The plane enthusiasts thread

[DCBassman]

Ah, Canberras! Have done a sortie/jolly in the bomb aimer's slot, lots of fun, but they didn't give me any bombs to play with....
7 Sqn, RAF St. Mawgan, late 70s.

 

[MichaelW2]

Canbera is 70 years old, and still in service with NASA. Imagine a Sopworth Camel still being used in service in 1986!

 

[Cycleops]

Canbera is 70 years old, and still in service with NASA. Imagine a Sopworth Camel still being used in service in 1986!

The B-52 will be around 100 years old at the end of its service life.

 

[a.twiddler]

It's quite sobering to think that the Jet Age has lasted far longer than the period between the Wright brothers' first wobbly flight and the first jets in the 1940s. For most people alive today, jet travel is all they've known. Supersonic commercial flights have come and gone with Concorde, and flying at 600 knots for the masses has become a humdrum part of travel.

Back to Canberras. When I was in the RAF in the 70s, Canberras were thought of as quite old even then, many in storage and used for parts for the dwindling number still flying. The U.S. had their own licence built variant, so I suppose the sheer numbers built would make it more likely that there would be some survivors still today. Its distinctive shape makes it instantly recognisable, quite iconic really, particularly the PR9 with its offset cockpit canopy.

 

[DaveReading]

Canbera is 70 years old, and still in service with NASA. Imagine a Sopworth Camel still being used in service in 1986!

The NASA WB-57s are so heavily modified from the original Canberra/B-57 design that they are hardly recognisable.

Veteran USAF aircraft often seen in UK skies include, as well as the above-mentioned B-52s, the KC-135 Stratotanker, some of which date back to FY 1957.

 

[gbb]

View attachment 634567
This afternoon, collegue and myself sat on 2nd floor canteen, windows looking over the old Alconbury airbase, colleague suddenly says...over here he comes.
Just had time to get my phone out and get one snap as he flew over 100, 200 feet, low and fast....and then gone.
Airbus M400 I'd imagine.

Almost exactly the same spot today, looked up and saw the same type (maybe the actual same aircraft) , banked over low and fast on the edge of the old airfield.
I suspect its come from Mildenhall direction, headed maybe Oxford way.
Only a few seconds view of it but low, fast, always impressive. We.must be on the flight paths the military use you see quite a few different planes and helicopters pass over.

 

[Oldhippy]

Almost exactly the same spot today, looked up and saw the same type (maybe the actual same aircraft) , banked over low and fast on the edge of the old airfield.
I suspect its come from Mildenhall direction, headed maybe Oxford way.
Only a few seconds view of it but low, fast, always impressive. We.must be on the flight paths the military use you see quite a few different planes and helicopters pass over.

I used to see loads in the area when I lived in Oxford.

 

[figbat]

Almost exactly the same spot today, looked up and saw the same type (maybe the actual same aircraft) , banked over low and fast on the edge of the old airfield.
I suspect its come from Mildenhall direction, headed maybe Oxford way.
Only a few seconds view of it but low, fast, always impressive. We.must be on the flight paths the military use you see quite a few different planes and helicopters pass over.

I spotted an A400M on FlightRadar earlier today at Brize Norton, so was clearly up and about.

 

[midlife]

Every time a 400m crops up all I can imagine is Tom Cruise hanging onto one while it takes off.... His own stunt work I believe

 

[Yellow Fang]

I bought a magazine on the BAe 146 to read in the pub. When I was an ATC cadet in the 80s there was a lot of excitement about the aircraft, which I did not share as it was a civil aircraft. Now the plane is largely retired. I cannot remember ever seeing one, although I read it was Britain's most successful airliner. It was a bit niche. It had quiet engines and short takeoff ability, but I suppose four engines are less economic than two.

 

[Cycleops]

I bought a magazine on the BAe 146 to read in the pub. When I was an ATC cadet in the 80s there was a lot of excitement about the aircraft, which I did not share as it was a civil aircraft. Now the plane is largely retired. I cannot remember ever seeing one, although I read it was Britain's most successful airliner. It was a bit niche. It had quiet engines and short takeoff ability, but I suppose four engines are less economic than two.

When I was running a Hobby Stores I had a customer who used to fly them. He didn't think much of them and said you had run the engines at full throttle most of the time.
Last time I went through London City there were still quite a few.

 

[F70100]

Those 146 engines were originally designed as a helicopter engine and they were somewhat unreliable in the airline I worked for. Unscheduled engine changes at outstations we’re not as rare as they should have been. When the airline took on an extra jet type to “complement” the 146, the engineers from the manufacturer of the new type were asked how long an unscheduled engine change typically took. “Don’t know” they said, “we’ve never done one”!

The 146 also had quite a few flap problems and the crews became more expert than they should have been at doing landing performance calculations for threshold speeds 40kts faster than normal.

 

[DaveReading]

although I read it was Britain's most successful airliner

The Vickers Viscount (turboprop) was Britain's most successful airliner; the BAe 146/RJ was the most successful jet airliner.

 

[Jameshow]

The Vickers Viscount (turboprop) was Britain's most successful airliner; the BAe 146/RJ was the most successful jet airliner.

Discounting the airbus A320?!!

 

[Cycleops]

Discounting the airbus A320?!!

And discounting everything but the wings