Re: Gooseneck Flare Simulation - Comments Please!
Reply With Quote
I think one needs to be careful about the need to get this simulation right. As I mentioned earlier the 'Standard Flarepath' was far from standard.
My experience (with hindsight!) of reading Air Publications is that they are frequently very wrong. The modern equivalent is the computer software instruction manual which describes 'this is how it was meant to be'. They then omit the essential 'you may however find it behaves in a very different manner.
Browsing through numerous TNA documents on technical stuff over the years, it became obvious that many stations 'did their own thing', especially when it came to airfield lighting and synthetic training simulators. They used whatever was available at the time to produce something which worked for them. Regarding synthetic training, this later produced standards such as the Harwell Box, Thornaby Recce Trainer, Manby Spotlight Trainer, Finningley Allez-Allez Crew Trainer etc. These would then be copied and installed at appropriate airfields, though many devices remained unique as that particular station remained convinced that it was the optimum.
Of course the Drem system became the norm for electric ground lighting, and this standard system was installed on large number of airfields. However towards the end of the war the Drem MK.III variant had been specified yet I have only discovered one airfield which claimed to have had it installed (Condover !). Elements of that version were already in use at a large number of airfields.
With flares it was probably a matter of 'how many can we get our hands on?' and how best to utilise them.
Graham
Bookmarks