558 landing sunday RIAT

[Bovril]

[Mayfly]

I wouldn't say it was conclusive but it does look close.

[Dan4th]

I think we'd all agree a trail of
sparks would not be good.....

Danf.

[Jigsaw]

That's a great shot

[Mayfly]

Heres a close crop of it on UKar - not sure if it's from the same photo.

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic. ... &start=800

[Hungry Haggis]

It's from a different angle look at the XH558 on the fin Didn't she come close to a tail strike last year sometime .. The pics look like they were taken by 2 different people next to each other , can't see any sparks to suggest a strike though.

[Gully]

No point in having that bumper switch if you're not going to use it!

From our view on Sunday it looked close, but I couldn't say there was a touch...

Gully

[Dan4th]

What is the Bumper/Striker composed of?

One would think there would be some sort
of sparks or flying grit or some other kind
of an indication of contact with the runway
surface.....

I, for one, do not see any of this....

Close, but No Cigar

Danf.

[Bovril]

the crew will have been fully aware of the position of the tail, so no problems

[Sooty655]

There isn't a bumper as such. The domed fairing which appears close to the ground in the UKAR shot is thin sheet aluminium, and extremely breakable. Extending from it is a steel rod with a hardened tip, which is spring loaded and operates two micro-switches to illuminate two red warning lights at the pilot's eye level. The two circuits are independant for redundancy.

My reading of the UKAR photo is that the fairing is almost in contact but not quite. The steel rod would certainly be in contact with the runway, but as it is sprung, probably not hard enough to generate sparks. If the pilot claims neither light was on, then that must be correct, mustn't it??

[Ray C]

Wonderfully said Sir Sooty....

[Bubbles]

The picture on UKARSE was a just an attempt at stirring it up. The thing flew out on Monday with no damage that I could see.

[Dan4th]

I Agree.............

UKAR: Teapot/Tempest In A

Danf.

[Exceptionalsleeper]

The picture on UKARSE was a just an attempt at stirring it up. The thing flew out on Monday with no damage that I could see.

What I read on UKAR was a discussion and not an attempt to stir it up. That surprisingly is what a forum is for, to discuss opinions.

Being away @ Offutt AFB, I will sadly miss all the displays and airshows this year. I do hope to catch up with you next year Bubbles, Waddington especially and if you're a good boy, I might give you a guided tour around our new RC135W Rivet Joint.

[Bubbles]

I think you have to understand the mindset of certain people on UKARSE to see beyond the words.

Have to be honest with you but rivet joint doesn't float my boat. Seen one airliner and you've seen 'em all kind of thing. Just a different interior really, but thanks for the kind offer.

[Dan4th]

Actually, Bubs, the C/KC/RC 135 is a totally different
aircraft from the Boeing 707

It is based upon the airliner prototype which was
completely redesigned and with no interchangeability
of any parts except perhaps for rivets

'Snot an Airliner

Danf

[Bubbles]

Still looks like one to me.

[Lucas1860]

The angle of that close up shot fools the eye, on looking at that there is still clearance, its how it looks with the shadow, bearing in mind for the landing position and the time it landed, on both days, the sun would have shadowed away from the crowd line, as in this shot. No touch.

[Exceptionalsleeper]

Actually, Bubs, the C/KC/RC 135 is a totally different
aircraft from the Boeing 707

It is based upon the airliner prototype which was
completely redesigned and with no interchangeability
of any parts except perhaps for rivets

'Snot an Airliner

Danf

Took the words right out of my mouth Danf, but that is the difference between a serious aircraft enthusiast and well, the "uneducated" types!

[Bubbles]

Really? Which category do you fall in? Can't seem to find one labelled "insufferable knob" in your post.

For the record I'm not an 'uneducated type' I just find the RC135 about as interesting as watching paint dry, given the choice I'd watch the latter rather than the former.

[Mayfly]

Don't go there guys - make it personal and posts will removed/edited.

MF

[Sploosher]

Don't go there guys - make it personal and posts will removed/edited.

MF

here here MF, I know that everyone is entilted to their opininon, but there is no need to get personal guys, please keep it clean and unoffensive..........

Personally, I would rather have seen Nimrod fly for many more years rather than us `importing` more technology from across the pond............

[Aceyone]

Blimey ,for a minute there I thought I had clicked on the wrong forum

[Exceptionalsleeper]

Really? Which category do you fall in? Can't seem to find one labelled "insufferable knob" in your post.

For the record I'm not an 'uneducated type' I just find the RC135 about as interesting as watching paint dry, given the choice I'd watch the latter rather than the former.

Bubbles, I was congratulating Danf on his knowledge and if you thought I was referring to you has a "uneducated type" then you really have got the wrong end of the stick. I was referring some of the RAF top brass who thought we could carry on on-the-job training on the E-3D - perhaps I should have explained for YOUR clarity. Regardless, I'm actually insulted by your vulgar comment and after I was courteous to offer you a look round the RAF's new aircraft too. I have tried to be friendly Bubbles.