Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

QBF Flypast vs Sky News

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

QBF Flypast vs Sky News

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 13th Jun 2016, 15:49
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: home for good
Posts: 494
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
ACW367 - you may be right but there has certainly been a relatively 'large' flypast since 1990. Can't remember the occasion but certainly remember the sight from the Mighty Hunter's beam window. It looked like a WWII dogfight movie as the RAF's finest collection of (very) dis-similar types turned, climbed and/or descended while adjusting speeds like mad to get (relatively) assembled prior to bimbling up the mall. The wetties reckoned they could have got a direct hit with a yoghurt from the C or D launcher
Don't forget the mandatory practice days that the boys and girls would have needed before some Duty Holder would have signed it off. Doing display/flypast stuff was fun but still meant a working weekend so well done to all involved.
Sandy Parts is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2016, 20:50
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 2,715
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Aside from the lack of combat a/c, the other thing I wondered was why the 146 was put behind the C17 - looked like a bit of an uncomfortable ride!
Wycombe is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2016, 13:23
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wycombe
Aside from the lack of combat a/c, the other thing I wondered was why the 146 was put behind the C17 - looked like a bit of an uncomfortable ride!
It wasn't the C17 causing the uncomfortable ride. That suffered from the same turbulent air, just to a lesser degree.
Sveneng is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2016, 19:04
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: England
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Half watched it b for a few seconds as I was at work but I thought it an appropriate flypast in keeping for our leaner times. I actually didn't know we had some of those aircraft. Why no UAV? (because face it they're the future) (unless I missed it - serious question is it not allowed to fly alongside other aircraft etc?
Agree with some the Royals looked a bit too over dressed and blingy - need to stow the uniforms and wear gongs they genuinely deserve.
Hangarshuffle is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2016, 19:07
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
I'm sure that in the planning for the flypast the Standard Turbulence Separation Distances were applied for each category of aircraft? Either that or the elements were 500/1000ft vertically separated? Flying 30 seconds behind a Voyager or an Atlas, at the same height, is most probably not too comfortable

Last edited by Dominator2; 15th Jun 2016 at 19:55.
Dominator2 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.