Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
Harry Biscuit said:
Looks like the house is still there.It's a painting - https://twitter.com/Hangar7Art/status/956262507731...
Dr Jekyll said:
FunkyNige said:
Is this CGI? Could the plane taking the photo get that closer to the other plane?
It could, but staying in formation while chasing a V1 would be tricky, and the V1 doesn't look quite right to me.As opposed to machine gunning it which is bad news if it explodes close to the fighter.
mac96 said:
Isn't this a standard tactic for knocking a V1 down? Get your wingtip under it and tap it upwards- V1 then looses its planned path and crashes in fields rather than Hackney?
As opposed to machine gunning it which is bad news if it explodes close to the fighter.
It was certainly used on occasion. I believe the Meteor got it's first ever kill using this technique. But catching the V1s was always tricky and keeping up with the fighter that was catching the V1, in an aircraft carrying a photographer, would be a tall order. When I first saw it I honestly thought it was a photograph with the V1 painted on. As opposed to machine gunning it which is bad news if it explodes close to the fighter.
Harry Biscuit said:
Well that was worth it just to read that the house became known as 'Dakota Rest' and the pilot 'Rooftop Johnson' 
Dr Jekyll said:
mac96 said:
Isn't this a standard tactic for knocking a V1 down? Get your wingtip under it and tap it upwards- V1 then looses its planned path and crashes in fields rather than Hackney?
As opposed to machine gunning it which is bad news if it explodes close to the fighter.
It was certainly used on occasion. I believe the Meteor got it's first ever kill using this technique. But catching the V1s was always tricky and keeping up with the fighter that was catching the V1, in an aircraft carrying a photographer, would be a tall order. When I first saw it I honestly thought it was a photograph with the V1 painted on. As opposed to machine gunning it which is bad news if it explodes close to the fighter.
SpamCan said:
I do find it odd (but then I have only ever flown fixed gear aircraft) that it seems to happen so often especially on the bigger hardware like Hercs as the vast majority of these aircraft have a gear warning horn normally triggered if the gear is still retracted in certain configurations, i.e. landing configuration, reduced throttle settings. Do the crews just ignore these horns? or become so flustered they forget "when in doubt go-around" is one of the things that was drummed into me before I even did my first solo.
The Herc incident at Brize resulted from, at best complacency, at worst sheer f
kwittery.They'd been doing double assymetric approaches. The SOP when doing these in a Herc is that you select the gear (wheels) late, ie after APPROACH flap has been selected, because the gear causes so much drag. Normally if you do this (with any power lever set to IDLE), then the gear warning horn will activate. Since this is somewhat disturbing during what is a (relatively) tricky operation, the Flight Engineer would be briefed to pop the gear warning horn circuit breaker and the Nav briefed to make an amendment to his/her checklist that the breaker had been pulled.
Having carried out a double assymetric overshoot the SOP was that the Nav would remind the Flight Engineer to re-set the breaker. Apparently in this case (and prior to the final non-assymetric approach), that failed to happen so there was no aural warning on the final landing that the grear was still up.
Having said that, despite the fact that the breaker had not been reset, there would have been a visual warning that the gear was not selected to the DOWN position because, in this case, the gear selector handle would light up red.
Ergo, IMO, the Co-Pilot was either complacent in not selecting the gear to DOWN (and yet calling Gear DOWN as part of the Pre-Landing Checks), as well as in not noticing there was a bloody great red light in front of him.
Or he was a feckwit.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Tuesday 13th February 23:29
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
SpamCan said:
I do find it odd (but then I have only ever flown fixed gear aircraft) that it seems to happen so often especially on the bigger hardware like Hercs as the vast majority of these aircraft have a gear warning horn normally triggered if the gear is still retracted in certain configurations, i.e. landing configuration, reduced throttle settings. Do the crews just ignore these horns? or become so flustered they forget "when in doubt go-around" is one of the things that was drummed into me before I even did my first solo.
The Herc incident at Brize resulted from, at best complacency, at worst sheer fkwittery.They'd been doing double assymetric approaches. The SOP when doing these in a Herc is that you select the gear (wheels) late, ie after APPROACH flap has been selected, because the gear causes so much drag. Normally if you do this (with any power lever set to IDLE), then the gear warning horn will activate. Since this is somewhat disturbing during what is a (relatively) tricky operation, the Flight Engineer would be briefed to pop the gear warning horn circuit breaker and the Nav briefed to make an amendment to his/her checklist that the breaker had been pulled.
Having carried out a double assymetric overshoot the SOP was that the Nav would remind the Flight Engineer to re-set the breaker. Apparently in this case (and prior to the final non-assymetric approach), that failed to happen so there was no aural warning on the final landing that the grear was still up.
Having said that, despite the fact that the breaker had not been reset, there would have been a visual warning that the gear was not selected to the DOWN position because, in this case, the gear selector handle would light up red.
Ergo, IMO, the Co-Pilot was either complacent in not selecting the gear to DOWN (and yet calling Gear DOWN as part of the Pre-Landing Checks), as well as in not noticing there was a bloody great red light in front of him.
Or he was a feckwit.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Tuesday 13th February 23:29
In regards to the V1 tipping painting, i was indulging in some documentaries on the V1's recently and what the pilots were saying is they did not actually touch the V1 with the wing, but brought their wing just below the V1's wing, the airflow over the fighters wing was enough to upset the V1's stabilization and gyros. The practice was stopped when a newspaper published an article on a pilot doing it and the Germans then fitted a trip wire along the fuselage and out to the wing tips to detonate the V1 if tripped. the tripwire was discovered on a V1 that crashed without exploding.
Anyone for a mid-engined Mustang ?
Rolls-Royce FTB Mustang WWII project
In June 1943, Rolls-Royce proposed to re-engine the Mustang with a Griffon 65, although the resultant "Flying Test Bed" (F.T.B.) would involve a dramatic redesign. Three surplus Mustang I airframes were allotted by the Ministry of Air Production and were dismantled in order to provide the major components for a mid-amidships installation of the more powerful Griffon engine, somewhat like the V-1710 Allison installation in both the American Bell P-39 Airacobra and Bell P-63 Kingcobra. The project culminated in a mock-up, albeit with a Merlin 61 temporarily installed, serialed as AL960, that was examined by representatives from the Ministry in 1944, but was not given priority status. Further studies involving more powerful engines or turboprops were not given approval and the development contract was cancelled in 1945 with the mock-up being destroyed
Engineers at Rolls-Royce built a Mustang prototype with a powerful Griffon V-12 engine mounted in the middle with contra-rotating propellers. This could have been the best handling and most maneuverable Mustang of all. Named the "Mustang FTB" (Flying Test Bed). Development stopped because the British decided to focus on jet fighters.
Ugly sod isn't it !
Rolls-Royce FTB Mustang WWII project
In June 1943, Rolls-Royce proposed to re-engine the Mustang with a Griffon 65, although the resultant "Flying Test Bed" (F.T.B.) would involve a dramatic redesign. Three surplus Mustang I airframes were allotted by the Ministry of Air Production and were dismantled in order to provide the major components for a mid-amidships installation of the more powerful Griffon engine, somewhat like the V-1710 Allison installation in both the American Bell P-39 Airacobra and Bell P-63 Kingcobra. The project culminated in a mock-up, albeit with a Merlin 61 temporarily installed, serialed as AL960, that was examined by representatives from the Ministry in 1944, but was not given priority status. Further studies involving more powerful engines or turboprops were not given approval and the development contract was cancelled in 1945 with the mock-up being destroyed
Engineers at Rolls-Royce built a Mustang prototype with a powerful Griffon V-12 engine mounted in the middle with contra-rotating propellers. This could have been the best handling and most maneuverable Mustang of all. Named the "Mustang FTB" (Flying Test Bed). Development stopped because the British decided to focus on jet fighters.
Ugly sod isn't it !
Dr Jekyll said:
Have any Reno racers tried putting a Griffon into a Mustang yet?
Yes - https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a17269/pre...added video of it startup & flying - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpki2tKlSgQ
And a timelapse of taking it apart after the fire - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYImC-GxP2k
Edited by FourWheelDrift on Thursday 15th February 16:12
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff