For the last two days I have been up at the top end of Loch Striven with no internet and I was hoping that CF would have shut up spouting his theories on all things scientific by now but alas now I see he hasn’t so can I go back there please. By jeez don’t he gone on ! and on, and on, ad infinitum 
Carryfast:
robroy:
Come on lads you have to admire his frontincidentally 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.
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.
so one pilot you spoke to has a negative opinion lets ground the fleet. 
war1974:
Carryfast:
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.
so one pilot you spoke to has a negative opinion lets ground the fleet.
I didn’t say I spoke to him it’s written in his article. 
The statements concerning reliability were said to be a widely held view amongst Hunter pilots not just him.
While at the same time suggesting that the Phantom was viewed as a better bet at least in his view. 
All of these comparisons obviously being relative.IE flying anything is never going to be risk free especially by the standards of the mid 20th century.In which case,as I said,places like Shoreham aren’t really the best place for a classic aircraft display while the comparison between grounding the Hunter etc v Phantom is obviously more one of minimising risk not completely removing it.In which case exactly what objective comparison supposedly makes the Hunter less of a risk than the Phantom to fly ?.
Carryfast:
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.
Huh?
What on earth are you on about? I didn’t say anything regarding the hunter. I simply stated I’ll pass you comments on . You’re just miffed I picked you up on a small point.
Hanging off the coat tails of someone you read about online an expert does not make you. You claim expertise for recycling referenced material. Yet, you don’t hold back with opinions about the flying skills or techniques. What would you have done to recover CF? Not what you have read, but what would you have done?
As for not experiencing dodgy fuel systems. Had plenty of real emergencies and failures in my life thanks. Not that it needs ratifying by you - an amateur “expert”.
Well as someone who has watched ‘Top Gun’ at least 3 times I believe I am equally as qualified as carryfast to give a walts opinion on this.
Earlier in the thread carryfast said something along the lines that take off power / thrust would be needed to complete the manouvre, as pointed out this is inncorect as the thrust needed would be barely 50% of take off thrust and would be fed in gently to break gravities pull and maintain the climb acceleration then bollocked on to go over the top. Just guessin.
In my hopeless opinion the pilot has recognised an issue either by experience or a dash full of warning lights and pulled out early in the hope of ejecting and ditching the bugger in a field. It must have come as a major shock when he realised he was over a trunk road and the pilot has done all he could to save lives with litle thought for his own.
Course I have no idea if an ejector seat is even fitted to this aircraft.
My heart goes out to all the families and friends trying to cope right now after this shocking event and RIP those that lost their lives in this tragerdy.
Dipper_Dave:
.Course I have no idea if an ejector seat is even fitted to this aircraft.
.
Yes there are, two in fact, despite what one particular member insisted earlier on in the thread.
Can I just say, that if ever I die in an accident of any sort, and certain people start theorising in the absence of knowledge about what went wrong, I will come back and haunt you till the end of your days. Apart from dipper Dave of course, I’m sure his nocturnal antics would even put the Willie’s up a ghost.
RIP to all the deceased, and thoughts to their families.
Freight Dog:
Carryfast:
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.
Huh?
What on earth are you on about? I didn’t say anything regarding the hunter. I simply stated I’ll pass you comments on
Hanging off the coat tails of someone you read about online an expert does not make you. You claim expertise for recycling referenced material. Yet, you don’t hold back with opinions about the flying skills or techniques. What would you have done to recover CF? Not what you have read, but what would you have done?
As for not experiencing dodgy fuel systems. Had plenty of real emergencies and failures in my life thanks. Not that it needs ratifying by you - an amateur “expert”.
To clarify.‘Robroy’ was saying that I’m arguing my personal views against a ‘pilot’.When in reality I’m basing an opinion of unreliability on the views of what I’ve seen confirmed by an RAF pilot on type in question.IE I was replying to Robroy not you.
As for what would I have done firstly I like watching classic aircraft flying ( especially classic air superiority fighters ) but from that point my interest is zero.I don’t like heights ( at least without solid ground under my feet ) and I think if we were meant to fly we’d have wings.On that note,assuming that,as I personally think,a possible engine issue and having an,admittedly basic,understanding of how a plane flies and stays in the air.As I’ve said what else could he have done than to abort and roll out of the climb in a split S dive and then hope the engine comes back on line before running out of height and time.
Just read through the thread. Do not quite follow what you are trying to say Carryfast. Can you explain in more detail please?
Dipper_Dave:
Well as someone who has watched ‘Top Gun’ at least 3 times I believe I am equally as qualified as carryfast to give a walts opinion on this.Earlier in the thread carryfast said something along the lines that take off power / thrust would be needed to complete the manouvre, as pointed out this is inncorect as the thrust needed would be barely 50% of take off thrust and would be fed in gently to break gravities pull and maintain the climb acceleration then bollocked on to go over the top. Just guessin.
In my hopeless opinion the pilot has recognised an issue
We’re talking about a plane with well under 1:1 thrust to weight ratio so even taking account of the type of climb which trades speed for height as in this case even the initial climb will still need plenty of its available thrust.
After which thrust becomes an even more important ingredient as you seem to be saying.Which then just leaves the option of trying to abandon the climb and dive out as you also seem to be saying.In which case we are obviously in agreement not arguing.IE as I said the aircraft needed to have a high level of available thrust ‘to complete the manouvre’.When what I think we actually saw in the video was effectively a Hunter which had effectively become a 5+ tonne glider during the climb into a loop.
albion1971:
Just read through the thread. Do not quite follow what you are trying to say Carryfast. Can you explain in more detail please?
-
According to credible sources the Hunter had a question mark over its reliability when in service.
-
The CAA grounded relatively superior aircraft regards the above like the Phantom for air display purposes on grounds of ‘safety’.But not aircraft like the Hunter.
-
Is Shoreham the suitable type of venue for such types to be displayed regardless.
-
There seems to have been an establishment agenda to try to push the idea of ‘pilot error’ in this case as opposed to mechanical failure.
WOOOOSSSHHHHH.
Years ago when I was in college doing my training prior to going to sea I made a Spitfire model with about 2 ft wingspan, it had a 0.49cc glow plug engine and it flew round and round in circles ( bit like some posts on here) on the end of two thin cords, well it should have done but I crashed it on it’s maiden flight so it goes that if someone can be an expert on a subject after reading it up on the web then I am an even bigger expert Spitfire pilot and plane manufacturer ! yes?
^^^^ I had similar, but it was an American Mustang. It was incredibly fast as it flew round in circles. I ended up getting very dizzy, vomiting and letting go of the handle.
quote …3) Is Shoreham the suitable type of venue for such types to be displayed regardless.
Quite possibly, after all it has, would you believe … an airport
Pilot error ■■? the ‘establishment’ (?) pushing for it … when was the official enquiry ?
the maoster:
^^^^ I had similar, but it was an American Mustang. It was incredibly fast as it flew round in circles. I ended up getting very dizzy, vomiting and letting go of the handle.
Good evening fellow expert pilot, but did you make yours? 
raymundo:
the maoster:
^^^^ I had similar, but it was an American Mustang. It was incredibly fast as it flew round in circles. I ended up getting very dizzy, vomiting and letting go of the handle.Good evening fellow expert pilot, but did you make yours?
Not exactly, I did stand right next to my Dad while he did though. Surely that qualifies me?
the maoster:
^^^^ I had similar, but it was an American Mustang. It was incredibly fast as it flew round in circles. I ended up getting very dizzy, vomiting and letting go of the handle.
Is this the one your dad made? then he’s an expert too, and you cos you’re his son.
I can beat that.
When I was about 9, my dad built a scale SE5 with fully working controls, plus an electric motor for the propeller.
It was mounted atop a Range Rover, and I piloted it through the city centre for the carnival.
We would have won first place, but the judges ruled it was a real aircraft and took the win off us
My father has also built a full scale Hurricane replica and a full scale Gloster E28
Spot on raymundo, we should take our show on the road. This time next year Rodney…