It is a major news story here in the UK now. The radio has just had a series of interviews with eyewitnesses which were chilling. It struck me how much they needed to talk – it shows the trauma they have been through.
Our thoughts are with you – keep safe guys.
Allan

So, Fogs on, Foot down – thats the ticket……

Stay well away from them – driving too fast for the conditions but only peering at the bit of road immediately over the bonnet 😮

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:

A Renault Clio diesel was the best I had for snow. Small, low power (and all at low revs), thin tyres – but best of all, a huge, heavy, cast iron lump of an engine right over the driving wheels. Loads of grip. Pig to park with such heavy steering the rest of the year though. Awful car.

I hear there was traffic chaos in Cheshire today – big queues of lorries trying to get to the salt mines.

Allan

Cees,

There is no horizontal joint in the Sunderland. The whole fuselage was made in one huge piece, with the exception of the tail section – there is a contruction joint just aft of the keel’s rear step, enabling the tail section to be removed.

I can only presume that the fuselage frames were cut. One of the Shorts old boys at Rochester told me that, years ago, he could see the line on the IWM Sunderland where the join had been panelled over. They hadn’t, at that time, used the correct sequence of panels and the horizontal line of the cut was visible. However, it has been extensively restored since then and I certainly didn’t notice the join when I saw it last year.

The RAF Museum’s example was moved in 1971 by a team from 71 MU. The tail and wings went by road but the hull was put into an Army landing craft and moved by sea. Not sure how they got it from the Thames to Hendon. A photo of that would be something!

Allan

There has been some good discussions here about when it is appropriate or not to restore an aircraft to fly. My view, for what it is worth, is that a genuine “original” aircraft (thanks for the definitions Mark) should be left alone and parked in a museum for future generations to enjoy.

But the Walrus seems to me to be the ideal candidate for restoration to fly. It has a good strong provenance, a good amount of the original airframe available but extensive work would be needed for either static or restoration to flight. So make it fly then.

When you consider the long history of British aircraft which flew from water, it is astonishing that this is currently our best chance of seeing one in flight. It is a lot of weight of history for the little Shagbat but they’re tough birds.

As for where it flies – I don’t mind. I’ll travel to see it.

as we have now returned our end of the trade, please send the Seagull V home by express post.
smiles

We sent your Sunderland half way years ago and you haven’t been to collect it yet – still parked somewhere in the USA. 🙂

Well, the public transport is still working in Cumbria:

Actually, up here it is not too bad – following a problem in December when the pavements were impassable with ice for four days, our councils have listened and roads and pavements are thick with salt. My dustmen were round only an hour late to collect the recyclables, which means carrying heavy boxes of paper, glass and cans out to their lorry – good for the council I say.

I heard that snow ploughs were out in Suffolk for the first time in 15 years. We used to get winters like this all the time 20 years ago but no longer. So why spend the money on equipment and training in case it happens again in 15 years?

Businesses have been quick to say how much money is being lost due to closures (Sky News)but how many want to pay a snow insurance on business rates? How many London commuters would pay a little extra to buy a few snow ploughs for the underground? Or air conditioning for the summer?

Nothing of note here yet – just a dusting.

A couple of weeks ago they had an inch of snow in Yorkshire where an American friend of mine works at an historic house. They have a gardener from Winsconsin who was clearing the car park. Apparently he said they wouldn’t even bother getting up to shovel an inch of snow in Winsconsin. She replied that in Los Angeles it was enough for a state of emergency.

I’ve just been looking at buying another car but, because I don’t know how things will go with the new business in this climate, I’ve settled for a repair to keep the old one going. That runs up against the Vauxhall scheme which, to my cynical mind, seems to be more about getting rid of second hand cars to create a market for their unsold new ones than benefitting the environment.

Anyway, the factors which interest me in a new car are safety, costs and environment:
Fuel costs – mpg or km/l figures and running costs, eg servicing costs and independent reliability stats, to judge the likelihood of a big bill shortly after warranty runs out.

And environmental aspects – Mpg but also the actual cost to build the thing – carbon footprint or whatever. I recall hearing years ago that cfcs were used to make the padding on dashboards. What other horrors still lurk in making new cars? Do “end of life” pledges cover that? Are there independent figures available for the environmental benefit of a new car rather than keeping my, already built, old car going for a year or two more?

The features you list – low rolling resistance tyres, ECU remapped and higher gear ratios, would be an appeal only if they don’t mess up the driveability of the vehicle – or indeed its safety rating. And what do those tyres cost to replace compared to the standard?

My personal thought is that I’m more interested in a real change by manufacturers rather than repackaging existing eco models – but what salesman would reveal that to me. I’d do my research before going to meet the salesman.

“Henderson Protection” but I’ve found no information on what it was like.

Found it now – a good description is here in Flight January 1946