No testing required. Just get a VSO to say its ok.

Jet,

Not quite, just paint "Experimental" in small letters under the cockpit and all the problems are solved.

SS

Did a few approaches to Waddington past my house at 1530 nearly fell over when I saw it

Did anyone notice the rather marked nose down shove it was given as it passed through around 500'? I watched it take off (no option, waiting for the runway lights to change) and I had a genuine 'Oh !!!!' moment. Don't know what they were doing but it didn't look good from where I was sat.

Does it have to go through BD?

Yep, I saw the nose down pitch - had the initial same gulp!

Probably only the pilot adjusting his camera :}

If the non-handling pilot doesn't put a fair bit of nose-down elevator in, you tend to get a wheelie!

At 500ft? on lift off :hmm:
regards,Den.

Probably something to do with the centre of gravity shift rearwards on rotation of the rations and canteen area, as everyone except the front end crew aim to get fed...:E

Look at instruments, look at instruments, check outside, bugger.

Believe your instruments?

"At 500ft? on lift off??"

Didn't both the B-47 and the B-52 have attitude issues on take off?

And somewhere I've still go a copy of the first ed. of "handling the Big Jets" where people are being warned (in the '70's still:sad::sad:) to pay serious attention to attitude

With all the add-ons I'd be amazed if it flew like a 707 TBH

LFH

HH
I assumed that TeBoi was on about landing ;)
Regards, Den.

For the sheer fact it's not a 707, I'd be amazed if it flew like a 707 too.

Other than it being ~500'AGL instead of ~2,000', that does sound like the "low noise" take-off the B737, & B727 I flew in (as passenger) out of John Wayne Int'l (Orange County, CA) in 1985 & 86.

A max-power max climb-rate take-off followed by a leveling-off and major power reduction as the aircraft passed over a large housing development.

And since the same profile was flown both times I flew out from there (Republic and Western), it was intentional.

In the latest news statement on Rivet Joint MoD's Chief of Materiel (Air), Air Marshal Simon Bollom states "We have procured an aircraft with a proven track record". Now let us see what H-C stated after reviewing the Nimrod safety case;


Reliance on past data cannot be considered a substitute for critical hazard analysis as to the risk of a catastrophic event in the future. In simple terms, whilst an incident database may tell you what has happened in the past, it does not tell you what might, or could, happen in the future. It should be remembered that the day before Piper Alpha disaster itself in 1988, and the Challenger in 1986, the platforms involved were 'safe' based on an analysis of past incidents alone. [And Nimrod XV230 was considered 'safe' on the morning of 2nd Sept 2006 --- My addition]




You have to prove a platform is safe by producing a valid safety case. This means developing a properly structured Hazard Log, which looks at what could happen. Several people, including two very senior officers, were "crucified" in the H-C review for not doing this. By releasing Rivet Joint for operational use MoD/MAA has learned nothing from H-C and the loss of Nimrod XV230.

DV

It has the same engines as the E3's that fly from the same place which do departures without managing to make onlookers go wobbly. It and the E3 aren't exactly noisy anyway..

As Lord Flasheart says, it may have been a practice something or other. I was merely commenting on the odd departure.

A Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft has been flown in UK airspace by an RAF aircrew f
 

and scapegoat elected:-

"The MOD's Chief of Materiel (Air), Air Marshal Simon Bollom, who oversaw the procurement of the aircraft, said:"