Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Some very sad news...

Some very sad news...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
htmlannouncement
17 Posts 5 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • G glennPattonPub

    Hi All, I know Nagy a few others (who are aircraft nuts) will know the name Eric 'Winkle' Brown. He held the world records for aircraft carrier landings (only recently broken!) as well as the number of different planes flown (not likely to be broken!). Never met him but was told by those who did 'he is truely a nice guy!' heres a link Vulcan To The Sky - Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown.[^] look him up on Wikipedia. :sigh:

    D Offline
    D Offline
    Duncan Edwards Jones
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    Sad that he has died, but my goodness what an extraordinary life he lived.

    G 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • D Duncan Edwards Jones

      Sad that he has died, but my goodness what an extraordinary life he lived.

      G Offline
      G Offline
      glennPattonPub
      wrote on last edited by
      #4

      Well, I wish I had the chance to meet him in 2001 like a couple of my friends. Mind you 97 is not a bad innings for a test pilot!

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • L Lost User

        I do believe you forgot to mention that actual "very sad news". I guess I can assume he died, but it is possible that instead he is a born again Christian now. I am not sure which would be more depressing, but then again I do not know the chap. Yes, I can click the link and find out. But a summary of your headline is nice.

        Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.

        G Offline
        G Offline
        glennPattonPub
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        Point taken! Winkle has died :(

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • G glennPattonPub

          Hi All, I know Nagy a few others (who are aircraft nuts) will know the name Eric 'Winkle' Brown. He held the world records for aircraft carrier landings (only recently broken!) as well as the number of different planes flown (not likely to be broken!). Never met him but was told by those who did 'he is truely a nice guy!' heres a link Vulcan To The Sky - Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown.[^] look him up on Wikipedia. :sigh:

          B Offline
          B Offline
          Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          As I understand it his 2400+ landings is still the record, the closest is about 2000ish for a US pilot but that includes second seat and passenger landing whilst Brown is actual landings. his record also includes the first multi engine landing, the first angled flight desk landing and the first jet landing on a aircraft carrier (and being the chief test pilot for the rubber deck project which involved landing a p[lane without landing gear on a rubber deck de Havilland Sea Vampire Flexible Deck Landing - YouTube[^]) another point is that a large proportion of these were on pre angled deck carriers which meant that if you missed the wires you crashed big time and not just got to go round again as a modern navy pilot gets to do

          You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

          G 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • G glennPattonPub

            Hi All, I know Nagy a few others (who are aircraft nuts) will know the name Eric 'Winkle' Brown. He held the world records for aircraft carrier landings (only recently broken!) as well as the number of different planes flown (not likely to be broken!). Never met him but was told by those who did 'he is truely a nice guy!' heres a link Vulcan To The Sky - Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown.[^] look him up on Wikipedia. :sigh:

            X Offline
            X Offline
            xiecsuk
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            If anyone deserved to be knighted for services to his country, he did.

            G 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B Bergholt Stuttley Johnson

              As I understand it his 2400+ landings is still the record, the closest is about 2000ish for a US pilot but that includes second seat and passenger landing whilst Brown is actual landings. his record also includes the first multi engine landing, the first angled flight desk landing and the first jet landing on a aircraft carrier (and being the chief test pilot for the rubber deck project which involved landing a p[lane without landing gear on a rubber deck de Havilland Sea Vampire Flexible Deck Landing - YouTube[^]) another point is that a large proportion of these were on pre angled deck carriers which meant that if you missed the wires you crashed big time and not just got to go round again as a modern navy pilot gets to do

              You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

              G Offline
              G Offline
              glennPattonPub
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              Ahh, I heard in passing that a US pilot had beaten his record (not how). On thing I belive he also made the first tricycle under carriage landing (in a P63 Kingcobra). With Chuck Yeager one of the few orignals :thumbsup: :sigh: I will watch the rubber deck landing later, I have seen the photos in Wings On My Sleeve.

              B 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • X xiecsuk

                If anyone deserved to be knighted for services to his country, he did.

                G Offline
                G Offline
                glennPattonPub
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

                I must agree! :thumbsup:

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • G glennPattonPub

                  Ahh, I heard in passing that a US pilot had beaten his record (not how). On thing I belive he also made the first tricycle under carriage landing (in a P63 Kingcobra). With Chuck Yeager one of the few orignals :thumbsup: :sigh: I will watch the rubber deck landing later, I have seen the photos in Wings On My Sleeve.

                  B Offline
                  B Offline
                  Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #10

                  not a p63 but a p39 - on an empty carrier (the crew wasn't expecting him and went for lunch) so no arrester gear was deployed but he still managed the landing not technically the first tricycle landing as one of the aircraft in ww1 was officially classed as a having one IIRC the US did try to beat his record but the pilot suffered a nervous breakdown before breaking 2000. seemingly Neil Armstrong wanted him for the moon landing but Brown refused to give up his British nationality

                  You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                  G 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • B Bergholt Stuttley Johnson

                    not a p63 but a p39 - on an empty carrier (the crew wasn't expecting him and went for lunch) so no arrester gear was deployed but he still managed the landing not technically the first tricycle landing as one of the aircraft in ww1 was officially classed as a having one IIRC the US did try to beat his record but the pilot suffered a nervous breakdown before breaking 2000. seemingly Neil Armstrong wanted him for the moon landing but Brown refused to give up his British nationality

                    You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                    G Offline
                    G Offline
                    glennPattonPub
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    Truely he had 'them' of stainless steel, I though it was P63 King Cobra as it had a more powerful engine than P39 Cobra. I think it was a case 'tis better to plead forgiveness, than seek permisson' :), I didn't know of the moon landing, I would not be supprised though he seemed to be of a more stable personality than Buzz Alderin, a number of Brits worked on it (Authur C Clarke etc.)

                    B 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • G glennPattonPub

                      Truely he had 'them' of stainless steel, I though it was P63 King Cobra as it had a more powerful engine than P39 Cobra. I think it was a case 'tis better to plead forgiveness, than seek permisson' :), I didn't know of the moon landing, I would not be supprised though he seemed to be of a more stable personality than Buzz Alderin, a number of Brits worked on it (Authur C Clarke etc.)

                      B Offline
                      B Offline
                      Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      The P63 was pretty much a different aircraft to the P39 Airacobra (as named by the Brits) other than the layout, few parts were common between the two, they basically took a P39 replaced the wings with a different airfoil section, put a bigger engine in with a different supercharger, replaced the tail, up rated the undercarriage lengthened and strengthened fuselage and redesigned the nose and the cockpit layout but the guns were the same as was the cab door to the cockpit! but after all that it was inferior to the other allied fighters available so was fobbed off on the russians ps you were right about the tricycle carrier landing as the one I was aware of is not actually classed as a tricycle

                      You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                      G 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • B Bergholt Stuttley Johnson

                        The P63 was pretty much a different aircraft to the P39 Airacobra (as named by the Brits) other than the layout, few parts were common between the two, they basically took a P39 replaced the wings with a different airfoil section, put a bigger engine in with a different supercharger, replaced the tail, up rated the undercarriage lengthened and strengthened fuselage and redesigned the nose and the cockpit layout but the guns were the same as was the cab door to the cockpit! but after all that it was inferior to the other allied fighters available so was fobbed off on the russians ps you were right about the tricycle carrier landing as the one I was aware of is not actually classed as a tricycle

                        You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                        G Offline
                        G Offline
                        glennPattonPub
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #13

                        I was told by a friend of Dads who was on some trips to Russia (on a MAC) that the reason the Soviets liked the P-39 (P-63 as well I guess) it performed well a low to mid altitudes where the most of the fighting was done, also the cannon which the Soviet air force loved. However it could not climb well and in the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra the engine was behind the pilot I guess they not fun to crash :wtf: !

                        B 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • G glennPattonPub

                          I was told by a friend of Dads who was on some trips to Russia (on a MAC) that the reason the Soviets liked the P-39 (P-63 as well I guess) it performed well a low to mid altitudes where the most of the fighting was done, also the cannon which the Soviet air force loved. However it could not climb well and in the P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra the engine was behind the pilot I guess they not fun to crash :wtf: !

                          B Offline
                          B Offline
                          Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #14

                          they were originally supposed to have both a supercharger and a turbo charger but when they built them they just couldn't fit the turbo with all the pipework it needed so it ended up with just the supercharger and it killed the mid to high altitude performance - exactly the zone the European air war was fought, so they dumped them on the Russians who found that anything was better than the i16's I doubt it was fun to crash any prop fighter, it would be difficult to choose between being squashed by a big engine and squashing into one either way it would leaver little to recover although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions

                          You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                          G 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • B Bergholt Stuttley Johnson

                            they were originally supposed to have both a supercharger and a turbo charger but when they built them they just couldn't fit the turbo with all the pipework it needed so it ended up with just the supercharger and it killed the mid to high altitude performance - exactly the zone the European air war was fought, so they dumped them on the Russians who found that anything was better than the i16's I doubt it was fun to crash any prop fighter, it would be difficult to choose between being squashed by a big engine and squashing into one either way it would leaver little to recover although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions

                            You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                            G Offline
                            G Offline
                            glennPattonPub
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #15

                            Quote:

                            although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions

                            Ahh you mean the Dornier Do335 Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] not sure but I seem to remember some thing about it being the fast prop aircraft of WWII. As they say 'Taking off is optional, landing not so much!'.

                            B 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • G glennPattonPub

                              Quote:

                              although there was that heinkel that had one in from and one behind the pilot so you got both versions

                              Ahh you mean the Dornier Do335 Dornier Do 335 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] not sure but I seem to remember some thing about it being the fast prop aircraft of WWII. As they say 'Taking off is optional, landing not so much!'.

                              B Offline
                              B Offline
                              Bergholt Stuttley Johnson
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #16

                              that's the one, IIRC only a handful of pilots ever flew it (including Brown by the way) and whilst fast was a pig to fly and had a tendency for the rear engine to overheat and either sever the rear controls or set off the explosives that were installed to blow off the tail (so the pilot could bail out)

                              You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                              G 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • B Bergholt Stuttley Johnson

                                that's the one, IIRC only a handful of pilots ever flew it (including Brown by the way) and whilst fast was a pig to fly and had a tendency for the rear engine to overheat and either sever the rear controls or set off the explosives that were installed to blow off the tail (so the pilot could bail out)

                                You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.

                                G Offline
                                G Offline
                                glennPattonPub
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #17

                                Mad, this weekend I am going find my copy of 'Wings on my sleeve', didn't he also fly the Me-163 (with out the rocket!) and a He-162 (wings held on with glue!)...

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                Reply
                                • Reply as topic
                                Log in to reply
                                • Oldest to Newest
                                • Newest to Oldest
                                • Most Votes


                                • Login

                                • Don't have an account? Register

                                • Login or register to search.
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Categories
                                • Recent
                                • Tags
                                • Popular
                                • World
                                • Users
                                • Groups