempt at an AWACS version of the TU-4. Note the turboprops.

I'd say a copy of the B-29 looking at the cockpit glazing...

[dr_gn]

Sixpackpert said:

D-Angle said:

Found this on another forum, it apears to be a Chinese attempt at an AWACS version of the TU-4. Note the turboprops.

I'd say a copy of the B-29 looking at the cockpit glazing...

All you have to do to answer almost any aviation question is Google it, you'll get more information there than you could possibly need:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

Quote:

The Tupolev Tu-4 (NATO reporting name: Bull) was a piston-engined Soviet strategic bomber which served the Soviet Air Force from the late 1940s to mid 1960s. It was a reverse-engineered copy of the U.S.-made Boeing B-29 Superfortress.

In 1967, China attempted to develop its first Airborne Early Warning aircraft, based on the Tu-4 airframe outfitted with turboprop engines. The project was named KJ-1, with a Type 843 rotordome mounted on top of the aircraft. However, the radar and equipment was too heavy and the KJ-1 did not meet PLAAF's requirements, thus the project was cancelled in 1971.

Edited by dr_gn on Friday 24th July 11:26

[Eric Mc]

It's ironic that the Russian Tu-95 Bear, such a symbol of the Cold War and still in use today, is a direct descendant of the Bull and, by definition, the B-29.