Hillman Imp (remember?:D) was the bee’s knees in snow conditions!
I parked at my dentist the other day next to a 3/4 scale replica Hillman Imp…
…at least I think it was a replica…..or were they always that small? :confused:
Hillman Imp (remember?:D) was the bee’s knees in snow conditions!
I parked at my dentist the other day next to a 3/4 scale replica Hillman Imp…
…at least I think it was a replica…..or were they always that small? :confused:
Strange that the gear isn’t bevelled and that it is a complete gear rather than just a geared sector; makes it look quite crude or early but then the prop is metal (as opposed to wood).
You didn’t overstep the mark or cause offence so no apology is necessary. I overstepped the mark by asking you to restrict what you posted and I thank you for your understanding. I hope you will return to this thread, you are most welcome here. 🙂 PM sent.
Mike, welcome.
I hope you find this thread interesting but can I ask you a favour; not to post ‘political’ argument.
Most of the posts here have deliberately avoided any ‘right or wrong’ discussions about this conflict and have concentrated on trying to discover as much as possible about what actually happened from both sides, to exchange information, to fill in missing pieces, and possibly to dispel some of the enduring myths.
So it is definitely HMS Conqueror then?
Yep, she was goint west. NNW exactly. Look at the progression at 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800 hs. in the chart.
Er…..isn’t that east…..east-north-east? :confused:
Extra bonus if anyone could figure out what submarine was the one going west, and why.
Is it going west?
The chart seems to show submarine track moving east between 0000 Zulu 9th May and 0000 Zulu 10th May which is interesting as HMS Conqueror was ordered north or north-east to screen the Landing Group on 9th May.
Not conclusive, just my assessment.
I was in my mums wee Yaris today…
In snow you need a small car, low power and most of all…..thin tyres.
A 2CV or an old mini will run rings round almost anything (non 4×4) on the roads! :diablo:
Oh, and you need to be able to drive too! :rolleyes:
I was in my mums wee Yaris today…
In snow you need a small car, low power and most of all…..thin tyres.
A 2CV or an old mini will run rings round almost anything (non 4×4) on the roads! :diablo:
Oh, and you need to be able to drive too! :rolleyes:
Yes, I actually meant the Taurus instead of Aquila (which I’d forgotten about). 😮
…the only Bristol sleeve valve engines that I have seen are all seized…
Seized sleeves are certainly a problem for engines that have not been run for a long time; was that true of the ones you have seen?
One thing that almost never gets mentioned is that by flying preserved aircraft it is also possible to preserve maintenance skills and knowledge that would otherwise be lost. Aren’t these just as worthy of preservation?
…fitting R3350’s to the RNHF Sea Fury’s could well overcome the reliability issues with the Centaurus…
Are there actually ‘reliability issues’ with the Centaurus?
I would have thought that the real problem would be one of spare-parts rather than any inherent reliability issues. Fifteen years ago I was told that the rebuild being done then of a Centaurus for the RNHF was the last one that could be done with ‘new’ pistons or sleeves and any more rebuilds would have to use ‘part worn’ spares.
Also would the R-3350 be any more reliable or is it just a case of more spares being available? In any case the rebuild would probably have to be done in the US (as is the case for the Centaurus) because there is enough critical-mass over there to support specialist engine builders.
Would it be possible, even if prohibitively expensive, to have new parts manufactured or are there ‘certification’ issues?
Sorry…way off thread there. :rolleyes:
Hardly. 🙂
As you say it always seems to be quoted as twenty missiles, or twenty-two (two on the launcher? – not sure they’d work after a good soaking), or wrongly forty for the ‘stretched’ Batch 3 Type-42 ships. Twenty missiles never sounded that many to me but, tragically as it turned out, the designers were right and that seems to have been enough.
Did the red Sea Dart missiles fly then? I thought the red ones were just ‘display’ and ‘handling’ rounds.
Just a little not-pick – in the pursuit of historical accuracy…It isn’t ‘Ash’ – but ‘ASh’.
Sorry, I’ll try to do better next time. 🙂
Actually I’ve just got a copy of ‘Russian Piston Aero Engines’ by Vladimir Kotelnikov; is it any good?