ploughThe Kittyhawk…. It is safe. Not thanks to this forum.
It would take some leap of imagination to suggest that an Internet forum could ever ensure the safety of an airframe.
I took the remark to imply that the misinformed and self righteous argy bargy on this forum may have actually had a detrimental effect on getting the airframe to safety? Something which some seem to be intent on continuing with.
It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a thread on this forum has caused problems for people seeking to find or recover aeroplanes from far flung parts of the globe 😉
ploughJust ignore the word ‘certain’. I had started typing ‘certain forums’ and changed to ‘other forums’, but seem to have omitted deleting the word certain which has perhaps not conveyed the correct meaning. There are similar threads to the main P40 thread on this forum to be found on many of the other aviation forums. I don’t see much point listing them (we all probably know them), and I don’t have any specific poster in mind as the identity of Mr Chiswick.
ploughThe Telegraph article reads to me as though the story has been gleaned in the main from this and certain other forums, and based on very little factual evidence or research. It wouldn’t be the first time I have come across a journalist using a web forum as the main source of his information, and it would not surprise me if Pat Chiswick is one of the primary indignant posters on a similar thread elsewhere.
There doesn’t appear to be anything there that hasn’t already been discussed on one of the P40 related threads here.
I can’t really see why so much ill feeling?
Every forum seems to have a core of posters who only seem able to operate when they are getting worked up and indignant over some issue – often one over which they have only minimal access to the true facts.
ploughSomebody on Radio 4’s excellent news quiz said “UKIP is for people who think their lives are someone else’s fault”.
I thought that was excellent…….
Exactly the sort of comment that almost always comes from people who have completely and utterly missed the point of why UKIP came into being to start with, and why it is recieving such significant support now.
The same kind of blinkered fools who dismiss UKIP out of hand by trying to portray them and their supporters as simply racists.
If those who disagree with the idea of withdrawing from the EU don’t soon wake up and take the concerns of a huge proportion of the population seriously, instead of keep fobbing everyone off with mealy mouthed half promises of a referendum (but no mention of what the question will be), and nonsense about some renegotiation of the UK/EU treaties (not actually permitted under the rules of EU membership to start with), then UKIP will contiinue to gain strength.
ploughHi there.
Does anybody out there know which UK airport G-AMPO would have been operating from, around the filming dates of 10th – 26th September 1979?
At that time, G-AMPO was operated by an early incarnation of Eastern Airways which operated 3 DC-3s from Kirmington/Humberside Airport (G-AMPO, G-AMRA and G-AMYJ). I am not familiar enough with the appearance of the buildings and airfield at the time to be be sure, but the terrain appears similar to Kirmington, although it could have been flown elsewhere for filming.
All three DC-3s were offered for sale in 1980 and Eastern Airways went on to operate a pair of Shorts 330 (G-NICE and G-EASI) before becoming part of Genair.
ploughYou can probably work out a sensible estimate of timings from the time published for the two Lancasters and the Vulcan to depart Waddington on the 21st (13:40) (see http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafwaddington/newsweather/index.cfm?storyid=11B3DBF1-5056-A318-A802C5A20D39A135).
plough.. how would the stall speed of the Vulcan compare to the speeds of the lancasters? must be a big heavy aircraft to slow down to their speeds?
The Vulcan and the BBMF Lancaster performed a flypast in formation at Waddington in 2008, so I don’t think it will be a great problem.
ploughRe photographing gate guardians, a couple of years ago I asked the guards if I could photograph the Harrier at Wittering, and was told yes, as long as there are no buildings in the picture. I wonder why.
Because it is illegal to take photographs of military property/buildings. Such buildings are listed as ‘prohibited places’. I think they are covered by the Military Lands Act (1892) and the Official Secrets Act. Obviously there is some degree of flexibility nowadays, with visitors to airshows in particular being given specific permission to take photographs (within limitations) usually detailed on the ticket.
Sorry, this is not actually directly beneficial to the subject of the thread.
Rather frustrating not to know what that aircraft was, but i can imagine that being detained at the guardroom and made to hand over his film and notes was probably a rather traumatic experience for a young boy at that time.
ploughI think PanzerJohn probably knows about that thread already 🙂
ploughAnd the abusive tone of some posts here rather brings the posters down to their level.
What a dismal thread 🙁
You would find a higher level of childish bickering in a school playground.
plough…..I think if people just sit on the verges [not in the field ] then thats a reasonable compromise,after all the countryside should be reasonably accessible to everyone.
All fine if you are referring to roadside grass verges.
However, the grass/wildflower strips and margins that you see around most fields nowadays are not waste/abandoned ground. They are invariably either part of the requirements of ‘cross-compliance’ – a process by which farmers are required to carry out certain wildlife friendly procedures (including the leaving of 2 metres uncultivated from the centre of any hedge) to be able to qualify for an EU subsidy (the ‘Single Farm Payment’). Many farms are also part of further conservation/wildlife schemes for which they are paid extra for leaving wider uncropped strips around some fields.
Should any of these grass/wildflower margins be used for other purposes, run on by vehicles, or the planting severely damaged by trampling, the farmer stands a good chance of being financially penalised by DEFRA/the inspecting authority for whichever scheme they come under; under some circumstances, a relatively minor breach could see them losing their entire payment.
Simple trespass is a civil offence – the only course a landowner has against trespassers is to ask them to leave. The police have no jurisdiction over the matter. However, if damage is caused (and trampling crops or conservation margins could be classed as such), trespassing becomes a criminal offence for which the police (and possibility of prosecution) may be involved.
ploughMy dad developed the chest problems that would plague the rest of his life when he was about 40. I developed mild asthma at age 5 or 6 and my younger brother fairly serious asthma when he was 1 or 2. Co-incidence?
Highly likely it is just coincidence.
Such adverse health effects from chemical pesticides mostly arise in people who are continually exposed to them over a long period (ie. the sprayer operators). Instances of detrimental health problems from incidental exposure (and developing years after) are extremely rare (and almost impossible to prove). Any direct chemical poisoning would have become apparent within hours of exposure.
Most of the products approved for aerial application were pretty benign by comparison with their ground applied counterparts (some of which were very nasty indeed back in the 60’s).
ploughLet me get this right……
No, you haven’t got that right at all :rolleyes:.
In early 2013 they made clear that without the modification to the wing leading edge, 2013 would be the final season of flying for 558. Having evaluated the feasability of doing the work, and weighed up whether the cost was worthwhile, they decided that the mod could be done and that raising the money would be worth it. As they have raised the necessary extra money without too much pain and difficulty, presumably a lot of other people also thought it was worthwhile.
The leading edge modification will now allow the Vulcan to display for two more full seasons (2014 -2015), by which time there will be insufficient cycles left on the engines to carry on (unless there is a big change in the limit imposed by Rolls Royce, or a change in the way the cycles are calculated).
The 2013 season was curtailed early because of a ruptured fuel tank, which was not able to be repaired or replaced before the display season was finished. I do not know where you get the peculiar idea that XH558 has been “taken out of service” for a year – she hasn’t.
ploughThe caption of the first picture refers to “experimental flying oddities” – do any of the British experimental aircraft you have in mind class as ‘oddities’?
Some of thos pictured are certainly very odd; most of them I was not previously aware of.
ploughHi All,
…..the seller has marked the item as having no returns…….
In practice, this is pretty meaningless. He may have no returns policy stated, but in the event that the recipient finds an item doesn’t fit the description (‘Seriously Not As Described’ in eBay parlance), or arrives damaged in transit and they open a dispute through the eBay buyer protection process, the seller may be forced to give a refund and may therefore be forced to accept a return.
I don’t think saying ‘ no guarantees of originality or authenticity’ absolves anyone of their obligation to describe items accurately?
Quite! It is akin to oft used phrase ‘Sold as Seen’, which is legally meaningless in the event of a dispute/legal action being taken.
he is obligated under the distance selling regulations, to accept returns if the buyer changes their mind.
The Distance selling Regulations only apply to business sellers (the ebay seller in question is not registered on eBay as a business seller – if he does indeed come within the legal definition of ‘trading’, then he is not only breaking eBay rules, he is also breaking UK law).
In any case, even where the seller is a business, the DSRs only apply to fixed price sales; they do not apply to auction type listings.
The seller has breached some rules in those listings……and another is to include a list of wanted items, thus circumnavigating eBays specific ‘wants’ section
eBay hasn’t had a ‘Wants’ section for a a few years now – they tried it for a couple of years, but found it didn’t really work (possibly because they made it difficult to find!)
Sign In
