OT: Aero Engineering (Wings & Wheels, Dunsfold)

[T i m]

I was lucky enough to be treated to a day out on Saturday at the 'Wings and Wheels' show at Dunsfold and a curry (and a couple of Cobras) afterwards. ;-)

I'm not megga interested in aviation other than some of the engineering ... from how low tech some of it was like 'The Turbulents' (Druine D.31 Turbulent, 'like a flying motorbike' ) to jets and warfare avionics (multiple target acquisition / firepower).

It was also lovely to see (and hear) a fly past by the Lancaster, flanked by a Hurricane and Spitfire.

Watching a Pitts S2S 'knife edge' at what looked like 10' off the deck, straight after takeoff was pretty amazing, as were the antics of 'The Blades' in their Extra EA-300s or someone landing a Piper Cub on 'The worlds shortest runway', basically a long flat-topped trailer towed behind a car. [1]

We were also entertained by some folk jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft and the commentary. When talking about the Avro Lancaster he told us it was an evolution from the Manchester with it's "underdeveloped, underpowered and unreliable engines" where ending up with only on one engine meant it was 'only powerful enough to get it to the scene of the crash'. ;-)

There was also plenty of cars and bikes, both on show and running down the strip and quite a few military vehicles on display.

My personal favourites, The Chinook, both the sound and the sight of a long shed doing all sorts of things most sheds don't and of course, The Red Arrows.

We last went over 10 years ago and I think I can remember there being more aircraft flying and the one I missed the most was the Harrier (nothing beats watching one of those hovering 20m in front of you). I also missed the Merlin, again doing things you wouldn't think 15 tonnes of fan should. ;-)

We were very lucky with the weather as it looked like it might be a washout on the Sunday. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[1] Or was it the worlds longest runway? ;-)

[Brian Gaff]

Yes we really screwed up selling the Harrier rights to the US, whose idea was that? They made more out of it than we did and arguably the lighter version they made would be of great use nowadays, everyone does not want very fast aircraft after all. I guess the next version of a war plane will basically be a drone with artificial intelligence as the g forces will be unsurvivable by any pilot. Brian

[Vir Campestris]

Come to Duxford next month.

Too many Spits to count (OTOH, I see one most weekends from the back garden...)

I do have a 'photo of _both_ Lancasters I took a couple of years back when the Canadian one was over :)

Andy

[Tim Streater]

Yes. A number of years ago they all formed up over our village for the Duxford flypast. I counted 29 small fighters as well as a number of others.

[T i m]

Thanks for the heads up ... however, I think it might be a bit too soon after W&W to do another airshow (unless there was a very good reason)?

;-)

OOI, would you know why a Hurricane or Spitfire might sound smoother, more mellow than a Sea Fury (or is it just me)?

Nice.

Are you 'A friend of Duxford' Or (whatever they are called) Andy as I think one of our best (possibly unofficial) tours, especially of the workshops was with a mate who was working there as such?

We donated an old Fiat Panda to Duxford. Initially they used it as an onsite runabout and when it died, they used in on one of their display days with the PA message ...

"Would the owner of the Fiat Panda reg XYZ 123 please remove it from the tank display area right away as the event is about to start ... ". ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Not mine that's for sure. I guess the bottom line is as warfare changes, the kit needs to change as well?

Does the F-35B replace the Harrier (even though it's only STOVL)?

And what about the V-22 Osprey? Which was first, that or the Avatar AT-99 Scorpion? ;-)

Plus the general 'cost' of training a fighter pilot to then lose them so easily ... ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[nothanks]

One has a V12 engine, the other an 18 cylinder radial.

... snipped

[T i m]

And I'm assuming it's the R18 that doesn't sound as smooth ... but is that typically true of all radially powered planes or just that one (the Sea Fury, not just that plane)?

Don't get me wrong, it didn't sound bad, just more 'metallic than the Spit / Herc?

Cheers, T i m

[Tim Lamb]

Somewhere I read that the distinctive noise is due to the reduction gear fitted to the Merlin engine. Also that variable pitch propellers, and metal aerlerons were introduced during the fighting. 4 blade propellers came much later.

[alan_m]

It's often a catch 22 situation with selling arms abroad. Foreign buyers will often not touch anything that is not used by the armed forces of the country of origin, In the UK the market is relatively small so to make the money, and pay for the development costs, selling abroad is essential. the USA is a large market but they have their own industries competing for the same money so often a deal is done where parts/assembly is often licensed out. However, on the back of these types of deals other UK companies supplying avionics products that are already fitted to the UK versions have a head start in the competition.

The French seemed to be rather good at selling more basic aircraft at cheaper prices.

Its already here!

[nothanks]

I used to fly a Stearman with a Lycoming 9 cylinder radial and a Yak with a Vedeneyev 9 cylinder radial - both sounded very different to aircraft with 4 or 6 cylinder in-line (horizontally opposed) engines of similar power output. The RPM limit is similar in all cases (to reduce excessive propellor tip losses) and I don't think any of these were geared, so I presume the difference must have been due to the number of cylinders and the consequent firing angle.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Thought the sea furuy had the H block napier...Nope. you are right., The centaiursus 18 cylinder radial

Most large performance piston engines used reduction gears - necessary to keep the prop tips subsonic

[The Natural Philosopher]

Vedeneyev is geared Lycoming looks not.

[nothanks]

I should have remembered that, but it was quite a while ago. I've just dug-out the POH and this shows a reduction ratio of 0.658:1.

I can't find the POH at the moment, but the engine was an R-680.

Supposedly most of the noise comes from the prop tips, so the major factors are: RPM, gearing and prop radius. A Harvard at take-off power settings is a very good example of prop noise.

[Marland]

Worth reading up on the genesis of the Harrier and the previous development aircraft like the Kestrel and the other prototypes and getting the full picture before going into indignant mode. The British Government hardly supported it at all and it was originally developed by Hawker to fulfil a Nato specification. The US put a lot of money into the development because of that Nato requirement and showed interest in it from an early stage. At least one Kestrel flew in USAF markings for evaluation . The Harrier when it finally emerged was too slow for the USAF but suited the US Marines who ordered them fairly early on. Without US input ,money and orders the project may well have gone the way of the TSR2.

Describing selling the rights to it as a screwup when they already had some claims to them is a bit of an exaggeration.