|
Post by Calum on Apr 15, 2024 15:20:58 GMT 12
Nowhere cheap at that time around the area. You have to remember that 10’s of thousands of people attend daily. IRRC on the last 2 days when the big shows are on there was something like 60K people each day.
A mate and I went in 2017 and we stayed at the University. We stayed in a 2 person room and paid extra for air con as it gets quite hot there. We wanted to ensure a decent night’s sleep after a day out in sun. The air con was a window mounted thing and while it worked it was pretty noisy.
Most of the rooms at the Uni are like barracks with shared facilities. They were OK. There is a Laundry so you can wash clothes. And you can dine in the cafeteria for a pretty good price (IIRC dinner was all you can for about $15 USD, probably more now).
We booked via Tori Tours in Australia, but you may still be able to book online via the university itself. Bar Camping that is probably the cheapest accommodation. However the University is broke so have jacked the prices significantly this year for what I’ve seen.
Other advantages to the Uni is there is bar across the road where a lot of the people for the airshow socialise. You also just meet people in the hallways who are there for the same reason you are. Transport from the Uni is easy via a shuttle bus for a nominal few. Don’t drive.
The crowd is probably more aviation literate than your usual airshow crowd because there a re lot of trade event and industry stuff there. Plus the level of light aircraft use in the USA is massive and this a show run by the EAA so it draws heaps of experimental and GA owners
IIRC you must join the EAA so you can go on the Monday to Friday, only the Saturday and Sunday are for the ‘public’. You can do that online and it’s not expensive.
Getting the around the site is easy as they have a great system of shuttle trains that run on set routes that start at a terminus just inside the main gate.
If you want to sit you have to take your own chair, there is a Walmart a little out of town. There are busses, Uber etc to get there.
It’s the best run big event I’ve ever been too. Despite the crowd sizes it never felt crowded and getting to and from wasn’t an issue. Avalon here in Australia could learn a lot form the organisers of Airventure
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Mar 20, 2024 13:58:58 GMT 12
O. Waiting for the Nuc sub ads... Might be a long wait ...
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Mar 6, 2024 14:17:51 GMT 12
From a photography perspective this was probably the best airshow I've attended in Australia. Light in the afternoon was behind you and being in the Fort Scratchy (gold pass) area gave you some good evaluation. The flying displays from the host of RAAF aircraft were excellent . Highlights being the P-8 and Superhornet, Plus the RAAF heritage flight's first (IIRC) outing. The open dauy a the base was good and I was super impressed with how positive all the RAAF personnel were. I guess that they all volunteered to work those days helps. I have a full album at Flickr here but here are some photos There appears to be compression happening so check out the flicr page for better versions of these IMG_2029_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_1862_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_1644_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_1746_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2154_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2056_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_3116_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2656_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2089_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2435_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2391_edit by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_3024_edit by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2880_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_1142_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_2614_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_3408_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr IMG_3441_DxO by Calum Gibson, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2024 13:51:36 GMT 12
The RAN Hunter is optimised for ASW and has been bastardised by the Australians. It's also a 10000 ton ship so is heavier than their Hobart Class AWD but less well armed. I suspect it will be a expensive lemon. The RNZN would be mad to consider it. They'd be better off looking at what the RAN buy for the Tier 2 ship and purchases some of those. E.g Type 31 or even looking a the USN Constollation class Frigate (which is actually an Italian design IIRC) However, I note that neither the Type 31 nor USN Constellation class actually made the shortlist for the Australian Tier 2 project. I am not saying they are bad choices, but we will lose much commonality with our cousins across the ditch. In regard to the lack of manpower almost all of the Tier 2 frigates being discussed have much lower crew requirements than our existing ships. Yes, I wrote that before I'd read the announcement fully and noticed those 2 were absent. I have little confidenve the RAN will not bastardise the process defeating the actual point . They seem to not be able to help themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2024 13:42:23 GMT 12
Bushfires are a major threat to the Australian environment and is the most dangerous natural hazard in terms of risk to human life [1]. Bushfires can originate from both human activity and natural causes with lightning as the predominant natural source, accounting for about half of all ignitions in Australia [2]. The damage due to bushfire costs on average $1.6 billion a year [2]. To reduce the loss of life and property damage, an effective firefighting capability and operations must be implemented. In this project several alternatives were proposed and compared against, for example, drop frequency, drop volume, cost, complexity, etc. The outcome of this study was a proposal to design a system to convert an RAAF C-17 Globemaster to a firefighting role; in accordance to an agreement that falls under the banner of a Military Operation to Civil Power system [3]. A key benefit of this concept is the use of existing aerial systems. The aircraft can be refitted with a fire retardant/water tank arrangement, as shown in Fig. 1; which is easily installed as per normal cargo loading operations. The C-17 aircraft was decided upon as it has the payload capacity to meet the design requirement of 10,000 gallons (37,854 L/kg of water; C-17 has a payload capacity of 77,519 kg) [4]. Loading ramp capacity is limited to 18,144kg, thus the tank system is build-up from individual tanks which are connected and latched securely, and feeding to a common fire-tank based hose connection system at the rear of the aircraft. This is where the conceptual and novel incorporation of an aerial refilling system of fire retardant has been considered within the C-17 role support system for the purpose of assisting and air-to air refilling of smaller to medium range firefighting airtankers during operations So a concept. it doesn't actually exist? And a long way from actually existing.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2024 13:41:29 GMT 12
C-17's can't tank other aircraft to my knowledge and I've not seen them used for fire fighting either.... I think I saw a report of one back-fuelling a tanker recently. What is back filling? Pumping from the C-17 back through the probe to the tanker? Never thought that was possible
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2024 13:39:57 GMT 12
Like the additional F35s to make it to 100 I thought that it had been acknowledged that extra F-35's weren't going to be purchased (noting the issues witht eh platform) But the money would go towards the the replacement (next generation air defence aircraft) that the USAF is working on
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 22, 2024 13:37:18 GMT 12
It's positive news. I'm just worried the RAAF is going to be cut to pay for this. it has to be paid for somehow. Or perhaps Australian governments (of all persuasions) should be honest and say that they will need collecting more money to pay for the things we (the people in general) want.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 21, 2024 14:00:02 GMT 12
C17s could also be used for air to air refueling and to fight bush fires. But trusting NZ politicians to do the smart thing is a loosing bet. C-17's can't tank other aircraft to my knowledge and I've not seen them used for fire fighting either....
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 21, 2024 13:57:44 GMT 12
Australia to immediately begin the eventual full retirement of all its ANZAC Frigates and to acquire 11 new general-purpose frigates. (in addition to 6 [not 9] Hunter class]. The 11 new general purpose frigates will provide maritime and land strike, air defence and escort capabilities, according to information released by the government in a statement on 20 February.
The new general purpose frigates will be accelerated to replace the Anzac Class frigates commissioned in the 1990s and early 2000s, with planned transition capability assurance upgrades no longer required.I suspect - I do NOT know, this is what Wellington has been waiting to likely go public, with its own planning on?? - Thought, 11 + 4 makes 15 (they tell me) www.defenceconnect.com.au/naval/13646-australia-commits-to-modern-and-lethal-general-purpose-frigates#:~:text=The%20new%20general%20purpose%20frigates%20will%20be%20modern%2C%20capable%20and,Henderson%20precinct%20in%20Western%20Australia. Hmmm I am not a naval person, but is there an option for the RNZN to pick up 3 Hunter Class frigates, now that the RAN has reduced it's order in a strategic move to have something ready to replace our own ANZAC frigates? Details here : www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/future/ffgPerhaps those with relevant Naval background could comment? thanks. The RAN Hunter is optimised for ASW and has been bastardised by the Australians. It's also a 10000 ton ship so is heavier than their Hobart Class AWD but less well armed. I suspect it will be a expensive lemon. The RNZN would be mad to consider it. They'd be better off looking at what the RAN buy for the Tier 2 ship and purchases some of those. E.g Type 31 or even looking a the USN Constollation class Frigate (which is actually an Italian design IIRC)
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 20, 2024 16:58:28 GMT 12
You are the one clearly reading too much into this. All I did was question a bogus statement in the dialogue. I have never said anything against the USAAF effort, nor compared its results with that of RAF Bomber Command. I fully respect what those guys did and respect the massive effort they made. Whilst made for an American audience, it is being watched around the globe. There is absolutely no doubting that. As for television event of the decade, they invested US$250 million into the series. A little bit more than the finale of Married At First Sight or The Bachelor. I stand by my claim. And yes, it actually is a documentary. Dramatic recreations of history based on factual happenings and real people are absolutely a documentary, it actually is a genre of documentary. That is one of the main genres within documentary. I know this from my documentary film making studies at university. By the way, mindless "reality" bullshit TV shows like the two I mentioned above are also a form of documentary. And I can guarantee this series will be held up in future years to come as a go-to series for people to watch to learn about the history if the Mighty Eighth's campaign. As far as any dramatic recreation of the Eighth Air Force's air war I have seen, this is by far the most detailed and accurate. It has a few things that historians are picking up on as 'wrong' or 'licence', but overall it is above and beyond any other representation ever made before to show what the air combat was like, according to the experts in that field and also the veterans who have seen it. It lacks the cheese factor of Memphis Belle. The fact remains that the RAF was doing 1000+ bomber raids a year before the series was set. Whether it was an error by the script writer or meant to be the character using hyperbole as you suggest, we shall never know. But i was not saying anything against the USAAF. And my quip about the Spielberg-Hanks productions' proclivity for openly doing down the efforts of a certain British commander in several productions was a comment aimed at them, not the WWII servicemen. By the way, watch this series if you can. Like all the Spielberg-Hanks series', there may be a few nitpicks but overall it is a magnificent telling of history. Fair enough. I;m looking forward to all episodes being available before I sign up to Apple TV
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 20, 2024 14:27:21 GMT 12
Are you going Zac? I'll be there both days. Just hope for decent weather. it's been few and far between so far this year.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 20, 2024 14:25:39 GMT 12
Perhaps you're just reading to much into it. Or perhaps I am concerned that the biggest television event of the decade, that will be watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world, and will be looked to as an absolute go-to record of how it really was, is putting across misinformation and doing the RAF's history a disservice. I mean, it is not the first time a Spielberg-Hanks production has done that to British military history in their dialogue... A couple of points., Firstly it's entertainment not a documentary. Good entertainment (I hope because I've not seen it yet) based on pretty good history (like the other Hanks/Speilberg productions) but entertainment nonetheless. And to be honest I expect the vast majority of viewers will have some interest in WW 2 to begin with. In a house of 5 adults I am the only one remotely interested in it. The rest of my family wont watch a minute of and I suspect they're typical. it's not the 1980s with 3 TV channels to choose from. Their are far mre entertainment mediums available to people today so I suspect "Biggest television event of the decade" is a slight overstatement. Secondly it's made for American Audience , based on a book about the the USAAF. So it's hardly surprising there is little mention, if any of the RAF. I've read the book twice and don't recall much about bomber command bar the discussions between Harris, Le May etc. It's not about the combined Bomber offensive. And thirdly there is a good argument to be made the USAAF's Daylight Air Campaign was far more effective in ending the war in Europe than the British Night campaign because it forced the Luftwaffe to come up and fight in mass which led directly to it's destruction. That doesn't downplay the courage of the commonwealth aircrew but we shouldn't look at their/our contribution through rose tinted glasses. It seems like you have some inferiority complex regarding the American effort in WW2 Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 19, 2024 14:05:43 GMT 12
In the opening of Episode 3, the commander claims that their maximum effort of three Air Task Forces, totalling 376 heavy bombers and 240 fighters. He then claims it to be, "the largest air armada ever assembled in the history of mankind". I am confused. The RAF began mounting 1,000 bomber raids in May 1942, over a year before this series is set. Well, no commander ever used Hyperbole to try and rev up his men before. Perhaps you're just reading to much into it.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 19, 2024 13:57:47 GMT 12
All going well the Sea Fury should debut at Airshows Downunder Shellharbour on March 1-3. Thats the story I heard. CASA dependent
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 16, 2024 11:37:47 GMT 12
Good see they have bought the tech pack and not the budget variant.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 16, 2024 11:35:55 GMT 12
At least he's being honest.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 16, 2024 11:34:21 GMT 12
H145M is a poor replacement for Tiger if you want go into combat. That said helicopters in general are proving to be incredibly vulnerable when they have to go near any decent proper air defences. hence cancellation of the US Army FARA aircraft and JASDF not replacing their Apaches. Whilst the Australian Army seem to be heading on with the 5 billion Apache. I wonder how many uncrewed aircraft we could get with that money. . Apache is an AH not RH though, hence the latest E model having the ability to control drones for recon tasks, and current programs to integrate longer range missiles. There'll be no reason why an Apache would need to fly into defended airspace. The Recon vs Attack point is noted. But if it's not required to fly into defended airspace what's the point of it? Anything with the right sensors control UCAS. And were does the ADF think they are going to operate a short ranged attack helicopter noting we're gearing to a great power conflict? To me it's looks we're buying yesterdays platform tomorrow...
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 15, 2024 14:07:22 GMT 12
Chinook's, PC-21 and MH-60R's would count as successful too. Those programs were an off the shelf product too (maybe not the Wedgetail since it was new tech). No changes were made to those airframes or their systems for the Australian Defence Force. The MRH-90, SH-2G, Tiger all had variations from the off the shelf product and got scrapped.Reminds me of the RAF's Chinook HC3 debacle. The RAF requested software on the aircraft which deviated so much from the original specs that the aircraft were unflyable. The aircraft were stored for 8 years before eventually flying in with a older software package. ADF MRH90s (NH90) were actually pretty much stock standard German Army spec. It's the RNZAF that operates a modified variant. Tiger. That whole program financially imploded due to the small number of airframes eventually bought by France and Germany (nowhere near the 200 each originally planned). Germany recently decided to retire their Tigers early and replace them with H145Ms, which pretty much validates the ADF's decision. Soon the entire Tiger fleet will consist of about 90 aircraft operate by France and Spain. Good luck to them with that. H145M is a poor replacement for Tiger if you want go into combat. That said helicopters in general are proving to be incredibly vulnerable when they have to go near any decent proper air defences. hence cancellation of the US Army FARA aircraft and JASDF not replacing their Apaches. Whilst the Australian Army seem to be heading on with the 5 billion Apache. I wonder how many uncrewed aircraft we could get with that money. .
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Feb 14, 2024 14:06:51 GMT 12
Fair enough, maybe I should have said non-Airbus! KC-30 turned out well (eventually ) And Airbus civil products seem to be having less issues than Boeing at the moment.
|
|