After Hamilton ‘cut’ the chicane he clearly realised he could be penalised and so sensibly dropped back, as they crossed the start-line he was behind, and moving slower than Raikkonen but then in a breathtaking manoeuvre Hamilton dived back inside Raikkonen ahead of the hairpin, apparently taking him by surprise. All Raikkonen could do in reply was collide with Hamilton’s rear tyre.

Later Hamilton demonstrated how much he outclassed Raikkonen today when the latter crashed-out in the rain. What should have been remembered as a great Grand Prix will now descend into another farce of controversy and ‘race politics’.

At least Raikkonen had the decency to do nothing more that ‘toe the line’ in his post-race interviews.

I’m glad McLaren are appealing this decision.

You’re right of course, certification would be the real challenge but technically I think this approach would work. Where it would fall on the cost-versus-realism scale is hard to say, probably cheaper to go the CG route, especially if you needed more than one.

As for the aerodynamics the C-47 was quite capable of towing a Horsa glider so at least there would be ‘drag’ to spare.

I remember a magazine article years ago about a Wellington mock-up built for a Czech film.

It was built over a Soviet ‘C-47’ and could be taxied under the power of the original engines, but not flown.

My recollection is that, on the ground at least, it looked very convincing.

Wasn’t the TSR 1 the private venture design that evolved into the Fairey Swordfish – the original TSR 2?

The ‘TSR’ in the case of the Fairey Swordfish (and its predecessor) refers to Torpedo Spotter Reconnaissance, whereas the ‘name’ of the BAC TSR-2 apparently comes from Tactical Strike and Reconnaissance. Didn’t know that about the TSR-2 until now.

I wonder what the TSR-2 would have been called in service…..any suggestions?

Actually, thinking about it, isn’t that the name of the TSR-2? Or is it really a trainer? :confused:

Humility…..mmm…..seem to be in short supply on the forum at the moment.

I think the RAF Harriers sent to the Falklands were originally intended to operate primarily in the fighter role, as replacements for the (predicted) large air-to-air combat losses. The RN didn’t consider the Sea Harrier (or its pilots) lacking in air-to-ground abilities but when air-to-air losses proved less than expected (and ground attack proved so risky) the RAF Harriers reverted to their more familiar role.

The Sea Harrier FRS1 must be unique in carrying the role prefix for both fighter (F) and strike (S) and presumably it was given the strike prefix as a warning of its ability to deliver nuclear weapons.

I can only think of one RAF aircraft that carried the strike prefix. Anybody?

Blohm & Voss 138?

Do tell more.

Two-strokes are fine for small single-cylinder or very large slow-revving engines but not so good for high-revving multi-cylinder aero-engines.

Why? Two strokes rev pretty hard AFAIK.

The Rolls two stroke project was the Crecy.

Actually, that’s a very good question.

The Rolls-Royce Crecy, although it was a two-stroke, had sleeve-valves and was of course supercharged so it doesn’t really qualify the ‘no valves’ argument. Many small two-strokes use reed-valves.

I suppose the real answer is that the supercharger technology required to make two-strokes compare with four-strokes had not developed when most of these aero-engines were conceived. When the supercharger technology had developed the crankshaft power of the engine was mainly being used to drive the supercharger and significant power was being delivered from the exhaust; the piston-engine had become little more than a heavy, complex, combustion chamber. And the gas turbine was already showing its potential.

The ultimate developments of the piston-engine were the Wright R-3350 Turbo-Compound and the Napier Nomad, a liquid-cooled two-stroke diesel, without valve-gear, but with a gas-turbine grafted on!

The ‘Allison X24’ engine I mentioned was actually the liquid-cooled sleeve-valve Pratt & Whitney H-3730.