The Night Mail

[jamie92208]

2 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

I suggest that you join the Meccano forum. Meccano used to have steam, and electric motors in their range, you could probably learn a lot of useful detail of that sort from them. 

When I used to get the Meccano Magazine in the 60's the Mamod adverts showed that the Stationary engines were designed with Meccano holesin their baseplates for builing into Meccano models.

 

Jamie

[rockershovel]

48 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

When I used to get the Meccano Magazine in the 60's the Mamod adverts showed that the Stationary engines were designed with Meccano holesin their baseplates for builing into Meccano models.

 

Jamie

 

I believe the Meccano steam engines actually came from Mamod

[Happy Hippo]

With production dates of 1956-to date, the Sidewinder is no doubt the longest serving and most produced missile in any military aviation inventory.

 

I suppose the aircraft equivalent has got to be the Lockheed C130.

[Winslow Boy]

2 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

With production dates of 1956-to date, the Sidewinder is no doubt the longest serving and most produced missile in any military aviation inventory.

 

I suppose the aircraft equivalent has got to be the Lockheed C130.

Just shows that they knew how to build them back them. Wonder if there still using imperial screw threads.

[PhilJ W]

4 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

 

 

I suppose the aircraft equivalent has got to be the Lockheed C130.

Canberra and B52 anybody?

[SM42]

4 hours ago, Happy Hippo said:

With production dates of 1956-to date, the Sidewinder is no doubt the longest serving and most produced missile in any military aviation inventory.

 

I suppose the aircraft equivalent has got to be the Lockheed C130.

 

It never ceases tro amaze me juts how old some things flying around in defence of the nation are

 

And then you come to the aircraft.

 

Those that you think are quite modern are in fact best part of a 15 year old design.

 

I always thought the Tornado was a quite modern in the late 90s. Didn't realise it was a 1970s design until talk of its replacement

 

 

Andy

[Happy Hippo]

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

Canberra and B52 anybody?

Still flying, but not still in production.

[PhilJ W]

Boeing 747's have only just ceased production and the first was rolled out fifty years ago.

[jamie92208]

If what Uncle T a mutual friend of HH, DH and myself, told me is correct, a lot of the Tornado was actually TSR2 recycled, designed in the 60's.

 

Jamie

Edited January 4, 2021 by jamie92208

[Canal Digger]

hello from a newbie,

What about VC10s? 1963 - 2013, kept going by skill, prayer and not going near airports/ airbases where they not be allowed to take off again  from what I heard 

[Happy Hippo]

10 minutes ago, Canal Digger said:

hello from a newbie,

What about VC10s? 1963 - 2013, kept going by skill, prayer and not going near airports/ airbases where they not be allowed to take off again  from what I heard 

Welcome aboard, you'll find us friendly and some are even slightly bonkers, so if you'd looked through from page 1 you'll see the threads switching from technical discussion via general chat to ludicrous tales of PB, HH and cake.

 

Yes, I never had a bad flight in a VC10, although the last one where I was removed from the medivac flight with a fork lift truck (due to a diversion from Brize to Lyneham) was not very dignified.

 

But the point I was making was the Sidewinder, through it's various upgrades, has been in continuous production since 1956, which for 'technical' kit is a terrific lifespan.

 

Jamie's reference to our mutual friend 'Uncle T' reminds me that both he and DH were sitting on the Board of Inquiry after Icarus had a slight mishap some years back

[Winslow Boy]

37 minutes ago, Happy Hippo said:

Welcome aboard, you'll find us friendly and some are even slightly bonkers, so if you'd looked through from page 1 you'll see the threads switching from technical discussion via general chat to ludicrous tales of PB, HH and cake.

 

Yes, I never had a bad flight in a VC10, although the last one where I was removed from the medivac flight with a fork lift truck (due to a diversion from Brize to Lyneham) was not very dignified.

 

But the point I was making was the Sidewinder, through it's various upgrades, has been in continuous production since 1956, which for 'technical' kit is a terrific lifespan.

 

Jamie's reference to our mutual friend 'Uncle T' reminds me that both he and DH were sitting on the Board of Inquiry after Icarus had a slight mishap some years back

I believe they ruled pilot error on that one.

[Happy Hippo]

39 minutes ago, Winslow Boy said:

I believe they ruled pilot error on that one.

Icarus, or the trip to Lyneham instead of Brize?

[Winslow Boy]

Just now, Happy Hippo said:

Icarus, or the trip to Lyneham instead of Brize?

Take your pick.

[jamie92208]

The VC10 was a superb aircraft designed specifically  for the East African routes and forvtakeviffs from high altitude runways.  My brother flew them for BOAC when he came out of basic training in 1968.  They didn't do much simulator time then so he spent several weeks flying out of Shannon up and down the west coast of Ireland. Apparently  much of it was at rather low level and they had to climb before they turned so as not to dip a wing tip in the briny. He enjoyed that.  UncleT was involved in approving them for air to air refuelling and has some great photos taken from Tornado cockpits. Apparently  they were a beggar to refuel from due to the design of the tail. I watched one take off from Manchester, used about half the amount of runway that the other planes did, then shot up at a steep angle.

 

Jamie

[PhilJ W]

I didn't realise that the Bae146 was still in service with the RAF until I saw the one used to carry the BREXIT agreement from Brussels on the news. They barely get a mention despite being one of the most successful British airliners ever. I've got a bookazine on them  that includes some proposed military versions. One with a raised rear end to accommodate a loading ramp and that one was converted to as a none flying demonstrator. Best of all there was a version being worked upon for the US Navy (with Lockheed) that was equipped with the necessary gear to operate from aircraft carriers. Alas 9/11 put an end to production but not before it became the most successful British airliner ever in terms of numbers sold.

Edited January 4, 2021 by PhilJ W

[polybear]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

I didn't realise that the Bae146 was still in service with the RAF until I saw the one used to carry the BREXIT agreement from Brussels on the news. They barely get a mention despite being one of the most successful British airliners ever. I've got a bookazine on them  that includes some proposed military versions. One with a raised rear end to accommodate a loading ramp and that one was converted to as a none flying demonstrator. Best of all there was a version being worked upon for the US Navy (with Lockheed) that was equipped with the necessary gear to operate from aircraft carriers. Alas 9/11 put an end to production but not before it became the most successful British airliner ever in terms of numbers sold.

 

Agreed; sadly IIRC the pound-dollar exchange rate did BAe no favours and they ended up selling them at a loss, which of course you can't do forever (it seems all commercial aircraft are sold in dollars, no matter where they are built).

I recall an article in the Times (I think) around 1987-ish that reported that BAe Management said that the Hatfield Airfield site (where the 146 was designed and built) was worth £800M as building land.  "However, we have absolutely no intention of selling" etc. etc.  Lying b'stards.  It was around that time that I was involved in doing propeller strain gauge flight trials on the ATP at BAe Woodford (great fun - out over the Irish Sea in a commerial 'liner whilst the pilot stalls it - and other fun tricks).  When I walked into the Flight Hangar there was a brand new 146 sitting there; I asked the crew chief why it was there.  "Customer acceptance" came the reply.  "How come - they build them at Hatfield" says I.

Crew Chief says "Yep - we don't understand it either....."

Any guesses where 146 production moved to when Hatfield shut down, around 5 years later?  Yep, Woodford.

I reckon they knew what they wanted and were getting the opportunity to get the guys at Woodford up to speed on the aircraft.

The 146 is currently used for the Queen's Flight, among other things.

 

Bear - who started life working at the Hatfield Airfield site (though not for the Aircraft Division) until closure was announced.  Bitter?  Twisted?  Still hoping for natural justice?  You betcha....

[simontaylor484]

Welcome to the fun Canal digger hope you like cake 

[bbishop]

Heavy clay at Hatfield.  I was playing Rugby for The City University against Hatfield College in a rainstorm and one of our players was almost drowned at the bottom of a ruck.  The captains had a word with their (incompetent) referee that he blew up rucks after 10 seconds.  Which meant a scrum, and I enjoyed scrums, especially when the referee hadn't a clue.

 

Mind you, I refereed the reverse fixture and there was no hanky panky in the scrums after the first ten minutes.  Poacher turned gamekeeper.  Bill

[simontaylor484]

I was going to start on my lego model of the Swiss crocodile loco tomorrow now the youngest was back at a school Thanks a lot Boris. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by simontaylor484
Spelling

[jamie92208]

I have to report a notable victory in Chateau Guest.  For more years than I care to remember I have had to put up with a Cliff Richard Calendar hanging in the kitchen, usually given to her mother by our darling daughter.  Thanks to Covid one has not appeared this year but we still need an appointment calendar.  I had ordered one from across the pond and this is what now adorns the kitchen wall for the next 12 months.

Howzat*. The Official Union Pacific Calendar 2021.

 

*For the benefit of followers across the pond, Howzat is what limey's shout when they believe that a batsman should be given out by tbe umpire in a game of cricket.

 

Jamie

Edited January 4, 2021 by jamie92208

[Compound2632]

Heritage railway calendars have been a bit thin on the ground this year - I think many railways haven't bothered since they reckon the bulk of their sales will be through their station shops rather than online. So instead of the usual Lynton & Barnstaple calendar, the best that could be found is a Bluebell calendar which rather disappointingly features their big boring Southern and BR Standard locomotives, rather than their very interesting collection of smaller, older engines.

[PhilJ W]

1 hour ago, polybear said:

 

Agreed; sadly IIRC the pound-dollar exchange rate did BAe no favours and they ended up selling them at a loss, which of course you can't do forever (it seems all commercial aircraft are sold in dollars, no matter where they are built).

I recall an article in the Times (I think) around 1987-ish that reported that BAe Management said that the Hatfield Airfield site (where the 146 was designed and built) was worth £800M as building land.  "However, we have absolutely no intention of selling" etc. etc.  Lying b'stards.  It was around that time that I was involved in doing propeller strain gauge flight trials on the ATP at BAe Woodford (great fun - out over the Irish Sea in a commerial 'liner whilst the pilot stalls it - and other fun tricks).  When I walked into the Flight Hangar there was a brand new 146 sitting there; I asked the crew chief why it was there.  "Customer acceptance" came the reply.  "How come - they build them at Hatfield" says I.

Crew Chief says "Yep - we don't understand it either....."

Any guesses where 146 production moved to when Hatfield shut down, around 5 years later?  Yep, Woodford.

I reckon they knew what they wanted and were getting the opportunity to get the guys at Woodford up to speed on the aircraft.

The 146 is currently used for the Queen's Flight, among other things.

 

Bear - who started life working at the Hatfield Airfield site (though not for the Aircraft Division) until closure was announced.  Bitter?  Twisted?  Still hoping for natural justice?  You betcha....

The same with AEC after Leyland took them over. A prime site in Southall deliberately run down so that it could be sold off. Then they tried telling their customers what they can have instead of what they wanted. No wonder they went bust.

[PhilJ W]

Didn't a certain HRH write off a Queens Flight 146 with a heavy landing? 

[Dave Hunt]

Unfortunately all this talk about the longevity of aircraft and missiles doesn't take into account that apart from some airframe components the ones that first rolled off the production lines were not the same pieces of kit that are or were until recently still in production. As an example of something that has been quoted, the Sidewinder that first entered service could only succeed if the firer got well inside a mile and in a cone about 30 degrees around the target's six o'clock. Furthermore, any aggressive manoeuvring on the part of the target would make a kill highly improbable and when the early simple countermeasures had been developed it's chances of success against them would have been minimal. By the time the missile had been developed through many iterations and the AIM-9M version appeared just before Gulf 1 it was a very different beast with a vastly improved performance both aerodynamically and in terms of its seeker as well as the warhead being more lethal. The fact that it still looked like a Sidewinder was simply down to the fact that the improved systems could still be fitted inside the basic Sidewinder airframe but in reality it was a different and much more potent weapon as I can attest having been one of two pilots tasked with trial firings of AIM-9Ms from Tornado F3s when Gulf 1 was shaping up. At the other end of the size scale, the late marks of B-52 were very different aircraft from those early 1950s examples and very few similarities existed outside the closely similar shape of the airframe. Quite obviously, a stage is reached where further significant development is not possible and the next generation of aircraft and/or weapons take over no matter how good the basic airframe is. There is, of course, much more to the story but I offer this as illustration of how the apparent longevity of something in aviation may well be not quite what it seems.

 

Dave