|
Post by Bruce on Jan 14, 2016 22:10:20 GMT 12
And don't forget those funny looking topdressing planes built in Te Kuiti...... Empire Building................AirTrucks are King Country Kids. King Country is part of the Chiefs Rugby Franchise... we'll claim it!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 14, 2016 20:20:42 GMT 12
300+ Bantams, 6 McNair Mynahs, Plus 2 AirTrucks, numerous homebuilts including One Avian Adventurer.. If you consider some of the "US Built" Fletchers to be Assembled in NZ thats over your 1000 total
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 12, 2016 19:25:04 GMT 12
This one...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 12, 2016 15:57:44 GMT 12
Its Hobsonville, and neither is a Tiger Moth... Straight wing and stringer turtledeck makes one a DH60M, and the other is a Hawker Tomtit. That would make it NZPAF 1560 and NZ51, 29 March 1932 according to ADF serials...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 11, 2016 17:39:22 GMT 12
Its a bit hard to tell from this angle - Its quite hard to pick what the top Longerons do! Looking at the bay between the back of the door opening and the angled rear cabin bulkhead I think it could well be an ag machine.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 5, 2016 22:01:32 GMT 12
I have always thought DSE lost it edge in the last few years moving away from its traditional core products of electronic and hobbyist components and gadgets to Consumer appliances (where there is serious competition). Selling resistors would never have made it a "super store" though! I find Jaycar sells more of the stuff I used to buy from DSE, so havent bought anything from them for years.. .
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 4, 2016 20:39:41 GMT 12
So is BYC still somewhere there, or was it recovered later?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jan 4, 2016 14:26:03 GMT 12
Whats with the green paint on BYC? looks like house paint brushed on post - crash. I know in the airline world it is usual to paint over logos and titles after a crash so any photos dont get used by the opposition for commercial gain. Its not normal to do the whole plane though?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 29, 2015 21:45:28 GMT 12
there is a Winjeel at Taupo, but I dont think it flies very much (if at all)> I checked the Taupo Airport Webcam and it certainly didnt move today, so not that one anyway!
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 26, 2015 14:15:34 GMT 12
Ian , What you are suggesting sounds like 'Training Aids'(mind/memory mapping) which are ideal for the classroom in showing basic understanding of operation and techniques. But you then need to put the 'Training' into practice on the workshop floor ,on the actual equipment/materials. Exactly, why you build a instructional simulator, best thing its cheap, why the need for 4 airframes .. also one thing possible is specific upgrades in the future, will the component fit of could we modify it, do we have the space .. could the wire looms thread, panel fixtures , there is a hole raft, lot off people will say AFCAD and MasterCam will direct you but to see a visual model sure helps the introduction. The number of airframes is based on the number of students and modular streams. If you have a class of say, 30 students (I dont know how many go though TTS together) and you couldnt have them all working on the same airframe at once. They would be put in streams and split between classrooms and the different airframes to ensure everyone gets a go working the examples. Someone who has had a lot more engineering experience and teaching expertise than you has worked out what is required to suit the course programme, and chosen the number of airframes accordingly. Polytechs have the same thing with their motor mechanic courses - most have one engine per student, or at most one between two, otherwise it takes too long to let everyone have a go. I am working on 8 sets of fabric covering equipment for my SAA training course (8 participants) otherwise I could never get through the programme in the available time.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 26, 2015 13:34:29 GMT 12
You just dont get it?!!
Wooden mock ups may have worked 40 or 50 years ago, but they arent going to provide the right skills for someone working on a modern aircraft that the RNZAF will be using in the future. They simply do not give the right skills. Even hanging a wiring loom in a wooden airframe is conpletely different to a metal one - the hardware is completely different and there are different factors to consider. If you arent going to be giving relevant training, you are actually wasting money and lowering the standard of engineer produced. completely in the face of your argument. Yes Simulators can train pilots, and it doesnt matter what they are made of, but you are training the people who work on the very fabric of the aircraft itself - it has to be the real thing. Its not a matter of "imagination" its about ensuring the engineers graduating can actually do the job in real life.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 26, 2015 13:14:28 GMT 12
I'm saddened by your low opinion of the skillset of aircraft engineers. Our experience and training is obviously a waste of time. I realise you are an engineer, but obviously not an aircraft engineer, otherwise you would have known the specific skills that can only be taught on a real aircraft. You would know the difference between working with aircraft grade aluminium and cardboard (Bend radius? Corrosion protection? work hardening? crack propagation?) I sure as hell wont fly on anything that has been maintained by someone who has only ever worked on a mock up... Your concept is utterly ludicrous, I suggest let it go.... It is very surprising the low end people you get, I crawled thru bellies of the 727s when first arrived and leaded onto the 737 and off all things the LC-130s, the thing back then they were training peoples, I was only in there to measure and make wall fittings for panels for the avionics bay and cabin, outside engineering and other areas, when shown how well the aluminium balsa sandwich burned I mentioned what I had played around with, this "Your concept is utterly ludicrous" was looked into , the theme off a wooden cardboard composite was also suggested at the engineering base at Christchurch. Well they arent going to get any better unless you train them properly. And you arent going to know how good they are unless you test them properly on real life examples. Someone could be really good at stitching cardboard together but utterly suck when it comes to required skills in real life. For example, on the Mu2, an instructor can set up the scenario of "LH undercarriage leg slow to retract" and get the students to properly troubleshoot the system - including trying to identify which access panels to remove and check the fittings are tightened correctly. I cannot for the life of me see how you can do that on anything but a real aircraft (and I know training technique - I prepare the SAA training programmes) You own concern about the quality of candidates just negates the whole point of your idea...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 26, 2015 12:36:50 GMT 12
I'm saddened by your low opinion of the skillset of aircraft engineers. Our experience and training is obviously a waste of time. I realise you are an engineer, but obviously not an aircraft engineer, otherwise you would have known the specific skills that can only be taught on a real aircraft. You would know the difference between working with aircraft grade aluminium and cardboard (Bend radius? Corrosion protection? work hardening? crack propagation?) I sure as hell wont fly on anything that has been maintained by someone who has only ever worked on a mock up... Your concept is utterly ludicrous, I suggest let it go....
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 25, 2015 21:11:51 GMT 12
Sorry Ian, that is utter bunkum. You cant rivet cardboard - the only way you can really see its structural characteristics is to work on the real thing. Same with the various systems etc - how to secure wiring bundles and pipelines. You have to work with the real fluids to see what they do. How tight do you tighten bolts, how do you repair a pressure hull. Technical trade training isnt done with simulations, you need real hands on aircraft. These trainees will be moving on to look after Boeing 757s and Herks, skills with PVA glue and a craft knife will be useless. In this case the Mu2 is ideal - a pressurised turbine powered, modern aircraft, but small enough to be practically handled in a training workshop. Good choice and a valuable asset to the training programme.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 12, 2015 19:57:58 GMT 12
I recall being told in the 1990's that the low light at Wigram was designed specifically for preserving the items, and that was why back then they would not allow photography. To me, that does not make sense. Some primitive tribes and bureaucrats believe taking a photo steals something of the life spirit...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 11, 2015 18:04:15 GMT 12
In general, A well lit hangar is my preference, although when well done a dark spotlit display is also impressive. depends on the context. There is one other option to consider. the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton is really unusual. It has displays in both Well lit hangar and Dark room settings, but the best bit is their walk through "Carrier" display which has the aircraft displayed on the "deck" of Ark Royal, and integrates it with Audio visual and robotic action. Its very good, and at the same time you can still get up close to the aircraft. Very good! gives context to the whole display. The other end of "Arty" Walk through displays is Imperial War Museum North in Manchester, where various "immersive" displays go on around you. Unfortunately it is so "arty" and conceptual you don't have the faintest idea what its about...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 4, 2015 14:25:06 GMT 12
Could be from a Nene, used in the Australian Vampires...
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 3, 2015 17:55:21 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Dec 2, 2015 14:24:30 GMT 12
Don't look like aircraft engine mounts to me -Maybe a tank?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Nov 30, 2015 16:46:59 GMT 12
Travel Air 6000
|
|