…are there design similarities between the he177s undercart and the fokke wolfe condor?

Other than four main wheels I can’t imagine there were any…the whole layout and method of retraction are completely different.

With regard to the Stirling…it was probably about three times as complicated as it needed to be! 😀

…we are talking 115 million last year…

I would forget the piffling small amount generated by speed-cameras. The motorist has long been used by UK government as a ‘cash cow’ to top-up the coffers at the treasury.

The last time I checked (a few years ago) the government raised over 30 billion in direct taxation from the motorist!

Most of this comes in the form of fuel duty but also includes VAT on cars, spare parts and so on (not sure about road tax or MOT fees).

I can’t say I’m against all of this, for example, fuel duty is one of the fairer (and greener) taxes although it does mean that we’re taxed heavily (on money we’ve already paid tax on) and then get to pay VAT on (mostly) duty we pay to the government! :confused:

Don’t know the current total ‘transport’ budget but it is a tiny fraction of 30 billion!

Bit of a ‘catch 22’ for those in power. They say they want more people to use public transport but if we did they would have to find billions more in taxes. IMHO that is probably the motive behind ‘road pricing’ – force people off the roads, fill the coffers by charging the rest…charging us to use the roads we paid for in the first place! 🙂

…re-worked, re-sung and maybe re-lyric-ed, then it could be a nice little tune…any suggestions?

Mushroom in the Wind?

Goodbye Enola Gay,
Though I never flew you at all,
You had the range to haul yourself,
And let that Fat Man fall…

I’ll get me coat… 😮

If we expected everything to be really useful, we wouldn’t have art, literature, a lot of esoteric science facts (like what good does the study of dinosaurs do us?), Ferraris, airshows, the rebirth of XH558, flying Spitfires, etc, etc.

The world would be a pretty boring place.

Hear, hear! 🙂

I must say that I have enjoyed reading (and contributing to) this thread.

I can understand that this project is not to the liking of some forum members but that, in my view, is not a reason to be unduly critical.

What Graham is attempting is a real engineering challenge, there are real problems to overcome and these problems must be solved within the budgets and time constraints available.

No, this is never going to be a real Spitfire, and yes, some of the engineering is a little crude but progress has been relatively rapid and there is nothing to prevent the design from being refined as time and funds allow.

To my mind it is closer to what R J Mitchell was doing when he created the Spitfire than, for example, somebody collecting and assembling a Spitfire from spare parts. I know that will probably draw criticism but what I am trying to say is that while one project will produce a ‘real’ Spitfire each project has a different aim but both have their merits.

I find it ironic that while in this country we bemoan the decline of our aviation and other industries and the loss of engineering skills yet as soon as somebody get off his behind and actually does something our natural instinct is to criticize rather than compliment. To me this is the worst British ‘disease’.

Some have raised their concerns about the safety of this project. I’m sure that if it is operated in a ‘public’ environment all reasonable steps will be taken to make it safe. When operated in a more ‘private’ environment I personally think that the responsibility is down to those taking the risk. How often have we on this forum criticized the current health and safety culture that seems to strangle almost every formerly safe activity with dire warnings of implausible and often ludicrous dangers?

So lets compliment achievement, forget the criticism and take a few of those risks that we all seem so nostalgic about! 🙂

Not a bad estimate! Propellers actually 14 feet 10 inch diameter (4.52 metres).

My guess is that the reduction ratio would be quite high, say 2.0:1 to about 2.2:1 due to the high power of engines.

Both Britain and Germany (at least toward each other) seemed to make an effort to avoid civilian bombing casualties at the beginning of WWII but the inevitable collateral casualties due to the technical limitations of bombing plus the propaganda vilification of the enemy for apparently deliberately bombing civilians soon hardened attitudes.

The attitude of the British certainly changed after the apparently indiscriminate bombing of Rotterdam on 14th May 1940 (the Dutch capitulated the next day so for the Germans this attack was expedient and effective). Collateral damage during the bombing of London and other cities would have hardened the British attitude further.

Ironically the bombing of Coventry where the Luftwaffe were at least trying to destroy armament factories had an interesting effect on British bombing policy. Analysis after the raid indicated that more production was lost due to killed, injured and absentee workers that to actual damage to the factories. This did much to shape RAF bombing policy as the war progressed.

I find it difficult to point the finger at any one strategy or incident in isolation, such as the V1/V2 attacks or the bombing of Dresden because it usually boils down to which ‘side’ perpetrated the worst atrocities and I don’t think that has been or ever will be in doubt.

It is easy to see things from your own point of view (especially during wartime) and most British people are still under the impression that most V2 missiles were targeted at Britain but they would be wrong.

I’ve always thought that the attitude of America was interesting during WWII. The USAAF pursued a policy of precision daylight attacks against Germany despite high losses and yet later and with the benefit of better technical ability carried out indiscriminate ‘area-bombing’ against Japan. Was this because Japan had attacked ‘America’ (actually Hawaii) at Pear Harbour?