Gallery of old junk for Jim
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: discount cheap and fashion coach handbags,purses,wallets
Next: Second-hand Mac Pro buying advice
From: Geoff Berrow on 21 Apr 2010 05:18 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:06:48 GMT, gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk (Dr Geoff Hone) wrote: >>Which gives the lie to these lunatic claims - stand in front of an >>aeroplane, and you know nothing about the `goodness' of the design. > >OK, OK, take a good long slow look at the front of a Hunter cockpit >canopy. >The front glass is divided into two. It has a large bar down the >centre - right in front of the pilot's eyes. >If you consider that to be good design, or good ergonomics, you >clearly know nothing about either. From an aesthetic point of view there are few aircraft that look so good in the air. There used to be the view that if a thing looked right it was right. I think that's clearly false, you've only got to look at F1 cars to see that aerodynamics isn't just about flowing lines. But the Hunter is still a mighty fine looking aircraft. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
From: Graeme on 21 Apr 2010 06:12 In message <4bcebafb.1818093(a)news.eternal-september.org> gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk (Dr Geoff Hone) wrote: [snip] > > Oh, I nearly forgot - the later Hunters did have missiles. Matra > rocket pods, Mavericks, and Sidewinders. The RAF used rockets in the > Aden campaign in the '60s. > > The Hunter was a very good ground attack plane. It does not have so > many air-to-air victories to its credit. To be fair, how many occasions was it involved in air-to-air combat? -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Dr Geoff Hone on 21 Apr 2010 07:54 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:12:28 +0100, Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <4bcebafb.1818093(a)news.eternal-september.org> > gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk (Dr Geoff Hone) wrote: >> The Hunter was a very good ground attack plane. It does not have so >> many air-to-air victories to its credit. > >To be fair, how many occasions was it involved in air-to-air combat? > >Graeme Wall Six-day war, Lebanon, Indo-Pakistan War. The last one is interesting in that the Indian Hunters flew against the Pakistan Air Forces F86 Sabres. Of course, both sides claim to have come out on top. Geoff > >My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Graeme on 21 Apr 2010 08:03 In message <4bcee6a5.1030468(a)news.eternal-september.org> gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk (Dr Geoff Hone) wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:12:28 +0100, Graeme > <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >In message <4bcebafb.1818093(a)news.eternal-september.org> > > gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk (Dr Geoff Hone) wrote: > > >> The Hunter was a very good ground attack plane. It does not have so > >> many air-to-air victories to its credit. > > > >To be fair, how many occasions was it involved in air-to-air combat? > > > >Graeme Wall > > Six-day war, IIRC that one involved very little in the way of air-to-air combat, most of the destruction being caused by attacks on airfields. My main memory of that conflict was the claim that the Israelis were turning round the Hunters, re-armed and re-fueled, in 9 minutes touch down to take off. > Lebanon, Again, how much a-a combat was actually involved > Indo-Pakistan War. The last one is interesting in that the Indian Hunters > flew against the Pakistan Air Forces F86 Sabres. Of course, both sides > claim to have come out on top. So not actually a good example. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Phil Taylor on 21 Apr 2010 17:36
In article <4bcebafb.1818093(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dr Geoff Hone <gnhone(a)globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > OK, OK, take a good long slow look at the front of a Hunter cockpit > canopy. > The front glass is divided into two. It has a large bar down the > centre - right in front of the pilot's eyes. Ah, just like a first generation Morris Minor. Happy memories! Phil Taylor |