war1974:
my point proved in a single post!
I’m still waiting to read your ‘point’,concerning any possible defence, for the CAA’s position regards allowing obsolete junk to fly.With documented questions regards its reliability even almost 40 years ago let alone now.While at the same time banning superior designs.Which is my main ‘point’.
Before the Phantom went out of service it was plagued with mechanical faults such as utility failures/hydraulic failures, nose wheel steering etc.
smokinbarrels:
Before the Phantom went out of service it was plagued with mechanical faults such as utility failures/hydraulic failures, nose wheel steering etc.
By the standards of mid 20th Century designs it was arguably as good as it got.
war1974:
don’t bother arguing with carry fast he will not give in until everyone in the whole world says yes you are correct, irrespective of any knowledge/facts/statistics.
Yeah. It kind of reminds me why I don’t go on the website pprune anymore. In fact why a lot of workers in the job don’t go on there anymore. The place used to be for professional discussion. Now lunatics are in the asylum - the place has been overrun by spotters and enthusiasts who argue with anyone on anything. Anytime an aviation incident is discussed theories are bandied around by these Walts, the press end up quoting as “comments from a professional industry website” 
. Most professional blokes don’t get involved, sigh, switch off and leave them to it rather than get involved with the Walts.
Had one lot come out and state alsorts of theories about the Bagram B747 crash. Current crew on the type watched for a bit in disbelief them left them to it.
Freight Dog:
war1974:
don’t bother arguing with carry fast he will not give in until everyone in the whole world says yes you are correct, irrespective of any knowledge/facts/statistics.Yeah. It kind of reminds me why I don’t go on the website pprune anymore. In fact why a lot of workers in the job don’t go on there anymore. The place used to be for professional discussion. Now lunatics are in the asylum - the place has been overrun by spotters and enthusiasts who argue with anyone on anything. Anytime an aviation incident is discussed theories are bandied around by these Walts, the press end up quoting as “comments from a professional industry website”
Had one lot come out and state alsorts of theories about the Bagram B747 crash. Current crew on the type watched for a bit in disbelief them left them to it.
‘‘Pilot Darren Sharp told the BBC he believed the pilot realised he was in trouble and made a brave decision to take the plane down away from the airfield where thousands of people were standing’’.
‘‘Friend and fellow pilot Neil McCarthy the height looked high enough but so many things can go wrong’’ engine failure being on his list.
The key questions obviously being.
Was a Split S type turn,of around 90 degrees,away from the airfield from the direction of the original approach,obviously by rolling the aircraft in the climb as can be clearly seen in the video,a part of the pre arranged and filed display plan ?.If not why did the pilot change from a loop to turn in the climb.Bearing in mind we’ve been told it was supposedly a ‘loop’.
Why haven’t the media asked that question ?.
carryfast.
Indeed engine failure or loss of “power” (it’s correctly called thrust in jet turbine parlance by the way) could have been a good valid reason and one of the top proposed so far in the industry circles. I have never said it isn’t. As could a lot of other things.
Can you not differentiate that I was taking issue with your statement regarding your assertions as to the exact details at the base of the loop. If you’re going to get assertive nice to have the basics down?
Incidentally it might interest you that I used to work for a company that displayed the heaps of crap you mention. The venom, vampire and meteor jets. I didn’t operate those myself. At the time I flew low level patrols for the coastguard. My chief pilot and friend did display the private collection. And still does and we talk. I’ll pass on your comments to him about his steeds. Get cocky all you like but don’t mix up someone who’s pulling you up for taking nonsense aerodynamics in a paragraph with someone who disagrees with an engine failure scenario. Anyway what do I know. Back in my box. Carry on walting.
Freight Dog:
carryfast.Indeed engine failure or loss of “power” (it’s correctly called thrust in jet turbine parlance by the way) could have been a good valid reason and one of the top proposed so far in the industry circles. I have never said it isn’t. As could a lot of other things.
Can you not differentiate that I was taking issue with your statement regarding your assertions as to the exact details at the base of the loop. If you’re going to get assertive nice to have the basics down?
Incidentally it might interest you that I used to work for a company that displayed the heaps of crap you mention. The venom, vampire and meteor jets. I didn’t operate those myself. At the time I flew low level patrols for the coastguard. My chief pilot and friend did display the private collection. And still does and we talk. I’ll pass on your comments to him about his steeds. Get cocky all you like but don’t mix up someone who’s pulling you up for taking nonsense aerodynamics in a paragraph with someone who disagrees with an engine failure scenario. Anyway what do I know. Back in my box. Carry on walting.
Maybe you could also tell your friend that I’m obviously biased having almost been killed by one of the things together with its unfortunate,or lucky depending on point of view,pilot.It’s just that like the casualties in this case I was on the ground at the time.While obviously as part of that obviously agreeing with said pilot that we’re talking about an unreliable obsolete design ( to put it mildly ) that has no place anywhere than firmly grounded in a museum.
While ironically I’d agree that the thing came ‘out’ of the ‘loop’ ( actually effectively more like split S turn in this case ) too low.Probably because I think that the unfortunate pilot in this case was effectively flying a 6 tonne glider in a near vertical climb and then had to find a way of making it fly from that point.On that note I think he made Chuck Yeager look like a novice. 
so by using carryfast logic, because me and my sister were nearly killed by an Austin allegro when I was around 7 years old I should launch a 1 man crusade against anyone restoring or driving these in case they cause an accident on the M25?
the car ran into the back of the ambulance we were trying to get into luckily the police officer managed to see it and dragged us away but despite these being heaps of crap when new I have no personal vendetta against them. but again seeing as you know all no doubt you will tell me how advanced they were compared to other cars of their era and should be allowed despite being obsolete in the current climate.
Perhaps CF you’d like to see every single old aeroplane in the world grounded completely?
Every crash/incident is different isn’t it? The Alton Towers crash won’t stop me going on a roller coaster, in the same way 9/11 hasn’t stopped my flying away on holiday.
Over the last ten years I’ve been in a hot air balloon, 737, monorail, river cruiser, coach, flown a Cessna, been to sea in a WW2 MTB, submarine and car ferry, been to several air shows and stood by the track at Santa Pod.
I used to spend a lot of time on the Underground and on express trains, and got a bus in London on 7/7.
I’m confident that all these things are as well maintained as they can be, however they have all been involved in accidents or incidents yet they continue to be used buy a lot of people even know they know the risks.
At the end of WW2 my grandad was given a lift in a Lancaster bomber from Southern Europe, rather than take the long journey back by ship or train. He wasn’t ordered to do it, he was grateful for the favour. He did this even though he knew for the last six years thousands had been shot down or blown up.
Given that it wasn’t an operational flight perhaps you think it shouldn’t have flown??
Whilst this air show crash was a terrible accident I’d like to think the authorities wouldn’t take a knee jerk reaction like banning flights in the long term.
Come on lads you have to admire his front 
incidentally of which he has more than Blackpool AND Southend combined
He sits arguing aerodynamics, aerobatics, and general flying (all more than likely sourced from Google) with a guy who is a trained and professional aircraft Pilot. 
Carryfast…The man totally oblivious to the fact that nobody likes a smartarse.
Red Arrows over our house last night. They had a banner in tow saying Carryfast is a ■■■!
bazza123:
Perhaps CF you’d like to see every single old aeroplane in the world grounded completely?Whilst this air show crash was a terrible accident I’d like to think the authorities wouldn’t take a knee jerk reaction like banning flights in the long term.
Did you actually read my posts or is it just a case of if Carryfast wrote it then it must be read in the worst light possible.
I ‘actually’ said let’s ban obsolete unreliable designs like the Hunter while allowing more modern less risky designs like the Lightning and Phantom to fly.Instead of vice versa.While also limiting such shows to more suitable venues like operational air force bases.
robroy:
Come on lads you have to admire his front
He sits arguing aerodynamics, aerobatics, and general flying (all more than likely sourced from Google) with a guy who is a trained and professional aircraft Pilot.Carryfast…The man totally oblivious to the fact that nobody likes a smartarse.
Ironically I’m actually just relaying the ( correct ) thoughts of a Hunter pilot who used the thing in RAF service who stated the word ‘unreliable’.As opposed to someone who’s admitted that he’s never flown one and who’s obviously never been on the receiving end of what happens when its quirky fuel control sysem,for one example,goes wrong.
bigvern1:
Red Arrows over our house last night. They had a banner in tow saying Carryfast is a ■■■!
Were they flying Hunters.If not why not.
Im not sure where you get that the lightning is more modern…
Sure the design of the shape is a bit more futuristic, but the systems are very much of the same era.
The Hunters first flight was 1951, the lightnings was 1954.
The Lightning was retired from service in 1988
The Hunter was retired in the late 1990s and as late as 2014 in some countries.
Im not sure if you have ever sat in either aircraft, but you will find the cockpits to be remarkably similar In the fact they all use analogue dials and have that typical functional if not ugly look. They both smell almost identical too.
In fact there is very little difference between an early Meteor cockpit from the late 1940s and a “modern” lightning cockpit from the 1980s.
Carryfast:
Ironically I’m actually just relaying the ( correct ) thoughts of a Hunter pilot who used the thing in RAF service who stated the word ‘unreliable’.
Actually you were relaying the thoughts of a man from the Internet who SAID he was a Hunter pilot. You of all people should know that nothing on the Internet is true.
Except for ■■■■.
Oh, and cake recipes.
Carryfast:
bigvern1:
Red Arrows over our house last night. They had a banner in tow saying Carryfast is a ■■■!Were they flying Hunters.If not why not.
Because the Hawk is a bit more modern, up to date…Unlike you.
the maoster:
Carryfast:
Ironically I’m actually just relaying the ( correct ) thoughts of a Hunter pilot who used the thing in RAF service who stated the word ‘unreliable’.Actually you were relaying the thoughts of a man from the Internet who SAID he was a Hunter pilot. You of all people should know that nothing on the Internet is true.
Except for ■■■■.
Oh, and cake recipes.
Great in that case I’ll await CAA and MOD statements that the comments said to be by the pilot of the aircraft in question,said to be Alick Nicholson,aren’t actually made by same and/or Alick Nicholson wasn’t the pilot of the aircraft as stated in the article.
Meanwhile back in the real world of the internet just being another source of information like any other.
109LWB:
Im not sure where you get that the lightning is more modern…
Sure the design of the shape is a bit more futuristic, but the systems are very much of the same era.
The Hunters first flight was 1951, the lightnings was 1954.
The Lightning was retired from service in 1988
The Hunter was retired in the late 1990s and as late as 2014 in some countries.Im not sure if you have ever sat in either aircraft, but you will find the cockpits to be remarkably similar In the fact they all use analogue dials and have that typical functional if not ugly look. They both smell almost identical too.
In fact there is very little difference between an early Meteor cockpit from the late 1940s and a “modern” lightning cockpit from the 1980s.
I’m guessing that something with the Lightning’s performance will by necessity have massively different fuel control systems amongst other differences.Which is probably why Hawker aircraft never managed to get into the big league of really high performance supersonic aircraft design.What is certain is that I don’t think there are any references to it being inherently unreliable in service.
Carryfast:
109LWB:
Im not sure where you get that the lightning is more modern…
Sure the design of the shape is a bit more futuristic, but the systems are very much of the same era.
The Hunters first flight was 1951, the lightnings was 1954.
The Lightning was retired from service in 1988
The Hunter was retired in the late 1990s and as late as 2014 in some countries.Im not sure if you have ever sat in either aircraft, but you will find the cockpits to be remarkably similar In the fact they all use analogue dials and have that typical functional if not ugly look. They both smell almost identical too.
In fact there is very little difference between an early Meteor cockpit from the late 1940s and a “modern” lightning cockpit from the 1980s.I’m guessing that something with the Lightning’s performance will by necessity have massively different fuel control systems amongst other differences.Which is probably why Hawker aircraft never managed to get into the big league of really high performance supersonic aircraft design.What is certain is that I don’t think there are any references to it being inherently unreliable in service.
The RAF seemed to have quite a few engine fires/rear fuselage fires on the Lightning aircraft.