Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About squezzer

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. He would have try to get airborne again. In case of failure, he would have crashed. It happen sometimes. Since Newton invented gravity years ago, things tend to fall back to ground after a trip in the air...I m kidding of course but 100% safety doesn't not exist, most of the people in aircraft business are involved and well trained, the world safety record is quite good and far better the road safety record just to mention one, even in countries with a strong law enforcement system. This said, human beings can fail or can do stupid things, accidents happen after a very unlikely combination of
  2. It is a fact that modern aicraft design and assistance systems push the limits but the limits exist anyway...
  3. Sure but considering the extra weight and technical complexity, I guess that the gains of that system were not sufficient to be widely used on most of aircraft types.
  4. I don't know the specifics for the A380 but most of the time, the rudder and the front landing gear are actuated together by the pedals as soon as the front landing gear oleo is compressed. The amount of control respectively provided by each one depends on the airspeed. At high rolling speed, whithout rudder authority, the front wheels would rotate and skid and the plane would roll on its side instead of making a flat turn on its wheels.
  5. On the other hand, crosswinds or shearwinds are sometime very local phenomenon which axis is not parallel to the main wind axis the runway is supposed to be parallel to.
  6. Actually, the landing gear was designed and built by Safran Landing Systems, formerly Messier-Bugatti, one the world leaders since years in that business.
  7. Affirm...my 27th St Eloi is coming (Nenesse)
  8. It said in the comments under the video: crosswinds, nothing to see with the aircraft.😉
  9. It was designated F1-E. There is not much about it on the internet as it has been a single prototype. I ve read it was longer (50ft 11.5in) than the regular F1-C (49ft 26in), the air intakes and their shock cones were enlarged and the landing gear was strengthened. From the pictures, the nose cone / fuselage junction was slanted and the nose itself seems more ogival to me. The rest of the airframe including the wings is pretty much the same as the standard F1-C. I think that you best bet is to seek for articles and pictures of Le Bourget airshow of 1975. As Patrick l'Arpete wrote it in t
  10. I don't know what these primers are made of but it not because they are odorless that they are not harmfull. Carbon monoxyde is odorless but it kills you. Just my 2 cents
  11. I think it is a very good idea but it was intended to celebrate the centennial of the battles, there is a mistake. The take of the fort of Douaumont was a sequel of the battle of Verdun an took place in 1916. Caporetto was in 1917 an so on. No offense here, I just point out something may be wrong according to the initial intents. As I do not how to contact the site owner, I post here. ;)/>
  12. It was not a sarcasm, just an information to point that there was a major inaccuracy on this boxart. I did not link this inaccuracy to the quality of the kit itself.
  13. You are right, it seems that the missiles are 9-L. We never had this type in the french air force inventory. Moreover, the Mirage is in NMF finish, it means that the action on the boxart takes place in the 60's as the Mirage weared a NATO (kind of) camouflage circa 1970. The 9-L entered in service at the end of the 70s. Therefore, Mirage IIIE in NMF should be equipped with 9-B winders or Matra 530 on the centerline. The MAGIC I was introduced circa 1976.
  • Create New...