|
Post by Barnsey on Feb 22, 2024 9:14:13 GMT 12
It'll be great to see this flying in NZ! A "reasonably cheap" warbird: Enough performance to keep it interesting, no need for live seats as the stall speed is low enough thanks to the straight wing, the Aussie big tyres allowing grass field ops and all the reliability of a PT-6 (when the ELU system works properly). I had a brief interest in possibly syndicating one, but the prices went a bit nuts with the US red air providers taking the good ones.
I flew this aircraft just once during my time instructing at 2FTS - 21 Oct 2002 1.4hrs teaching a Nav 5.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Mar 15, 2022 14:21:49 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Mar 4, 2022 20:53:56 GMT 12
Caution: Before starting ensure pilot is "OK 100%"?
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Mar 3, 2022 15:44:36 GMT 12
I taxied behind the Silver Spitfire in Bahrain as it was being towed across the tarmac for a bigwig to view in late 2019. Obviously slow going around the world in a pandemic.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Aug 12, 2021 8:33:50 GMT 12
Did an overnight up to Mueller Hut last month, and there's a good info board in the hut on the various alpine huts in the Mt Cook area over the years including the air drops. Sounds like a later air drop wasn't so successful due to high winds and the load spreading itself across the mountain.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Aug 17, 2020 14:02:45 GMT 12
That kiwi isn't painted - the rivet lines are blocked over with the medium (paper or card) used for the demo, and you can see the tape holding it on.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Sept 24, 2018 12:27:51 GMT 12
Fancy that, USAF different to USN (and RNZAF) with AOA colours and AOA bracket position in the HUD. The relative indexer position is the same at least! From 3:00 in this video, you can see the AOA bracket in the A4K HUD. When fast, the HUD bracket is above the FPM and drops down to the FPM when on optimum AOA. Ref my comments about "power for AOA", once the FPM was on the touchdown point and at -3 deg, then the remaining approach variable is AOA (directly proportional to speed and weight) so continue to hold the aim point while driving the correct on-AOA indication with power. Gross AOA errors are solved with adjusting pitch, but this means that aim point and glide path angle will become incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Jun 13, 2018 12:10:03 GMT 12
And then perhaps they'll hit the warbird market and Don's dream of owning one will come true I'll join him!
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Jun 12, 2018 14:37:11 GMT 12
The Cheetahs and Mirage F1 upgrades are more modern (better radar, RWR), and able to provide the supersonic threat presentations the USAF contract require. I imagine the A4s will slide down the pecking order once those new fleets are up and running and probably do more A2G. www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems/ELM-2032_a001228001.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Nov 27, 2017 17:53:41 GMT 12
Waitangi Tribunal documentation on history of present Kaikohe Aerodrome. forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_94184645/Wai%20302%2C%20A001.pdfKAIKOHE AERODROME [in part] 3.10.35 Kaikohe Town Board applied for an aerodrome licence for Mr H. Wright's property at Kaikohe. 14.10.35 Ministerial authority for £20 for survey of Mr Wright's property. 12.2.36 P.W.D. inspected site: considered unsatisfactory. 26.8.37 Auckland Aero Club given permission to land on Mr Wright's property on 19.8.1937. 14.7.39 Two sites inspected: Site No. 1: 2.5 miles west of Ngapuhi Railway Station Site No.2: Immediately to East of Ngapuhi Railway Station 30.7.39 Site No.2 selected as best site for aerodrome. 30.10.40 Representations made on Min. of Internal Affairs by citizens of Kaikohe regarding need for an aerodrome. 11.11.40 Kaikohe Chamber of Commerce requested Government financial assistance to aid the Town Bard in acquiring land for aerodrome site. 4.3.41 C.A.A. advised that Government unable to assist. 31.3.42 Decision* to construct aerodrome for R.N.Z.A.F. on Site No.2. 20.6.42 Authority £57,622 construction of aerodrome as charge to War Expenses Account. Contract let to Southern Cross Construction Co. For laying of runways: N-S, 3,000 ft; NE - SW, 3,000 ft; E-W 2,730 ft. 3.9.42 N.Z. Gazette No. 83, page 2137 proclaimed Parts Otuhi Blocks ICI, IC2, IC3, IC4, IC5, IC8, and 1B4A, and Part Kohewhata No. 14, totalling 187a 3r 01.0p, as taken for public works purposes. 8.9.42 Decided to increase N-S runway to 5,000 ft. 12.1.43 Authority £300 completion of partially constructed house on land bought for aerodrome from D. Lincoln. 31.1.43 Construction of aerodrome completed. * Eventually the Air Secretary made the decision to acquire the land at Kaikohe for the specified construction of a military rather than commercial aerodrome. As the army will inevitably require an aerodrome in the vicinity of Kaikohe it is considered that the Nga Puhi site is ideal from the point of view of location, although limited by runways and gradients ... communication aircraft only may be able to use it. A number of other aerodromes were planned concurrently for the North. Military aerodromes were established elsewhere at Whangarei, Kerikeri, Waipapakauri, Awanui and Kaitaia.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Nov 12, 2017 19:06:26 GMT 12
Operational flying squadrons (75, 40, 5, 3) commanded by a Wing Commander Training squadrons (2, 14, 42, PTS, CFS) commanded by a Squadron Leader
Obvioiusly those are a rank not a title... some get confused/misdirected by saying that a Squadron should only be commanded by a Squadron Leader...
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on Aug 12, 2017 15:07:03 GMT 12
from m.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=38284Airframe Family: Sikorsky S-70 / H-60 Latest Model: UH-60A Last Military Serial: 79-23336 US Army Latest Owner or Location: Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Newport News, Virginia Perhaps get in touch with them at the base and see if the airframe is there, and if there's a history with it?
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 24, 2017 10:21:52 GMT 12
That's one way of renewing the fleet. Hope they were well insured.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 23, 2017 12:21:48 GMT 12
Given the need to extend Whenuapai airfield if P8 is adopted and the lack of support in the earlier base future review (http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/whenuapai/bridgeport-report-range-of-views.pdf ) the chance of getting approval to extend the runway appears slim and could still be in the courts as the P8 is due to leave service. I suggest you should move your centre south to Ohakea as 5 Squadron will need to move. Paul That report was from 2004 and has the decision to close Whenuapai overridden. The regeneration of infrastructure is ongoing at present (not that that has stopped base review and closure in the past!) {edit} I understand what you're getting at. Don't know how much was an opportunistic grab by local government supported by an apathetic central government at the time, and written in the context of a closure decision already made.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 23:48:22 GMT 12
Looking at the Auckland GIS data, it appears that NZDF owns the plinth areas and has a cabling easement, but the remainder is privately owned.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 21:49:41 GMT 12
Hopefully not. The 03 approach lights are on the extended centreline and extend all the way back to the small road to the south west. I wonder if the NZDF owns the land, or just has rights over it?
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 21:45:31 GMT 12
Does anyone know exactly where the crash site is? Is it on or near the extended runway centreline? An historical account I found mentions it was near to the Sinton Homestead, which was blown off its foundations. The Sintons were the original landowner in the Whenuapai area. The Whenuapai historical register shapeauckland.co.nz/media/1628/preliminary-historic-heritage-assessment.pdf makes no mention of the B17 crash site, but does locate a DC3 and Hudson under the mudflats. It shows the Sinton Homestead up near the roundabout on the left of the picture. My hope is that the imminent development is connected with the subdivision that is already taking place to the north of the picture (and north of the strip of dirt that is needed for a runway extension).
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 13:11:43 GMT 12
Unsurprisingly the RAAF has foreseen the problem and is extending RAAF Edinburgh's runway to 9500ft, as well as building a new squadron ops and maintenance facility. I'm in no doubt the RNZAF project team are all over it as well.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 12:55:18 GMT 12
FWIW here's where an extension to the 03 threshold would be if they extend it to 8000ft. In my opinion this is the minimum that runway should have already been extended to, as the 757 also has upload problems. For those who aren't familiar with aircraft takeoff performance calculation, on a normal takeoff with both engines operating, a P8 at MTOW won't actually require ~11000ft of tarmac to get airborne (but it has to be available...). The figures have to account for an engine failure at V1, and provide sufficient tarmac to stop or to continue takeoff on the single remaining engine and be at 30ft over the threshold. On a 2 engine aircraft, this problem is exacerbated because you lose 50% of the available thrust if it fails (only 25% on a 4 engine aircraft). Conversely, when both are operating normally like they do 99.999% of the time, the actual takeoff run distance is under half the requirement.
|
|
|
Post by Barnsey on May 1, 2017 12:05:53 GMT 12
Boeing publish airport planning manuals for their civil types, here: www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.pageApparently the P8 has a MTOW of 189,200 lb (85,820 kg) and 27,000 lbf engines. The closest match (and I'm only looking for the 737 variant that's vaguely representative given that the P8 is its own variant 737-800A) using the 737-900ER (MTOW 187,700 lbs with 26,000 lbf engines, non winglet, itself a derivative of the -800) gives a takeoff runway length requirement of around 11000ft on a sea level 30 degree day. Again, absolute spitballing, but it shows the problem given Whenuapai's 6,650ft runway. Not insurmountable however!
|
|