|
Post by horicle on Mar 7, 2019 11:32:39 GMT 12
Anybody Know why? Some years the Venom can land at Masterton and some years it can't. The last time I was there it had to operated from Paraparaumu. This year there are photos of it on the runway. I am sure I have seen it parked at the airshow even further back.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Mar 7, 2019 11:26:17 GMT 12
The Memory is creeping back. The Levels Airport event was late 50's because our 'new' Canberra's were there. I scored a discarded starter cartridge when the pilot was fitting a new one for the next start. Hope I have got it all at the same event which was the Royal New Zealand Aero Club Pageant of 31st Jan 1959 thanks to this Forums NZ Airshows History. It is all joined together.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Mar 5, 2019 10:47:14 GMT 12
Yes. One (RN I think) Skyraider landed at Levels Airport (Timaru) during a big airshow there. It would have been the NZ Aero Clubs annual event but I can't put a year on it. Mid/late 50's.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Mar 2, 2019 11:26:10 GMT 12
From My end of the bar leaner I will toss in the following.
Smaller than C-130. From reading DID (Defence Industry Daily) the USAF is hurting for smaller infield supply. Using Hercs to deliver one pallet of medical supplies or CH-47's to go to small airfields (expensive things to operate). Army wanted C-295, USAF wanted C-27J. Differences in floor loading specs, Fleet compatibility, operating costs meant the two would never agree. The C-27J was selected and then politics took over. We historically lived with Freighters and then Andovers (which I once heard out STOL'd Caribous in an exercise in Australia). With the demise of the Andover (for whatever reason) we learnt to do everything with the Herc. (ref the USAF mention at the start). Now in these stringent financial times have we any hope of getting this capability back? For NZ and its Pacific community it makes sense and if a maritime version of the same platform could be included then the fleet of four P-8's might work (note there will be no more P-8's because Boeing can't wait to close the line and make a more profitable aircraft). The pick is there will not be a smaller cargo aircraft.
Same as C-130. The easy one. Must be the C-130J, just how many.
Bigger than C-130. What this thread is all about. As pointed out by other posts the need to airlift a LAV or 190 is a bit of a red herring. It depends on whether the sea lift time scale is acceptable, please note I do not consider leasing an An-124 or similar to be workable as it has got to be available when you need it. The real (current and obvious) needs are strategic heavy airlift. To anywhere in the world (includes Antartica). I consider our strategic air lift is not delivered to a paddock or a beech, In fact the requirement is to replace the 757 when you look at it. Also, if we had (say) three A400M's how serious would it have to get that we would dare to fly one into a real tactical situation? So all we would require is a tail loading 757 that could if required carry the LAV or 190. Now it is simple. So I put the A400M and the C-2 on the table. The C-2 has pedigree, It is designed to do all that the C-1 was thought to not need to do. The A400M a product of the 1990's with expensive technology. One of them can cruise the airlines at M 0.8, no other tail loader can (even the C-17 can get bumped to a lower height because a passenger jet is breathing down its back). Oh, and one of them is certified for tactical ops. I bet the Japanese are beginning to question the wisdom of designing the C-2 with high flotation landing gear and then deciding it will never need to go there so saving money by not doing the certification. Or, do they know it is not capable? So to comply with the name of this thread I pick some A400M's in the mix. After all nobody listened to reason on the P-3 replacement. I also wonder if the VIP passenger requirement is a decision driver or distractor.
Time for a beer.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 13, 2019 11:10:12 GMT 12
P-8 future.
Plan A. Boeing shuts the P-8 line when the order book is completed. There are no more. If you want another one order it now. How a government justifies that is the problem.
Plan B. I read some where that Boeing in considering a new production line which will continue the process but with a changed (and cheaper) airframe. That would solve the "are no more" problem but could introduce a "mixed fleet" maintenance/spares problem. I can not locate the ref for this and do not see it happening.
I can't resist this: P-1 future, just goes on and on.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 10, 2019 11:31:37 GMT 12
It did not matter where the 'No 6 P-3' came from, bringing it up to our orphan status used most of the avionics spares. Then it turned out the Trackball (I think it was called) was no longer available so for the rest of that fits life we were all ways short of that item. Can any P-3 Avtechs of that period put me right on this?
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 4, 2019 9:04:40 GMT 12
Both times I remember four F-111's exercising at Ohakea only three went home.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Jan 2, 2019 9:37:01 GMT 12
For me the forum is an every day event. 2018 like every preceding year has added greatly to New Zealand's Aviation History. Don't worry about the forums future, lets just become a group that remembers to say thank you.
Thanks Dave
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 22, 2018 12:03:45 GMT 12
What was wrong with the 'Golden Eagles'
I know of two factors relating to the turbocharged engines. One a minor irritant the other was expensive.
The minor one first. Please will some expert verify or correct this. Before shutting down such an engine it must be run for number of minutes at the correct rpm to allow the turbine to cool a bit. Now place yourself at a little airfield somewhere in NZ and a dignitary arrives in a little aircraft. It taxis up, parks, and while the reception committee waits for the big moment the engines drone on and on, much like this story, until finally all is quiet. Just a minor irritant but as always a major one at the time. I am sure I heard someone suggest starting the port engine shutdown routine as early as possible and taxiing in on one engine, but was it ever done?
Which leads to the major engine problem and pilot training. As far as I recall handling an engine failure involved instant shutdown in flight. This lead to many engine failures which was expensive, and at one stage we were using CAA's or Calflights spare engine to keep our Golden Eagles going.
With a full VIP load there would be two pilots and a Flight Steward. To prevent the aircraft becoming a 'tail sitter' during loading the pilots got in first and the Flight Steward positioned him/herself outside aft of the door where a shoulder or forearm could be surreptitiously used to balance the aircraft if the self loading cargo congregated in the door/rear seat area. True or not? I am sure I heard something like that a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 21, 2018 9:52:44 GMT 12
We bought the Golden Eagle because it was the only type we could get three of with the finance allocated for the deal. Alternate reason - the Prime Minister of the day wanted an aircraft only he could stand upright in.
What if story. In the preceding years the USA State Department had bought 50 King Airs for Embassy duties around the world. The link is that before my time in Wellington I was on 42 Sqn and had seen such a King Air at Townsville, it had full USAF markings. If NZ had had its act together we could have tagged on the back of that order and got three King Airs to replace the Devons on 42 using MAP purchase (that is the Military Aid something or other). But the world is not that simple, when the time came to do the deal we were pushed into a different corner.
How the B757/C-130 replacement evolves is going to be Deja Vu all over again. But comma there is only one large tail loader that can cruise the international air lanes at Mach 0.8 and all that that implies.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 20, 2018 10:38:54 GMT 12
If they pick the right turbofan engines they will only need two. Oh! Wait a bit. It has already been done. Realisation. Is that a picture of it on your post.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 15, 2018 16:34:11 GMT 12
I often wondered if there was a common name for these items. They range from presentation awards to unit visit memorabilia. I had not seen any (R.N.Z.A.F. or otherwise) until the last ten years. Anyone know when and where they originated?
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Dec 6, 2018 10:25:51 GMT 12
I am having a bad day. From where I am standing the A400 is not for the R.N.Z.A.F. P-8 all over again. So I guess that is what we are going to get. It is just a matter of when.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 24, 2018 12:18:13 GMT 12
I will refer you to Air International Vol 21 page 242 (the issue of Nov 1981) where it appears Roy Braybrook beat you to it. He suggested then, in a very good A-4 article, that the BAe Hawk would make a good low cost replacement for our Skyhawks. Doomed. The Hawks day is gone, the new kid on the block is the Scorpion. Of course it to is doomed because the USAF will not buy it so there is little hope of international sales (F-20 comes to mind).
1. They didn't think of it.
2. If they did the treasury accountants would have a field day asking why does everything else cost so much?
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 15, 2018 11:37:22 GMT 12
Check out CDF Kevin Short being interviewed on Q+A last weekend (11/11/2018). Amongst all the items of media importance some interesting observations on the P-8 fleet and a mention of China. To get you will have to be signed up with the TV1 web page. That took a few minutes. Might be worth a thread of its own.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 12, 2018 11:13:27 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 12, 2018 10:32:21 GMT 12
Both the Avro 643 MkII Cadet and its predecessor(?) the the Avro 638 Club Cadet are shown in the 1980's Illustrated Encyclopedia (sic) of Aircraft with the de Havillandish looking fin/rudder. Incidentally the Avro 626 Prefect (NZ603) has the same characteristic shape which seems to occur on about half of Avros early types.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Nov 3, 2018 11:53:29 GMT 12
Re the take off attitude. Just a thought, raising the pilots sight line an inch (seat adjustment) would put things in line. It was a test flight wasn't it. So these things would be sorted out.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Oct 28, 2018 16:31:09 GMT 12
Meanwhile back in the land of OBOGS and T-6's. I was trying to find an internet site for a Fox TV snipet (the Fox Extra feature.) that I stumbled across three or four weeks ago which told how the USN had given the problem of solving their OBOGS problems (F/A-18, T-45 and F-35) the a Rear Admiral to sort out. That the USAF is also working on the same line is noted on the internet site listed below that I found. (still stumbling). www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23598/air-force-says-it-knows-why-t-6-trainers-are-choking-pilots-but-itll-take-years-to-fixThey seem to know what might be wrong, but four years to fix, boggle, boggle.
|
|
|
Post by horicle on Oct 26, 2018 11:29:46 GMT 12
Re ‘Sam’ Marshal of the Royal Air Force the Lord Elworthy
I am sure there was a brother, Tony (perhaps Anthony), who was a farmer in the Wairarapa area in the early 60's and owned a glider (Skylark IIIf) that he had fitted with a liquid oxygen breathing system for some serious wave flying. This did not eventuate and the glider was sold to the Marlborough Gliding club (in those days the 'Marlborough Gliding and Soaring Club') in September 63. If I am right there is a bit of an aviation family there.
|
|