A TV programme to watch...Free Flight 22 miles

[paul]

James Mays Toy Stories "Flight Club"
Aired Sunday 30/12/12 BBC2 7.00pm
Dont know how you will be able to see this, maybe I player or youtube?

[Phugoid]

Yes it was a Very good programme. In the opening scenes you will notice that the little boy (meant to be James May) was throwing a Guillows model......

Andrew

[paul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k41z_ujop4

[Wildpig]

Splendid. Great story.

I like the English talk, ...stability of the box was a problem , "so we nicked the airfield's windsock".



(Edited for proper English)

[Phugoid]

James May likes to believe that all British inventions happen in garden sheds, by using what you can lay your hands on....thinking about it, this is probably true , we are all fond of our sheds.......

Is "nicked" as in grabbed or stolen used as a word in the US?

Andrew

[Phugoid]

I think that the subtle difference is the "k" . with it it's a notch or cut, like you'd expect. without it is what you are if you are caught in the act by the police ...... As in "oi sonny, you're nicked!"

I suppose in that context it's more of a thing most common in London......

[kittyfritters]

Now matter how the language is spoken, that was just plain fun to watch!

[paul]

English humour is so very different to our American cousins
I found this amusing at times, especially when he hit he's head

James May is a Co-Presenter on a programme in England called Top Gear and is also a Pilot

[Wildpig]

James May likes to believe that all British inventions happen in garden sheds, by using what you can lay your hands on....thinking about it, this is probably true , we are all fond of our sheds.......

Andrew

Arthur "two sheds" Jackson.

(Sorry, couldn't help myself. Just had to say that line from Monty Python).

[Phugoid]

What this one?

http://youtu.be/HLjS3gzHetA

The one in the picture in the background looks the same as mine. I told you we are very fond of 'em.....

Andrew "one shed" Darby.....

[kittyfritters]

22 miles may be a record for a deliberate free flight, but not for an accidental one.

In 1949 a Wakefield model went out of sight in a thermal at a contest in Sacramento, California. The model was mailed back to the builder from Salt Lake City, Utah. It had crossed the Sierras and Rockies covering a direct distance of 561 miles although with the recorded winds aloft during that period it was estimated the the model had actually flown about 900 miles.

What I think may be the absolute record for a free flight model was set when a modeler lost an A2 glider, out of sight in a thermal, at the Sepulveda Basin (Los Angeles)in the early 1960s. The model was returned by someone who saw it land in St Louis, Missouri. The model had covered a direct distance of 1585 miles. This says something about the prevailing winds at high altitudes over the Sierras and Rockies since both of the landing points are on a bearing of 70 degrees from the source.

In both those cases it was theorized that the thermal carried the model high enough for it to become caught in a lee wave, at the first mountain range it encountered, which carried it up high enough to be caught in the jet stream. At both Sacramento and Los Angeles there are 4000 foot plus mountain ranges a short distance to the East of where the models were launched.

If anyone knows of any longer, confirmed, accidental flights, please, let me know.

Make sure that your dethermalizers are reliable and that your name and phone number is on your models.

[Steve Blanchard]

I'm so glad you mentioned that. I was wondering about a couple of things. Firstly let me say that was a thoroughly enjoyable show. I really liked all of the engineering and discovery that went into making this whole thing work. Now, That is not free flight. There is a GPS controller that makes sure it stays on course. I think they'd be better off saying it was a record straight distance flight by a toy glider.

I know of some flights that had traveled several miles gliding on thermals for over 45 minutes. I had a flight of one of my scale racers, a Laird LC-DC biplane, that was caught in a thermal for over 8 minutes and landed more than a 1/2 mile away. All the time gliding in circles. The same model flew OOS (out of sight) a year later in Wawayanda New York on a day where the visibility was clear and I lost it with the use of binoculars at around 4-5 miles. Again all the time circling, and it specked out at least still 300 feet in the air probably more. So I would guess that it more than covered the 22 miles of forward flght.

Again I'm not knocking the show at all. I really liked it. I just think that Kittyfritters has a very valid point. I'm only one guy. I'll bet there are thousands who have seen the same and better.

Steve

[kittyfritters]

There was another similar incident involving an F-102 or F-106 (?) which flew for awhile on its own.

The most noted such incident was the loss of an SM-62, Snark, intercontinental cruise missile during testing in 1956. It was launched from Cape Canaveral on a supposedly controlled round trip to Puerto Rico. Shortly after launch it went off course and the range safety officer could neither take control of it nor destroy it. The Snark had a bad reputation for an inaccurate and unreliable guidance system and a primitive threat assessment system that could not take evasive maneuvers to avoid interception. This test showed just what the treat assessment system could do when it worked although why it was on is a mystery in this case.

Since it's maximum cruising altitude was about 55,000 feet and it's maximum speed was about 650 mph, it was considered easy to intercept by fighters operational in the mid 1950s. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Every air defense system in the Caribbean was alerted and every type of fighter jet in the inventory of the Air Force in the area was scrambled, (The official report was that it was too late to scramble fighters when they realized it was off course.) along with the air forces of every country in the area. The missile could be easily tracked on radar, but the threat assessment system was operating and not a single interceptor could get close enough for a shot. It overflew several other heavily defended areas before running out of fuel (It's range was over 5,500 miles, although the official report said it only had 2400 miles of fuel on board.) and landing in dense jungle of Northeastern Brazil. The situation was so embarrassing that the fact that the missile was successfully avoiding interception on its own was left out of any public descriptions of the incident. It was finally found in 1983. The description I have of the incident was from someone who was involved with it.

Some of the reports are very instructive about the problems of interception with fighters of the 1950s. For example, at one point, an F-100 pilot got it in sight and made a head on pass. The Snark detected his gun sight radar and made and evasive maneuver, forcing the fighter pilot to miss his chance at a shot. It then returned to its original course after the fighter overshot. The F-100 was near it's service ceiling and the pilot was forced to make a very wide radius turn to avoid stalling at that altitude. By the time he had made the 180 degree turn and was in a position to chase the Snark he no longer had enough fuel to catch it at full afterburner and without the afterburner was not fast enough to catch it at that altitude. Basically, with the performance of the aircraft of the day, you got one shot at something with that kind of speed and altitude performance and if you missed you were done.

[Phugoid]

There are a lot of bad things about this country, the weather, the price of stuff etc but poor TV is not one of them.....We're lucky to have the BBC. They make very good programmes and science and technology has a high priority at the moment......and not one ad break in sight!

Glad you all enjoyed it, and well done to Paul for finding the link to the you tube version....

Andrew

[Wildpig]

Errant free flight full size aircraft seems to happen quite a bit. I have a few stories but, that Snark one takes the cake.

There are a lot of bad things about this country, the weather, the price of stuff etc but poor TV is not one of them.....We're lucky to have the BBC. They make very good programmes and science and technology has a high priority at the moment......and not one ad break in sight!

Glad you all enjoyed it, and well done to Paul for finding the link to the you tube version....

Andrew

That story had a lot of appeal for several reasons. One of which is very little camera antics. Most, if not all, American TV shows about science and technology stuff is chock full of camera antics and annoying editing. They just can't seem to stop playing with the stinking zoom. They must be low budget productions because they can't afford a tripod to rest their cameras on, either.
Or maybe they suffer from Essential Tremor. I noticed very little camera antics with James May's show and I don't recall any of that "poof" white flash to the next scene. "poof" white flash to the next scene. Thankfully, the Brits seem a bit more sane and serious when it comes filmography.