Ops-Normal.org

k3k3 wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:36 pm

Is there any reason why the probe installation from the E-3Ds couldn't be used on the P-8 and E-7? They are the same forward fuselage after all.

Only Prince Edward might like that.

The rest of 'em don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring.

It would take so fukkin long for such a probe to go through the MoD procurement( ) acquisition process that Andrew wouldn't be interested in anything much older than about 15 years old.

"It would take so fukkin long for such a probe to go through the MoD procurement( ) acquisition process " - not, surely, with Cummings and Goings in charge?

I worked in an engineering manufacturing company, which had the usual (?) method of planning for forthcoming projects.
A group of frustrated development engineers arranged to work throughout a weekend (with help from shop-floor practical artisans and drawing office draughtsmen) to build a new product (in fact a conversion of an existing product with an alternative power plant) and by Monday morning they had a running prototype for presentation to senior management (who had scorned the idea as being impractical).

Instead of months of 'planning' and drawing-office work followed by 'procurement' they carried out a practical 'cut and shut', documenting the changes as they went.

The product was adopted and entered production.

Only things I would go into baskets for would be bread rolls.

Why can you fly an aircraft normally in blues but said same frame and seat when dishing out gas you have to wear a grow bag? Had this argument in the Gulf War. I used to put the grow bag over my blues, including tie of course. Doors closed, off it comes.

Why can you fly an aircraft normally in blues?

I cannot answer that question. Name rank and number only.

Boac wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 14, 2020 7:13 am

Why can you fly an aircraft normally in blues?

I cannot answer that question. Name rank and number only.

Yes of course.

But to set it off, one adds a Mae West!

Those were the days! Ex-A would have been OK, then, going to war in No1s. Whether. of course, a 'standard' Mae West would be acceptable.............

What are the names of the dogs, though?

In the mid-'60s doing SAR s'bys in the mess at BKY, in No1s of course, because some the hairy old non-flying types wouldn't countenance any other form of dress. We frequently scrambled from the mess to the Shack and got airborne in No1s. One wore one's Mae West and sometimes put on a flying suit as we progressed to the search area, sometimes not. Oh, and the dog was called Griff, a Welsh collie who belonged to onee of the siggies.

The Ancient Mariner

Royal and VVIP would fly in No.2 trousers, shirt and tie, more comfortable and less wear on No.1. If you had to go down the back which was rare* No.1. Down route No.1 outside the aircraft.

*The ADC was the running boy between principle pax and flight deck. No PAs. All done with neatly hand written notes by the Nav. Brace, brace, gave the ADC some exercise.

What are the names of the dogs, though?

Presumably not named by Guy Gibson?

ex-A wrote:The ADC was the running boy between principle pax and flight deck. No PAs

You could tell the non-career ADCs from the others when the 'Evacuate' command never reached the pax but you could see him waving frantically on the outside.

This is bollocks and ridiculous.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... s-jet.html

32 Sqn (my first posting) was never know as 'The Queen's Flight'. They took the aircraft from the disbanded Queen's Flight and were re-named The 32 (Royal) Sqn. They then changed their role to a communications Squadron and painted all their aircraft grey. They are not a Royal Household unit they are a Royal Air Force Squadron.

The special 10 Squadron A330 jet is available to all Royals and ministers. Not just the PM. But HMQ and a few hangers on want to go LHR to EDI how much is that going to cost compared to a HS146? They will charter which is not as secure or reliable.

Technically don’t all the aircraft belong to HMQ, it is The Royal Airforce after all!

Woody wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:21 pm

Technically don’t all the aircraft belong to HMQ, it is The Royal Airforce after all!

Along with the swans... whose flying skills have eroded over the lockdown...

viewtopic.php?p=281062#p281062

Woody wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 09, 2021 12:21 pm

Technically don’t all the aircraft belong to HMQ, it is The Royal Airforce after all!

Well not really HMQ is Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces but she doesn't own the kit.

Thanks for the clarification Ex-A, but with all the spare frames available at the moment , perhaps a sponsorship deal could be arranged.

Woody wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:49 am

Thanks for the clarification Ex-A, but with all the spare frames available at the moment , perhaps a sponsorship deal could be arranged.

A very pertinent point. Perhaps they could come to an agreement with a company with a company aircraft and Royal Warrant. Their jam manufacturer maybe? Nothing more British than scones for afternoon tea with cream and jam.

OMG! They would probably send up a Typhoon to shoot that down if it was around today. Fortunately, it is now in The Netherlands, so that offensive registration and accompanying logo will never be seen again.

Late to the party:
In training we pulled a growbag over No 2 trousers and hung jacket on back of the seat. On diversion we would emerge in No 2s.
On the Bomber Command Hastings rig of the day was flying suit witb No 1 jacket on top.
A story of a Meteor at Nav School had it ditching and the pilot leapt over the side, inflated his dinghy and urged the student Nav to do likewise. Instead he climbed onto the wing, inflated his dinghy and boarded while quiet dry. When asked why he had not jumped clear he said he didn't want his No 1 trousers to get wet.

I think I related how in the V-Force we carried all our uniforms in a Div Bag (all 5 in one suitcase). Two decades later, on a Pan diversion to Wittering we were advised we would not be permitted in the Mess and would have to stay in down town Stamford. We went to Cottesmore instead who said we could use the dining room but not the bar.