Sea Harriers
Thread Starter
Sea Harriers
Hi everyone, I just thought I'd take some time out to sort through my collection of aircraft photos and found these in a folder on my computer. They were taken mostly on HMS Illustrious, except for the head on shot from a French C-135FR.
Enjoy...
SB
Enjoy...
SB
Excellent photos - and a sad reminder of a capability prematurely thrown away by this so-called government...
A box of Kleenex for WEBF please......
A box of Kleenex for WEBF please......
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One point has always intrigued me.
Why did the Sea Harrier have a Starboard Facing Oblique F-95 camera ? (rather than the more normal Port Facing Oblique -as in the first generation RAF Harriers ).
Why did the Sea Harrier have a Starboard Facing Oblique F-95 camera ? (rather than the more normal Port Facing Oblique -as in the first generation RAF Harriers ).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last a question I can answer !
Imagine, as I'm sure you have done, ' panning' a stills camera to get a moving target, ie at an airshow aircraft doing a low pass in focus, background blurred to show the speed or at least keep the aircraft sharp.
With modern digital civilian kit you could freeze both from a bystanders's point of view but it certainly wouldn't show the aircraft speed / height / position for useful tactical purposes.
The Vinten F-95 recce' camera had a system of moving the film across the film plane DURING the exposure, just as if one was ' panning ' a stills camera at at a moving object.
It also had a mild vacuum system to keep the film onto the film plane, though this was deleted on export versions ( F-100 ) and I suspect rarely bothered with on operations.
I spent a lot of time with this camera, but still found it very difficult to engage the ' inching on ' knob with the film side perforations by feel ( all one had to go on ) - I confessed to one cocked up test flight because of that, and people fell over like the palm trees launching Thunderbird 2 because I admitted it !
The reason the F-95 was on the different side from Sea Harrier compared to GR3 etc was simply to fit kit in, but keep the 'panning' system the same- camera mounted upside down in the Sea Harrier for that reason.
It was obviously a mild sod to work on, but nothing compared to the average fitter's job, especially on something like the Hunter.
I work at a museum now where there's a Swift, as you know delegated to low level recce' with 3 x F-95's - I'd love to see how the poor sods worked on these ! Ours ( Tangmere ) is an earlier example.
We also had to test a Vinten recce' pod for another export country which stands out particularly among others - while other systems ran fine, the F-100 nose camera and actual mechanical design of the pod left a lot to be desired .
When asked to write a report on the thing, I was taken aside, though not bolllocked, it was commented " we wished you hadn't used words like ' need to be improved' or ' defect' as they're a bit of a bother !
J.F, I know you are busy at the moment ( & Ta ) but I'm sure you'll know what I mean.
The F-95 used low quality optics and systems, above all the reliance on a berk like me for ( or in action a front liner ) for the settings,having to best-guess the speed & height of a recce' pass from a briefing he may or probably not was privy- to - how many of you pilots fancy being restritced by that ?!!!
DZ ( That monniker was a mistake, I meant Dastardly & Muttley's car, not 00 bloody 7 - will have to find how to get a motif onto my callsign ).
Imagine, as I'm sure you have done, ' panning' a stills camera to get a moving target, ie at an airshow aircraft doing a low pass in focus, background blurred to show the speed or at least keep the aircraft sharp.
With modern digital civilian kit you could freeze both from a bystanders's point of view but it certainly wouldn't show the aircraft speed / height / position for useful tactical purposes.
The Vinten F-95 recce' camera had a system of moving the film across the film plane DURING the exposure, just as if one was ' panning ' a stills camera at at a moving object.
It also had a mild vacuum system to keep the film onto the film plane, though this was deleted on export versions ( F-100 ) and I suspect rarely bothered with on operations.
I spent a lot of time with this camera, but still found it very difficult to engage the ' inching on ' knob with the film side perforations by feel ( all one had to go on ) - I confessed to one cocked up test flight because of that, and people fell over like the palm trees launching Thunderbird 2 because I admitted it !
The reason the F-95 was on the different side from Sea Harrier compared to GR3 etc was simply to fit kit in, but keep the 'panning' system the same- camera mounted upside down in the Sea Harrier for that reason.
It was obviously a mild sod to work on, but nothing compared to the average fitter's job, especially on something like the Hunter.
I work at a museum now where there's a Swift, as you know delegated to low level recce' with 3 x F-95's - I'd love to see how the poor sods worked on these ! Ours ( Tangmere ) is an earlier example.
We also had to test a Vinten recce' pod for another export country which stands out particularly among others - while other systems ran fine, the F-100 nose camera and actual mechanical design of the pod left a lot to be desired .
When asked to write a report on the thing, I was taken aside, though not bolllocked, it was commented " we wished you hadn't used words like ' need to be improved' or ' defect' as they're a bit of a bother !
J.F, I know you are busy at the moment ( & Ta ) but I'm sure you'll know what I mean.
The F-95 used low quality optics and systems, above all the reliance on a berk like me for ( or in action a front liner ) for the settings,having to best-guess the speed & height of a recce' pass from a briefing he may or probably not was privy- to - how many of you pilots fancy being restritced by that ?!!!
DZ ( That monniker was a mistake, I meant Dastardly & Muttley's car, not 00 bloody 7 - will have to find how to get a motif onto my callsign ).
