Ops-Normal.org

I know you did UP, but I can’t help being awkward, here’s some Merlins to make up for it

Don't think so - used for flight test courses.

Can you imagine doing that at night: at 60'; in the face of flak?

You've got a great big fackorf bomb, spinning at umptyump rpm on bearings made in Birmingham, just under yer arse. Left a bit; right a bit; up a bit; down a bit ....

Balls of brass.

Channel 4 at 1900-2000 in the UK tonight "The Lancaster Bomber at 80" narrated by David Jason.

To keep discussion going I give you the Piper (nee Ted Smith) Aerostar referred to by those that loved her as the Aerorat.


"The Best and nicest and most clever and most fit for purpose", is a tall order because you have to ask for what use. From the point of view of a private owner, say for personal business travel not requiring a company pilot and for pleasure use the Aerorat was a strong contender. "Best" may be the weakest claim because everyone would have loved a turboprop instead but in its class the Aerorat was outstanding. It would be more appreciated by an experienced pilot, preferably with a bit of military training, than a novice.

My own experience with the machine was while I was working as the Chief Pilot for a freight operation that carried priority materials such as medical products that were very expensive and had a short active life, even less than 24 hours, before expiration. As Chief Pilot I did not get to routinely make the longer flights in our larger aircraft unless it was as a "fill in" or a flight check but I did get to make the shorter branch flights that were often required. Mainly flights were of less than two hours per leg. You took the delivery from the longer flights at a hub then completed the short range deliveries in the Aerorat.

The Aerorat was certainly a nice aircraft to fly. The elevators were operated by push/pull rods rather than wires, the hydraulics were very fast moving and the gear and flaps operated at a rate that would certainly be appreciated by an ex-military pilot and overall the aircraft was a joy to fly. I did quite a lot of my flying in the aircraft during the US ATC strike whenever that was. You could not file a flight plan for a none airline flight so most flying during that time was VFR with only the departures and arrivals under ATC (we did work into major airports). I found it necessary to do most of my flights at rather low level since the weather in the North West often involved a low cloud base, that's my story and I am sticking to it. One of the major airports I flew into got quite used to me coming off the water of the adjacent sea inlet and climbing into the pattern.

Ted Smith's original design was certainly clever. The nice flying controls I have mentioned, the aircraft was very strong and since it's payload area was right over the mainspar, in fact one row of seats sat on this, CofG calculation and loading was a breeze, you could throw almost anything on board without being to concerned too greatly about weight and balance. Since our loads often consisted of radioctive material in heavy lead containers this was useful. Ted Smith originally designed the aircraft to accept jet engines, I do not think any commercial jet versions were built but at least one aircraft was converted to two underwing mounted turbines. I would have been perfectly happy with a couple of turboprops.

What made the aircraft so fit for purpose in our operation is that you could get fuel at almost any smaller airfield, loading was fast and simple, field performance was OK and flight time was relatively fast.

I enjoyed this aeroplane.

boing wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:42 am

To keep discussion going I give you the Piper (nee Ted Smith) Aerostar referred to by those that loved her as the Aerorat.


aerostar.jpg


"The Best and nicest and most clever and most fit for purpose", is a tall order because you have to ask for what use. From the point of view of a private owner, say for personal business travel not requiring a company pilot and for pleasure use the Aerorat was a strong contender. "Best" may be the weakest claim because everyone would have loved a turboprop instead but in its class the Aerorat was outstanding. It would be more appreciated by an experienced pilot, preferably with a bit of military training, than a novice.

My own experience with the machine was while I was working as the Chief Pilot for a freight operation that carried priority materials such as medical products that were very expensive and had a short active life, even less than 24 hours, before expiration. As Chief Pilot I did not get to routinely make the longer flights in our larger aircraft unless it was as a "fill in" or a flight check but I did get to make the shorter branch flights that were often required. Mainly flights were of less than two hours per leg. You took the delivery from the longer flights at a hub then completed the short range deliveries in the Aerorat.

The Aerorat was certainly a nice aircraft to fly. The elevators were operated by push/pull rods rather than wires, the hydraulics were very fast moving and the gear and flaps operated at a rate that would certainly be appreciated by an ex-military pilot and overall the aircraft was a joy to fly. I did quite a lot of my flying in the aircraft during the US ATC strike whenever that was. You could not file a flight plan for a none airline flight so most flying during that time was VFR with only the departures and arrivals under ATC (we did work into major airports). I found it necessary to do most of my flights at rather low level since the weather in the North West often involved a low cloud base, that's my story and I am sticking to it. One of the major airports I flew into got quite used to me coming off the water of the adjacent sea inlet and climbing into the pattern.

Ted Smith's original design was certainly clever. The nice flying controls I have mentioned, the aircraft was very strong and since it's payload area was right over the mainspar, in fact one row of seats sat on this, CofG calculation and loading was a breeze, you could throw almost anything on board without being to concerned too greatly about weight and balance. Since our loads often consisted of radioctive material in heavy lead containers this was useful. Ted Smith originally designed the aircraft to accept jet engines, I do not think any commercial jet versions were built but at least one aircraft was converted to two underwing mounted turbines. I would have been perfectly happy with a couple of turboprops.

What made the aircraft so fit for purpose in our operation is that you could get fuel at almost any smaller airfield, loading was fast and simple, field performance was OK and flight time was relatively fast.

I enjoyed this aeroplane.

Interesting insight into the Aerostar from a very experienced ex-military pilot. Much enjoyed by me.

I have never flown one, but wish I had. The type had a "starring" role in the film "American Made" where based on the "real story" the aircraft's ease of loading and "flexibility" when it came to weight and balance made it go to "hot rod" for all the well heeled villains in South America.

In support of the earlier photos this was one of my lucky days. Not often you get a Lancaster to yourself to explore.

I can't remember where this was. It was sometime (somewhere in England) preparing for BoB day I suspect and I obviously had enough connections to get a ride across the field to take a look so it was sometime early after May 66. I am guessing the location was Gaydon.
As you can see the aircraft is KMB, no upper gun turret.
Notice the de rigueur cravat. I was a little slimmer then.

.

There, you look like the kind of bloke, one might buy a beer for...

I am just jealous. I have never come close to flying in a Lancaster, let alone flying one. My only claim to flame (sorry fame) is 15 hours in the left hand seat of a Dak... but that's another story...

NX611, the Lancaster being slowly restored to flight, at one point was behind the hangers at Squires Gate and I can remember being allowed to explore her, though that might’ve been down to my Westair connections

ian16th wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 06, 2021 12:07 pm

I started thinking of a/c I have worked on, that I liked, and thought of the Hunter.
I didn't nominate it because I don't think it was ever really tested in prolonged action.

The Hunters I got to play with down the Gulf saw prolonged action, Ian. Awfully nice aerie.

I had a trip in a Hunter from Lossie to Valley and back in 1975 with a little bit of hands on, Magic!

The Hunters I got to play with down the Gulf saw prolonged action, Ian

I hear a few camels were strafed (not Sopwith)

In Oman I was a Catman when the fighting was mostly over. There were very few occasions when my accompanying Battmen had to do any of the actual warfighting stuff.

One such bout of warfighting was avoided when the Battman Signaller called for a bit of help from the RAF. A brace of Hunters were sent to our aid. It was Scottish weather, so they could not descend below the cloudbase and mountain tops, so they swooped down lowish, but in VMC on top at very high speed and pulled up to high alpha to create that famous howl which I later learned has the rather odd name of the Blue Note.




The Adoo thought that we had Djinn on our side and so they buggered off and left us in peace, not in pieces.

Does anyone know what the "Blue Note" sounded like from the "inside"? Just curious.

The Ancient Mariner

A Blue Note

Woody wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 27, 2021 3:52 pm

NX611, the Lancaster being slowly restored to flight, at one point was behind the hangers at Squires Gate and I can remember being allowed to explore her, though that might’ve been down to my Westair connections

As a weekend Orderly Sgt at Scampton, you were handed the keys to the aircraft - the lock on the rear fuselage door was a standard Yale lock - to allow pre-booked visitors to look around her. Had to familiarise myself with the internal layout before escorting any visitors, you understand.

The 'bullet' airplane that could revolutionize business aviation
Start saving up now. Only $5,000,000.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/cele ... index.html

(CNN) — Is it an egg, a blimp or a bullet? Whatever you might want to call the shape of the Otto Celera 500L, it's one that catches the eye. It looks like no other plane out there, and for a good reason: unique aerodynamics.
The shape of the Celera is designed to drastically reduce drag by allowing air to flow very smoothly over the surface of the plane. That makes the aircraft less power-hungry, which means it burns less fuel.
"This gets us four to five times the efficiency of other turboprop aircraft, and seven to eight times the efficiency of jet aircraft," says William Otto Jr., CEO of Otto Aviation.
In numbers, that means operating costs that trounce those of similarly sized business planes. According to Otto Aviation, flying on the Celera will cost $328 an hour compared to $2,100, with a fuel economy of 18 to 25 miles per gallon -- similar to that of a large SUV -- compared to two to three miles per gallon.
All of that with enough space for six passengers, a speed of 460 miles-per-hour and a range of 4,500 miles, comparable to that of an airliner. Is it all too good to be true?

The Celera 500L, which is currently a prototype, is the brainchild of William Otto Sr., an aerospace veteran whose work spans from the US Minuteman missile program to the B-1 bomber. The project started as a thought experiment: Would it be possible to design a business aircraft that is dramatically cheaper to run than current options?
For inspiration, Otto looked at studies he had done on torpedoes, when he was trying to fit more of them into a submarine. To do so, he made the engines that propelled them much smaller, by giving the torpedoes a more efficient shape that required less power.
That shape was dictated by a concept known as "laminar flow."
Laminar flow occurs when a fluid -- such as air -- flows in parallel layers, with no disruption; it is the opposite of turbulence, which happens when the flow is mixed or chaotic.

The egg-like shape of the Celera 500L is designed to achieve laminar flow on the surface of the plane, allowing for a smoother penetration through the air.
Otto Aviation says the design offers a 59% reduction in drag compared to similarly sized aircraft, resulting in massive savings on fuel and emissions.
But if laminar flow works so well, why aren't all planes designed like this?
"To maintain laminar flow you have to create structures that don't flex, bend or distort the shape," says Otto. "You could never do this with metal, composites are really the only way.
Even small, temporary imperfections like ice or squashed bugs can impair laminar flow, which is very difficult to scale to the size of an airliner. Otto adds that cheap fuel might have also played a role in making designers shun it in favor of simpler engineering.
A diesel engine

Because laminar flow makes the plane require less power, the Celera 500L is equipped with a single V12 diesel engine at the back, designed by German manufacturer RED. "It was the most efficient aircraft engine we could find, to match the most efficient aerodynamic body," says Otto.
In the near future, the diesel engine could be replaced with an electric or hydrogen one, to make the plane emissions-free. "For now, we've reduced carbon emissions by 80% over competitor aircraft; on a per passenger basis, we're better than the airlines meeting the 2030-2050 emissions requirements," Otto adds.

The Celera 500L first flew in 2018 and has since completed about 50 test flights. So far it has only reached a top speed of about 180 miles-per-hour and an altitude of 17,000 feet, but a more powerful version of the engine, to be installed soon, will enable faster speeds and higher altitudes, closer to 40,000 feet.
At some point, windows will be added to the fuselage (there currently aren't any). Otto believes the plane will eventually go on sale by 2025.
"At this point, we're starting to go out and talk to potential partners and operators around the globe. We've had interest from all over the world in this aircraft, and estimate that the audience for this is about 100 times larger than the current private aviation market," says Otto.
Bigger models

The airplane is expected to have an initial price tag of $5 million.

Due to the shape of the aircraft, the cabin is more spacious than that of comparable planes such as the Pilatus PC-12 or the Beechcraft King Air. "We've got a 6'2" cabin height, which allows you to walk onto the aeroplane. There's a stand-up lavatory. It's really on the same level as a mid-size business jet," says Otto.
The unconventional appearance, however, could be a drag for some customers.
"This may not appeal to the corporate executives flying in their Gulfstreams, but there's a very large audience of people who are frustrated with commercial airlines, airport security, waiting in lines and how long it all takes," says Otto.

Initially, the plane will be sold to private customers -- at a price tag approaching $5 million -- but there are plans for two larger models that could accommodate up to 19 and 40 passengers respectively, making them competitive with regional jets. Otto says discussions are ongoing with major airlines.
The Celera, however, has a long road ahead before that, which includes years of test flights and a full certification of the aircraft. Most importantly, it includes delivering on an impressive set of promises.
According to Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at Teal Group, Otto Aviation is making very big claims in terms of aircraft performance.
"It all sounds exceptionally promising, but perhaps too promising," Aboulafia says. "Given the combination of range, speed, capacity, and a very low powered engine given all of those metrics, I think they just need to demonstrate that it works.
"If they can actually achieve what they claim, then it should be scalable upward," he adds. "But again, I think it's best to take a cautious view, and wait to see whether it can be proven on their first aircraft."

PP

boing wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:52 pm

In support of the earlier photos this was one of my lucky days. Not often you get a Lancaster to yourself to explore.


photo croppedIMG.jpg

I can't remember where this was. It was sometime (somewhere in England) preparing for BoB day I suspect and I obviously had enough connections to get

Interesting photo, no astrodome either. By 1969 it had a tall one a bit like a bell jar. On one flight the aircraft hit an air pocket and I hit it. I still have a very feint scar. The cut across my face was so fine I never felt a thing and it healed without a scar.

Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 07, 2021 8:44 pm

Interesting photo, no astrodome either. By 1969 it had a tall one a bit like a bell jar. On one flight the aircraft hit an air pocket and I hit it. I still have a very feint scar. The cut across my face was so fine I never felt a thing and it healed without a scar.

What with all the dueling, thrusting, parrying and feinting, followed by a scar (or the lack of one due to the finesse of one's opponent). I was apt to think you were more likely to have been at the University of Heidelberg, rather than in an aircraft!