Page 4 of 7

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 19:33
by Garry Russell
Don't be concerned Eric :lol:

A Royal pardon to all

It the fault of us moderators, if anyone ,for not beating you lot around the head enough before :lol: :lol: #

Just something that has slipped a bit and the edges became blurred :worried:

It's very much a 'from now' thing :D

Garry

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 20:55
by Nigel H-J
The reason for the phantom dive was due to the fact that the The Meteor 7, with its deeper nose than the fighter
variants, was directionally unstable with airbrakes out and undercarriage down, should the airbrakes be selected out and a turn made at the same time at circuit airspeed the aircraft would suddenly go into a dive. Pilots' were warned that once in circuit with the undercarriage down the airbrakes should not be extended when turning.

It became known as the 'Phantom Dive' due to no-one actually realising the cause, once the reason became known it was found that at least 3000ft would be needed to recover from it.

Nigel.

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 21:49
by FlyTexas
I never would have guessed that the Meteor was such a lethal aircraft to fly. :-O

Brian

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 22:46
by DaveB
Well.. it wasn't really Brian. They were very much delving into the unknown and even the experts of the day weren't really experts. Once the problem was realised, it no longer became a problem :)

ATB

DaveB B)smk

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 23:04
by Garry Russell
Indeed Dave :agree:

There were lots of crashes in those days by many different types. :(

Crashes of prototypes were almost routine then as they pushed the boundries into what seems obvious now but they had no idea what was ahead and couldn't predict somethings until they got "into a situation" and then they had to find a fix. In the meantime the earliest versions had a job to do and the guys on the squadrons got on with it as best they could :)

Nowdays they'll fly it all out on a computer before the metal is cut.


Garry

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 23:10
by Garry Russell
To put things in perspective...take a look at how common crashes were in normal operations let alone high performance jets

For example 30 Jan 1946 the RAF lost three Dakotas in three seperate crashes. :'(

http://aviation-safety.net/database/

Garry

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 23:15
by Sl4yer
hobby wrote:"Meatbox" = in the early days no, repeat no, ejection seats in quite a few Meteors.
The NF14 at my ATC squadron had no ejector seats! Can't imagine many Meteors did (maybe just the final single seat fighters?). The Vampire T11 we had was suitably equipped of course. :lol:

James

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 23:20
by Sl4yer
Actually, having just looked at the STUNNING pics of the Forth bridges, is there a place somewhere for an off-topic Gallery? *-) Bearing in mind that most (if not all?) of the pics are hosted elsewhere?

James

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 11 Nov 2009, 23:29
by Garry Russell
IHI James

t's been considered but we feel we don't wish to greate too many sections.

Garry

Re: Gallery content

Posted: 12 Nov 2009, 00:01
by DaveB
Yup.. E&S is the perfect place. Expect the unexpected ;)

ATB

DaveB B)smk