Why are you asking a question that you must know the answer to?
Regarding the point from Bruggen 130
Not wishing to go over the same ground, but I am 100% sure that the Reds do ensure all maneuvers are aimed at crowd central, like all other display pilots. Which is why there are markers at air displays to show where crowd centre is.
This is not suggesting that all maneuvers are kept within the boundary which is a different matter entirely.
When the reds do their “carousal”, then I would expect the opposition passes would be aimed at being crowd centre, even if the entire circle goes way beyond the airfield perimeter.
The entire circle comes nowhere near the airfield, they always break left- right or vertical a long way from the far boundary fence, even when the Reds do a fly past with other aircraft it’s always outside the airfield boundary.
I don’t think a significant number of people here have ever raised the positioning of the manoeuvre relative to the crowdline and the airfield as a factor have they?
Moggy
The point is Moggy that the fast jets don’t do any of their display over the air field, the Reds total display takes place well past the far boundary fence, so why are some on here say they should keep it over the air field.
Do some of you on here think that most of the loops, Barrel rolls, Bomb Bursts, Fast Passes and breaks toward the crowd (Reds) take place over the air field?
By all your silence I take none of you know, so much garbage on here.
Do some of you on here think that most of the loops, Barrel rolls, Bomb Bursts, Fast Passes and breaks toward the crowd (Reds) take place over the air field?
He does appear to be moving some production back here, whilst in a photograph I saw of his offices there is a 1/1 EE Lightning hanging from the ceiling. The airfield could be in far worse hands.
Moggy
I think the Lightning is in the canteen Moggy 🙂
Thank you. Following the line adopted with complete insincerity by the police, local authorities, fire service, the NHS, and Uncle Tom Cobbley, I’m working very hard to put in place measures to ensure that I know a lot about a little or, something like that.
Concentrate on one subject John instead of trying to fill your head with a little bit of everything just so you can comment on every post LOL
No, I will not. Not according to your interpretation.
John I’m sorry but your just another bloke that think he knows a lot about a subject, when in fact you know very little about a lot of things and most of that is wrong LOL
Arthur Eddington’s “Mathematical Theory of Relativity” is a good place to start. He confirmed that the ‘evidence’ underpinning Einstein’s Theory was in part uncertain. That explains why it is a Theory and not Law.
Yes, teach it by all means but, make sure the teaching isn’t clouded by wishful thinking for example !
Further reading by the same author: “The Nature of the Physical World”.
Well that’s just plain wrong, Eddington proved Einstein’s theory of gravity in 1919 after observing how much light from a star was bent during a solar eclipse, proving that Einstein’s calculations where right and Newton’s theory had to be slightly out by a few Arcseconds. if you have a satnav in your car it has to be updated every few days to stop it drifting out by some degrees by using Einstein’s LAW of relativity. You just don’t understand what the word theory in science means and I don’t think you ever will.
[QUOTE=John Green;2374276]Very convenient ! The fact is that if ‘theory’ cannot be substantiated by empiricism then it remains theory. If you’re referring to the Theory of Evolution’ or, Darwinism, it remains the most plausible explanation of life and its continuation but, cannot be tested, there are too many external influences known and unknown[/QUOTE
What about the Theory of Relativity can that not be tested?
Some of you lot on here need to understand the word “theory”
“The way that scientists use the word*’theory’ is a little*different than how it is commonly used in the lay public,” said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. “Most people use the word*’theory’ to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word*’theory’ refers to the way that we interpret facts.”
My father told me that his RAF Sqn bombed up with 2,000lb Armour-Piercing bombs to attack those ships but the Navy said they would take care of them, he was not one to make things up but then again he had no time for the Navy 🙂
You should try it on a Zafira, I have to go in through the wheel well LOL
To witness both launches and recoveries you would have to have been involved at a senior level in some space program. Is this what you are claiming, Mr Green?
We are still waiting for the biographical notes that uniquely qualify you amongst our little coterie to proclaim on the worth of people and things.
And yes, why has Helen Sharman been written out? If I was her I’d be a bit teed off by all the ‘Tim first Brit in space’ headlines.
If you google her name you will see that she is a bit peed off, she say’s it’s as if they are trying to write her out of history
Presumably since this was a vessel ‘driven’ by a ‘local’?
Which does raise the question of how many manned former spacecraft are on display, worldwide, and how many in the UK.
There are one or two in the Science Museum already, at least they can put it alongside Helen Sharman’s Space suit that been in there for the past 25 years, she was the first brit in space BTW LOL