Creaking Door…the essence of a “great” driver & team is that of a driver & team that have that killer instinct that can deliver when the pressure is on…
‘Great’ drivers don’t always win…Stirling Moss never did. 🙁
Can’t really blame Hamilton for the move to Switzerland…would have been nice if he had been honest about it though.
Creaking Door…the essence of a “great” driver & team is that of a driver & team that have that killer instinct that can deliver when the pressure is on…
‘Great’ drivers don’t always win…Stirling Moss never did. 🙁
Can’t really blame Hamilton for the move to Switzerland…would have been nice if he had been honest about it though.
Creaking DoorWhat is it they say about ‘great minds’? 😀
Just an idea I’ve toyed with during quiet moments.
Take a fairly basic extinct airframe but one that would arouse some interest (and yes, I know, not a good starting point)…oh, and a complete set of drawings (highly unlikely I know).
What does it actually consist of? Tens of thousands of reasonably simple light alloy (or wooden) components, several thousand more complex components, and thousands of rivets, nuts, bolts, washers and other standard parts.
Now given a large (infinite) number of aircraft enthusiasts and a couple of decades…
…anybody see where I’m going with this?
Anyway, send me some AW Siskin drawings and I’ll get my Dremel out! 🙂
Creaking DoorDid any of these converted twin he111 glider tugs manage to be preserved?
Nope…but if you parked the Hendon He111 up against a huge mirror with one outer wing replaced with half a mock-up of the ‘new’ centre-section for the Zwilling (with half an engine obviously) then you’d get a good idea of what one looked like…
…I just can’t figure out how to make the centre propeller ‘work’ with the mirror! 😀
Creaking Door…if you want to see another angle let me know.
I don’t suppose you took any photos of the Jumo 205 engines did you? 🙂
Creaking DoorBy the way the BMW139 powered the prototype FW190…
But hardly a candidate for a ‘reliability’ comparison.
We should also add the Jumo 213 as an engine for the Fw190 if we a making a comparison of these fighters and the success and reliability of their various engines. 🙂
Creaking DoorAren’t you getting your engines a bit mixed up?
Surely you mean the Merlin/Griffon, the DB601/DB605 and the BMW801?
Creaking DoorIsn’t the Stuka at Hendon virtually ‘airworthy’ – complete and with a ‘run-able’ engine?
What is the state of the airframe corrosion-wise (has it spent much time outside) considering how strongly-built it must be? How much of a rebuild would be required for a limited flying career?
Not really seriously considering this viable given limited funding and other priorities but what do others think given the ‘value’ of it as a rare intact example?
It would certainly pull the crowds at a display! 🙂
Creaking DoorThe main problem I have with speed-cameras is that it seems to be traffic-policing on the cheap. Sure, it catches a lot of speeders, and those that are caught (well the ‘law-abiding’ ones) simply pay their fine, get their points and curse the government.
Of course a significant number, who don’t register their cars properly, get away scott-free. The cameras have no ability to catch them and the police (or the government) no inclination as it’s not ‘cost-effective’.
At the moment the speed-cameras just seem to be criminalising a large, otherwise law-abiding, section of drivers while letting those guilty of far worse offences off the hook.
I’m all in favour of road safety, every ‘good’ driver is, but to achieve this the police need the vast majority of drivers ‘on side’ but I think that the current speed-camera culture is having exactly the reverse effect.
These days cars are cheap but MOT tests, maintenance costs, tax and especially insurance are very expensive.
It is estimated that there are a million drivers who regularly drive without any insurance (that’s about one-in-twenty of ‘us’)!
Government figures estimate that these drivers are:
10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving.
6 times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle.
3 times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention.
Insurance company figures estimate that 10% of UK drivers have been involved in an accident with an uninsured driver and on average an individual uninsured driver causes two accidents a year!
Insurers also reckon that for every fatal road traffic collision involving an uninsured driver, the taxpayer foots a bill of about £1.6m dealing with the aftermath.
The number of drivers without insurance is increasing and some analysts blame this for a surge in the numbers of ‘hit-and-run’ accidents in recent years.
Figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) estimate the cost of uninsured drivers adds £30 to average insurance policy.
Also according to the ABI the average fine for driving without insurance is £150, despite the fact that the maximum fine for the offence is £5000.
I am in favour of technology being used to help improve road-safety but that should mean useful numbers of properly equipped traffic-police on the roads not a roadside-robot and an office full of bureaucrats.
At last, after decades of dithering, the government finally has linked computer databases that holds data for every vehicle as to whether that vehicle has a current MOT, is taxed and is insured. Unfortunately these databases rely on the ‘honest’ individual driver correctly registering their vehicle.
Traffic patrol cars now have on-board cameras to detect any vehicle that is being driven without current MOT, tax and insurance. This vehicle can then be pulled-over by police officers and the driver questioned on the spot (and if necessary arrested).
I think the vast majority of drivers will support this sort of traffic-policing and will feel better about the increasing cost of obeying regulation if they see that there aren’t people getting-away without paying. And of course there would be the deterrence factor for those who think that the law doesn’t apply to them.
Creaking DoorThe main problem I have with speed-cameras is that it seems to be traffic-policing on the cheap. Sure, it catches a lot of speeders, and those that are caught (well the ‘law-abiding’ ones) simply pay their fine, get their points and curse the government.
Of course a significant number, who don’t register their cars properly, get away scott-free. The cameras have no ability to catch them and the police (or the government) no inclination as it’s not ‘cost-effective’.
At the moment the speed-cameras just seem to be criminalising a large, otherwise law-abiding, section of drivers while letting those guilty of far worse offences off the hook.
I’m all in favour of road safety, every ‘good’ driver is, but to achieve this the police need the vast majority of drivers ‘on side’ but I think that the current speed-camera culture is having exactly the reverse effect.
These days cars are cheap but MOT tests, maintenance costs, tax and especially insurance are very expensive.
It is estimated that there are a million drivers who regularly drive without any insurance (that’s about one-in-twenty of ‘us’)!
Government figures estimate that these drivers are:
10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving.
6 times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle.
3 times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention.
Insurance company figures estimate that 10% of UK drivers have been involved in an accident with an uninsured driver and on average an individual uninsured driver causes two accidents a year!
Insurers also reckon that for every fatal road traffic collision involving an uninsured driver, the taxpayer foots a bill of about £1.6m dealing with the aftermath.
The number of drivers without insurance is increasing and some analysts blame this for a surge in the numbers of ‘hit-and-run’ accidents in recent years.
Figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) estimate the cost of uninsured drivers adds £30 to average insurance policy.
Also according to the ABI the average fine for driving without insurance is £150, despite the fact that the maximum fine for the offence is £5000.
I am in favour of technology being used to help improve road-safety but that should mean useful numbers of properly equipped traffic-police on the roads not a roadside-robot and an office full of bureaucrats.
At last, after decades of dithering, the government finally has linked computer databases that holds data for every vehicle as to whether that vehicle has a current MOT, is taxed and is insured. Unfortunately these databases rely on the ‘honest’ individual driver correctly registering their vehicle.
Traffic patrol cars now have on-board cameras to detect any vehicle that is being driven without current MOT, tax and insurance. This vehicle can then be pulled-over by police officers and the driver questioned on the spot (and if necessary arrested).
I think the vast majority of drivers will support this sort of traffic-policing and will feel better about the increasing cost of obeying regulation if they see that there aren’t people getting-away without paying. And of course there would be the deterrence factor for those who think that the law doesn’t apply to them.
Creaking DoorThanks, that pretty much clears that one up! 🙂
Creaking DoorAs I said before it is a tiny proportion of the total raised in taxation of the motorist, and it has been so for a long time, and long before speed cameras were even invented.
Figures from the ‘Road Users Alliance’ (who admittedly have an axe to grind) for 2006 are as follows:
Fuel tax £23.3 billion
Vehicle excise duty £5.0 billion
VAT on vehicles £7.0 billion
VAT on fuel £6.6 billion
Company car tax £2.7 billion
Grand total: £44.6 billion
Again the RUA claim that “…only £7.3 billion is reinvested for the benefit of the road user.”
Plus this ignores any revenue generated by the treasury from economic benefit of car use.
So as you can see the £115 million generated by speed cameras is a negligible amount. Also is this just the total of all the fines paid (or does the running costs of the speed-cameras have to be deducted)?
So in summary:
Speed camera fines: £115 million
Total road budget: £7300 million
Total ‘profit’ from cars: £37300 million
Creaking DoorAs I said before it is a tiny proportion of the total raised in taxation of the motorist, and it has been so for a long time, and long before speed cameras were even invented.
Figures from the ‘Road Users Alliance’ (who admittedly have an axe to grind) for 2006 are as follows:
Fuel tax £23.3 billion
Vehicle excise duty £5.0 billion
VAT on vehicles £7.0 billion
VAT on fuel £6.6 billion
Company car tax £2.7 billion
Grand total: £44.6 billion
Again the RUA claim that “…only £7.3 billion is reinvested for the benefit of the road user.”
Plus this ignores any revenue generated by the treasury from economic benefit of car use.
So as you can see the £115 million generated by speed cameras is a negligible amount. Also is this just the total of all the fines paid (or does the running costs of the speed-cameras have to be deducted)?
So in summary:
Speed camera fines: £115 million
Total road budget: £7300 million
Total ‘profit’ from cars: £37300 million
Creaking DoorI’ve always understood that the undercarriage was designed by Arthur Gouge – Short Brothers’ chief designer and he who invented the Gouge Flap.
I stand corrected. 🙂
Gouge’s main experience had been in designing aircraft without wheels and the Stirling was the first retractable undercarriage aircraft for the company. But then again, how many, at that time, had experience of retractable gear on large aircraft? When considering the Stirling you have to remember it was the first four engined bomber in service.
Good point. I suppose we do tend to forget that retractable u/c were pretty cutting edge stuff in 1940….never catch on mind! 😀
Creaking DoorYes How much of the £115 Million goes back into road safety?
Found some more interesting figures on the ‘BRAKE’ charity site:
In 2005-2006 the estimated total spend by all local authorities on dedicated road safety schemes was £135 million and the estimated spend on education, training and publicity for road safety was £37 million.
In 2000, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) published a report on road safety spending in Great Britain. The report provided a breakdown of annual road safety spending activities, which can be seen below.
Public and Private Sectors £2,177m
Total Public Expenditure £944m
Ambulance and hospital services £474m (Health Service)
Enforcement £271m (£255m Home Office; £14m DETR direct; £2m DETR non-direct)
Local safety engineering £90m (£24m Las; £60m DETR direct; £6m DETR non-direct)
Driver and vehicle licensing £73m (£58m DETR non-direct; £15m DETR direct)
Education £29m (£27m Las; £2m DETR direct)
Transport of dangerous goods £7m (DETR direct)
Total Private Expenditure £1232m
MOT and other roadworthiness testing £683m
Driver/rider training and testing £469m
Driver licensing £38m
HGV/PSV operator licensing £27m
Enforcement £15m
The PACTS report highlighted that a large proportion of public sector spending was spent on measures relating to post-collision services, rather than prevention of incidents. This included Health Service expenditure on dealing with road crash victims, and Home Office expenditure on policing and court costs.
Interesting to see how much of ‘our’ money is spent ‘picking-up-the-pieces’ and prosecuting those who end up in court through accidents.
Sign In
