Page 4 of 5
Posted: 30 Apr 2006, 20:11
by Garry Russell
That sounds like G-AOJC
Never Canbrian but painted as such and then reduced to a fuse when it got dangerous
Latest I heard was it was dumped in a lake for the fishes to live in :sad:
Garry
Posted: 30 Apr 2006, 23:41
by paulb
Garry Russell wrote:That sounds like G-AOJC
Never Canbrian but painted as such and then reduced to a fuse when it got dangerous
Latest I heard was it was dumped in a lake for the fishes to live in :sad:
Garry
Yes, if my memory serves me correctly, I think that's exactly right. Just an old fuselage repainted by a few enthusiasts..................
Best regards
Paul
Posted: 01 May 2006, 11:14
by DispatchDragon
Just to hop in late - I can confirm that the DC8-54/55 would go supersonic in a shallow dive underpower amd without great treipdation or buffet
the Sled was built so damn tough that it just kept on rocking.
Leif
BTW Chris I have heard the story about the Citation X from some folks down your way who operate a fractional jet service
Posted: 01 May 2006, 13:32
by britishtourer
I'm pretty sure that the Citation X is the fastest aircraft commercially avaliable today. Mach 1 here I come!
Posted: 01 May 2006, 15:23
by jonesey2k
Mach .92 is all your "rated for"
Allthough Ive had her past the barrier in a dive. The overspeed warning in that thing is rather loud!
Posted: 02 May 2006, 04:38
by anzaq
Hi guys, just joined up after monitoring this wonderful site for ages.
.Just to add some observations to the topic. I also recently watched the Sound Barrier and I noticed that there was a jet aircraft, I believe it to be the Supermarine Attacker, that it was a tail dragger. I always thought that all jet aircraft had tricycle landing gear but here I've been proved wrong and I've seen this movie many times and that's me just noticing. I wouldn't have thought this would be practical as the engine thrust would be pointing towards the runway. Couldn't have done the surface of the runway all that good with all that heat blasting at it. :think:
Gordon
Posted: 02 May 2006, 04:44
by Chris Trott
The Me.262 was originally a tail-dragger as well, but several things contributed to later models being equipped with a nose gear.
Posted: 02 May 2006, 07:28
by paulb
Hi Gordon
Well as you probably know, the Attacker was a very early jet aircraft. It always reminds me of a Seafang with a new fuselage and jet engine!
Apparently, the landing gear configuration was an advantage for a catapault launch where high wing incidence was required.
Best regards
Paul
Posted: 02 May 2006, 11:54
by DaveB
There is a history with the Seafang Paul as this came from the Spiteful. The Attacker had the Spiteful's wings, was the F.A.A's first frontline jet fighter and some 145 units were built. A speacial aircraft in FAA history
ATB
DaveB :tab:
Posted: 02 May 2006, 12:12
by Garry Russell
Another tail tragger jet was the Jet Viking
I did read somewhere about surfaces suffering heat damage and that I think included conventional but low slung jets as well.. The surfaces then were relitively poor and in some cases almost every day surfaces.
The effect though of a taildragger would be like using a hot air stripper blasting a concentrated stream of very hot air.
Garry
Allthough Ive had her past the barrier in a dive. The overspeed warning in that thing is rather loud!