Phil Perry Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 March edition of the BMAA newsletter. . . . First Jet powered Microlight ( sub - 450 Kgs ) great fun if you have £97,000 spare change in yer back pocket ! ! Along with some interesting other stuff ( ? ) http://www.microlightflying.org.uk/enews-march-2015/ Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Looks like a much safer jet than the other ultralight one - the BD-5. I guess if you can afford the 97,000 quid to buy it, you won't mind the high fuel usage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I can't get my head around the price. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 This is in the newsletter and looks like it would be worth watching... "IF your telly can pick up BBC Four and you’re twiddling your thumbs at 9.00pm on Tuesday 17 March, you could do worse than tune in to “The Aviatrix”, a documentary of Lady Mary Heath’s epic 1928 flight from Cape Town to London. Tracey Curtis-Taylor retraced the flight in a vintage Boeing Stearman biplane; even better, her adventure was filmed by the cousin of BMAA member Jason Bullock. Click here for a tasty four-minute trailer." rgmwa 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 I can't get my head around the price. Hmm,. . .I'm inclined to concur with your thoughts Bex,. . . . . looking at how realy TINY that engine looks,. . . .there must have been some right good tecchie developments in jet engine design since I had my air cadet ride in an EE Lightning in 1964,. . . that had two humungous engines, and it powered us up to 36,000 feet, ( the RAF never mentioned flight levels back in them thar days ) and probably used a million gallons of paraffin a minute to get there. . . . ) but the engine looks just,. .well, . .diddy. Not much bigger than I would have expected to see on a large model AC. . . . OK, it's a single seater, and the last issue of BMAA Enews said they were working on increased fuel carrying capacity for the production model, But as you say, for such a small airframe, I'm astonished at the price tag mate. That's rather a lot o bucks innit. Watching the video on the previous bulletin, it seemed to eat rather a lot of ground to get it into the air too. "Microlight" Jet ? ? ? Hmmm. "Microlighting" was originally started to allow the average working bloke to get his bum into the air. . . .it seems to have now morphed into millionaire's toys. . . . . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayavner Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 This is in the newsletter and looks like it would be worth watching... "IF your telly can pick up BBC Four and you’re twiddling your thumbs at 9.00pm on Tuesday 17 March, you could do worse than tune in to “The Aviatrix”, a documentary of Lady Mary Heath’s epic 1928 flight from Cape Town to London. Tracey Curtis-Taylor retraced the flight in a vintage Boeing Stearman biplane; even better, her adventure was filmed by the cousin of BMAA member Jason Bullock. Click here for a tasty four-minute trailer."rgmwa That looks really good. Reminds me a bit of Long Way Down, that sorta style. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Wow, you got to ride the Lightning! Sounds like Flyerme is not the only bloke on this site who should be writing a book. Come on Phil, punch out your memoirs - got to be more exciting than politicians and sports stars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Wow, you got to ride the Lightning! Sounds like Flyerme is not the only bloke on this site who should be writing a book. Come on Phil, punch out your memoirs - got to be more exciting than politicians and sports stars! Book writing ? ? ? I gave up that idea after reading ALL of Jeremy Clarkson's books. . . .the guy is a Really GOOD writer. . . . ok, I've written short stories, and mag articles for various Aviation publications along with a few local newspaper things, but I just DON'T have "IT" I'm afraid, . . .I can paint a bit of a word picture, . . .but sometimes, I have to go away from the computer and think for ages just to get a story to sound,. . . .readable. . . . then when I read something by a PROPER writer, I just delete it all and start agian ! ! ! My most UNLIKED ride was at RAF Bassingbourn, after we had drawn lots to see who would get to fly whilst we ( ATC squadron ) were on our annual camp at Bassingbourn RAF station in Cambridgeshire,. . . .where there was a recconaisance squadron equipped with Canberras full of aerial photography gear. I missed out on the draw, but in the early morning of the first "Cadet Air Experience" flying day,. . .we were rousted out of our pleasant slumbers by a really nasty Scottish RAF FLight Sergeant,. . .(proper Air Force, not Air cadets ) and told to report to the RAF bus at 0830 hrs WITHOUT GOING TO THE MESS FOR BLOODY BREAKFAST ! . . .and have our swimming trunks and a towel with us. . . . . The swine then supervised our trip to an OUTDOOR swimming pool, called the "Green Plunge" . . . in the tiny village of Royston Cambs. ( The bloody Green Gunge we called it. . . ) this was an Un-heated pool with a water temperature somewhere very close to minus 273 Kelvin,. . . and the Barstard made us all jump in,. . .the stragglers and unbelievers were bodily Thrown in,. . . the FS said, " Ye little Wan***s . . .I'll make men of ye. . .yon waterz onny seven futt deeep. . ." . . .I've hated that man ever since. . .geeeez, was it COLD. . .! . . . Anyway, back to my topic ( ! ) my superior NCO, Sergeant Tony Hinton, went into anaphylactic shock, and also being a non-swimmer, he had to be rescued and taken to the Medical centre, where he spent the rest of the day and night. I was picked to take his place on the flight list, so got my chance to fly in the Canberra. I was mortified, when the goround crew strapped me in to the Navigator's chair,. . . it was in a tiny little hole, surrounded with all sorts of electronic doo dads, which I was instructed in no uncertain terms NOT to touch on pain of execution. . .behind the single pilot seat, with a little window at the top, and no means of seeing outside the aircraft at all. Well,. . . .after about 45 minutes of sheer hell, and having barfed up twice as well, ( you're not the only one to be sick in a military plane Jeremy ! ) I was REALLY GLAD when they pulled me out of the thing. The worst thing about the briefing was when they told me that if there was an emergency, I'd be ejaculated out of the BOTTOM of the aeroplane for christ's sake,. . . . I had visions of being shot into the ground like a cannonball. . . . I still don't know to this day if they really eject downwards ! Wonderful times. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I still don't know to this day if they really eject downwards !Wonderful times. . . Just did a bit of Googling on the subject - can't find any proof that the navigator ejected downwards, in fact I think they were pulling your leg. The following is from an Indian site: In the PR Canberra crew accommodation is for 2 crew members – the pilot, in an ejection seat under a “goldfish bowl” canopy, sitting towards the left of the aircraft and the navigator who sat behind the pilot in an ejection seat in his own little compartment. The compartment had a “hatch” over the ejection seat that could be jettisoned before an ejection. The ejection seat could also blow through the hatch. Earlier the hatch had to be manually blown for an ejection but later modifications were made for the sequence to be automatic. The pilot could also jettison his canopy or eject through it. The PR.57 was equipped with ejection seats that needed at least 1000 ft and 200 kts for a successful ejection. Obviously there were varying types of Canberra but I think if any variation had a downward-firing seat there'd be some info about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Just did a bit of Googling on the subject - can't find any proof that the navigator ejected downwards, in fact I think they were pulling your leg. The following is from an Indian site:In the PR Canberra crew accommodation is for 2 crew members – the pilot, in an ejection seat under a “goldfish bowl” canopy, sitting towards the left of the aircraft and the navigator who sat behind the pilot in an ejection seat in his own little compartment. The compartment had a “hatch” over the ejection seat that could be jettisoned before an ejection. The ejection seat could also blow through the hatch. Earlier the hatch had to be manually blown for an ejection but later modifications were made for the sequence to be automatic. The pilot could also jettison his canopy or eject through it. The PR.57 was equipped with ejection seats that needed at least 1000 ft and 200 kts for a successful ejection. Obviously there were varying types of Canberra but I think if any variation had a downward-firing seat there'd be some info about it. Yes, . . .Ive had this converstion before regarding the Canberra BackSeat ! ! ! in fact, ALL of our guys who flew, about 15 of them ) were told the same story ! ! ! Sorry, but I'm not a wikipedia sort of bloke, I just tell it the way it happened ! ! ! I had a rather heated convo with a bloke in Delhi a few of weeks ago on yet another forum, who took exception to my comments about the Boeing 727, about which I DO remember quite a bit, having taken a flight Engineer rating on the type, . . .he was trying to say that it only had two engines, and my argument of, have you ever seen one from the A**e end ? didn't work.. . . .. . . . .oh dear,. . .where do you start. . . . I honestly think he was getting it mixed up with a DC9. . . . .who knows ? other viewers on the site MUST have been giggling into their coffee, but didn't jump in and have a go. . . . Typical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 That's gold. Maybe he thought the big hole forward of the fin was just for styling purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 That's gold.Maybe he thought the big hole forward of the fin was just for styling purposes. Yeah,. . . .I tried to tell him that it was just an "S" duct,. . .but he wouldn't have it. . . . . ( sorry,. . .getting tired now Marty. . . I thought that my comment that "Just because you CAN'T SEE the third engine,. . .doesn't mean that it ain't there . . . . didn't work either ) [ edited to add. . .] We parted friends though,. . . .and I'll more than likely talk to him again, when he's read the specs . . . . . LLOL ( The bloke claims he flies ATR turboprops. . . who knows. . .? ) I hope that acro doesn't bugger off either, just because one or two posters didn't agree with him. . . . . I have some VERY STRONGLY opinionated friends at our airfield,. . . . . we don't actually come to blows, but the arguments are GREAT. . . . . . . Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Should have given him this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Phil..Very much later in the piece there was a 2 engined modification to the B727. Less external noise and better fuel economy. "Valsan" or something. I never saw one in the flesh (so to speak) Don't quote me on the name. It's a memory item. Having the possibility of being ejaculated from a Canberra would have to be a pulse quickening experience. I have always been informed finding a place for the Crew in an English designed plane was the last item on the list. The Canberra had the bubble to one side. and you cooked ( I believe)Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Should have given him this:[ATTACH=full]34622[/ATTACH] Like I said,. . . I ain't into Wiki. . . . .that one shows the S duct intake quite well though. . . .wish we'd had computer graphics back in them thar olden dayz Eh ?. . . . . would have made the bloody exams a lot darned simpler ! ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I can't get my head around the price. Well when the cost of the engine and ancillories is north of 50k stirling the price starts to look a bit more realistic ... but still ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Phil..Very much later in the piece there was a 2 engined modification to the B727. Less external noise and better fuel economy. "Valsan" or something. I never saw one in the flesh (so to speak) Don't quote me on the name. It's a memory item.Having the possibility of being ejaculated from a Canberra would have to be a pulse quickening experience. I have always been informed finding a place for the Crew in an English designed plane was the last item on the list. The Canberra had the bubble to one side. and you cooked ( I believe)Nev Funny you should metion that Nev,. . . .( not the bit about the 2 engined 727 ! ) But my pilot,. . . Flt. Lt. Thang, ( or something which sounded vaguely chinese, but he obviously wasn't ) told me that after we had landed and I was pulled out of the pile of vomit in the Nav chair. . . . . that these aircraft had a problem with internal comfort, and that was probably the reason that I was airsick, . . . . .NOOOOOOO . . . .it was because of spatial disorientation, I couldn't see OUTSIDE. I am NEVER seasick, . .so long as I am on deck, or can see the water through a window of some sort,. . . .If you put me downstairs, in a cabin 30 feet below the waterline, as my Wffe and I were on "D" deck of the convict ship emigrating to Australia,. . .then I was sick continually, until I got outside on the deck and could see the ocean . . . .! I can feel quite OK in a force 9 gale as long as I can see why my body is being stressed around in four dimensions . . . .rather like the problems I had initially learning to fly on the clocks. . . . . .vomit city. . . . . I got over this by sucking barley sugars. . . . . ( ? ) it worked. Going back to the 727,. . .it still remains my favourite small airliner,. . . lovely aircraft, well designed, . . .I was appalled when they crashed one in a desert a few years ago by radio control to examine what happened to passengers during an aircrash. . . . . . they probably couldn't afford to trash an airbus ! ! ! And after months of careful planning,. . .they still missed the target runway by about a mile ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Phil..Very much later in the piece there was a 2 engined modification to the B727. Less external noise and better fuel economy. "Valsan" or something. I never saw one in the flesh (so to speak) Don't quote me on the name. It's a memory item.Having the possibility of being ejaculated from a Canberra would have to be a pulse quickening experience. I have always been informed finding a place for the Crew in an English designed plane was the last item on the list. The Canberra had the bubble to one side. and you cooked ( I believe)Nev I don't think they removed the third engine, Valsan replaced the two outer engines with P&W JT8D-217's and applied "acoustic measures" to the third engine (whatever that means) in order to make the 727-200 compliant with Stage 3 noise requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I don't think they removed the third engine, Valsan replaced the two outer engines with P&W JT8D-217's and applied "acoustic measures" to the third engine (whatever that means) in order to make the 727-200 compliant with Stage 3 noise requirements. Bet it didn't get rid of that constant whining you got sitting in the back row! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 They were into that sort of thing but the plane would not be economical fuel wise with 3 engines. Once 2 engined aircraft were able to be operated on long legs the main reason for 3 engines didn't exist to the same extent. I am sure I had the specs at least of the 2 engine version under consideration at some stage. Howard, it is like a big cement mixer in the rear seats. The engines aren't synchronised. It's pretty much impossible with multi spool engines..Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Bet it didn't get rid of that constant whining you got sitting in the back row! Was the whining from the PAX as it was too far for the cabin staff to walk with the G+T Howard ?? ? ? A friend of mine flew out to Thailand last night from Birmingham,. . . ( Aircraft type unknown ) with Emirates,. . . .and demanded a rear seat,. . .he's always believed that aircraft never crash tail - first,. . .this is an odd thing to think, coming from a light aircraft pilot. . . .?. . .I wonder what the stats say about this. . . . I shouldn't really have asked, as My mate Adrian wouldn't want to know anyway. . . . .! Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Was the whining from the PAX as it was too far for the cabin staff to walk with the G+T Howard ?? ? ? A friend of mine flew out to Thailand last night from Birmingham,. . . ( Aircraft type unknown ) with Emirates,. . . .and demanded a rear seat,. . .he's always believed that aircraft never crash tail - first,. . .this is an odd thing to think, coming from a light aircraft pilot. . . .?. . .I wonder what the stats say about this. . . . I shouldn't really have asked, as My mate Adrian wouldn't want to know anyway. . . . .!Phil Your friend may have been right - depends on a lot of factors and every accident is different, but they did a test in the Mexican desert with a 727 where they basically flew it into the ground by remote control from a chase plane (there was a good documentary on it last year). In that test which simulated a botched approach where the aircraft still has a high sink rate on impact, they said if you were in First Class or the first few rows of economy then you were dead, if you were anywhere rear of that you'd probably be alive. Then again another situation might kill everyone in the rear of the plane and anyone up front survives. My personal preference is over the wing - don't know if it's illogical, but my reasoning is a) you're close to the emergency exits and b) there's a lot more structure under the cabin so hopefully if it does break up, the section over the wing will remain "more intact" than the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 It's hard to generalise. One thing is sure . Fire is a big factor and getting out fast is important.. The plastic interiors are toxic when ignited. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 We parted friends though,. . . .and I'll more than likely talk to him again, Just ring Telecom or Optus, good chance of it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Perry Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Your friend may have been right - depends on a lot of factors and every accident is different, but they did a test in the Mexican desert with a 727 where they basically flew it into the ground by remote control from a chase plane (there was a good documentary on it last year). In that test which simulated a botched approach where the aircraft still has a high sink rate on impact, they said if you were in First Class or the first few rows of economy then you were dead, if you were anywhere rear of that you'd probably be alive.Then again another situation might kill everyone in the rear of the plane and anyone up front survives. My personal preference is over the wing - don't know if it's illogical, but my reasoning is a) you're close to the emergency exits and b) there's a lot more structure under the cabin so hopefully if it does break up, the section over the wing will remain "more intact" than the rest. Yes Marty, . . .I alluded to that film in an earlier post and it was quite an interesting "Docco" ! . . . I don't know why, but I had a giggle when the high speed chase plane intended to carry the guys with the R/C gear went seriously tech, and they had to get a replacement quickly and it wasn't quite fast enough to keep up with the Boeing. . . . You say you prefer an " Over - wing" seat, ?. . .well, the overwing seats in that particular film didn't fare so well if you remember, as the undercart came up through the wing roots in the ground impact ( designed to do that apparently . .) and compromised the fuselage sides, making it likely that pax in those seats would have been killed or seriously injured. . . . . I was horrified at seeing the entire cockpit section breaking off and "tucking" underneath the rest of the airframe on impact. . .geez,. . .not a pleasant way to go for the flight crew. . . .it obviously snagged the nosegear on the soft desert sand. . . it was interesting also that two of the engines remained running for quite a while post impact when their control circuits were severed. . . . . Interesting Doc anyway. Incidentally, My " Mate" Adrian, was trained up to 97 percent, as an airline pilot on B737, but out of the blue. . .( his words ) Wifey sued him for divorce . . .! and he had to pack it all in, sell his empire, and pay her off. He now flies Microlight aircraft and visits Thailand now and again, some resort called, er,. . . Rentawifeforafewbaht,. . . I think, . . . .( just guessing. . .but it's a lot cheaper than losing your empire ! ! ! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now