dark light

Sabrejet

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,336 through 1,350 (of 1,675 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Sabrejet
    Participant

    So there were original ‘Lightweight E-Type’ Jaguars?

    I must have got the wrong end of the stick from the part of the programme that I saw; how close are these new-build ‘Lightweights’ then to the originals?

    Well it’s a fair point: since these cars were often different in specification (esp the Lindner/Nocker car and the other low-drag car), they’re continuing ‘in the spirit of’. I see no problem with them and will consider them as true Jaguars in the same way as I’d 100% consider TWR-built XJR’s to be 100% Jaguar.

    in reply to: General Discussion #264725
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    There was a lot of BS spoken in the programme: Goodwood Revival already allows recreations of cars which are not necessarily rare (at least one of the D-Types at last year’s Revival for instance). So I didn’t understand the relevance of remarks that the Lightweights wouldn’t be allowed.

    And they are produced in the same way as the Sanction II DB4 GT Zagatos, which don’t seem to attract the same amount of sniffy-ness.

    But maybe the reason for all this was the programme’s insistence on attaching a monetary value to the whole operation.

    The day will soon come when owners of original GTO’s, DB4 Zagatos and E-Type Lightweights don’t want to risk racing them, and then these lesser continuation cars will be our only chance to see examples actually RACING.

    Sabrejet
    Participant

    There was a lot of BS spoken in the programme: Goodwood Revival already allows recreations of cars which are not necessarily rare (at least one of the D-Types at last year’s Revival for instance). So I didn’t understand the relevance of remarks that the Lightweights wouldn’t be allowed.

    And they are produced in the same way as the Sanction II DB4 GT Zagatos, which don’t seem to attract the same amount of sniffy-ness.

    But maybe the reason for all this was the programme’s insistence on attaching a monetary value to the whole operation.

    The day will soon come when owners of original GTO’s, DB4 Zagatos and E-Type Lightweights don’t want to risk racing them, and then these lesser continuation cars will be our only chance to see examples actually RACING.

    in reply to: Duxford Diary (2015) #898794
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Subtle – like it.

    😀

    in reply to: Duxford Diary (2015) #898805
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    But Sony cameras do it oh so well! 😀

    It’s one of those things that look nice the first time, then gradually become more and more annoying. There are a few magazines that love to use the effect (car mags usually).

    And i’m sure there will be those who will go on about all the different filters and developing masks that were used in wet film processing, but I’d equally say that many of those effects were annoying too!

    So do Sony cameras have an in-built HDR function?

    in reply to: Duxford Diary (2015) #898915
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Gotcha – not a bad idea then!

    :applause:

    in reply to: Duxford Diary (2015) #898932
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Smashing pic of the Spitfire in the hangar – if my Photoshop skills were up to it, I’d be getting stuck into the background as we speak!

    Please no! There are already a few too many daftly HDR-ified photos on here.

    :stupid:

    in reply to: Aircraft names #901189
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Wasn’t the original 737 also called Fat Albert?

    Pigjet in my experience (back to mid-70s)

    in reply to: Aircraft names #902211
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Ditto ‘Fat Albert’ for the C-130: never heard it called that, but ‘Herk’ was often used, along with non-specific terms like ‘cab’ etc.

    In fact to my generation, Fat Albert was a BAF Carvair. And yes, I know that would post-date a lot of C-130s, but I’d suggest it pre-dates the term’s use on Herks.

    in reply to: Aircraft names #902565
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    …and Huey Cobra?

    in reply to: Aircraft names #902862
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    The wind Chinook is named after the Chinook tribe of Indians.

    My Chinook experiences can be read under “Helicopter Recovery at this site. https://davidelsblog.wordpress.com/

    Seems fair, though the Tarhe isn’t strictly named after a tribe either.

    in reply to: Aircraft names #902998
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinookan_peoples

    …but also a Pacific Northwest wind, which I think is the appropriate derivation.

    in reply to: Aircraft names #903143
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    American military helicopters are named after native American Indian tribes.

    Some, but not all – e.g. Chinook.

    in reply to: Aircraft names #903181
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Continuing thread-creep…. Was the name “Hun” used because it was the F-100 or because it was a Honey of a ship – and where did the term “ship” come from for an aeroplane?

    Roger Smith.

    The Hun comes from a long tradition of trying to make names from designations: 100 became ‘Hun’, F4D became ‘Ford’, S2F became ‘Stoof’, JN became ‘Jenny’ etc.

    in reply to: Northrop YC-125 Raider #904067
    Sabrejet
    Participant

    Have you tried Maxwell AFB for Individual Aircraft Record Cards? Always my first port of call: not expensive and they should all be on one microfilm roll.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,336 through 1,350 (of 1,675 total)