The Online Oxford Dictionary defines racism as: “1) the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2) discrimination against or antagonism towards other races. ”

The key word here is ‘race’, as opposed to ‘nationality’.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think that the gentlemen who chased me out of ‘Lauder’s’ on Sauchiehall Street the last time I was in Glasgow actually wanted to compare our respective political systems, Allen. :diablo:

But (1) is just wrong. White men can’t jump and black men can’t swim. (At Gold medal level of course). Our bodies are built differently, this is proven.
I’m not supporting racism here at all, but facts is facts.

Anyway, BNP; SNP; Labour; Conservative; others. All bent and not a good man amongst them.

You’ll have to explain that one, old shape. :confused:

You said vehicle. On an aeroplane forum.

Are you awake now?

🙂

Seriously, yes. I was just merely pointing it out for interest. From my own experiences I have not really seen any jet perform as good as the typhoon in the vertical, the F-22 was not bad at all, just didnt seem to have the “quickness/speed” associated with the typhoon.

I believe all the climb figures are quoted with 4 amraam and 2 sraam’s.

You must be a young lad 🙂
The Lightning (The real one not the converted Yak) could out perform the Typhoon in a vertical climb, because it was built for getting high as fast as possible. It had to be down (Or AARF) for fuel in 25 mins though.
The total performance envelope and capabilities of the Lightning are still on the secret list.
Typhoon is of course a far superior platform, and built for a different kill.

One of my all time favourite aircraft, the Beriev 42 Albatros

Indeed, I saw it display at Fairford in 1993 or 4. Amazing.
The exhaust being close to the top skin of the wing are actually designed to produce a bit more lift over that section of the wing.
It’s display was superb, if the brits would allow I’m sure that thing could loop with no problem.

This body is just a vehicle.Once I have no further use for it, anyone who needs any of the components is more than welcome to them.

It should be opt-out for adults. Children are a different matter, and much sensitivity is needed on a case-by-case basis.

ITYM Platform.
Remember where you are 😀

I’ve never read such perfection as SeaLords posts on this matter.

They can have anything useable of mine, Mrs Old shape feels the same about her stuff too.
If anything happens to my kids (Disturbing just thinking about it!) then I would be proud to have their organs used. Some other parents gain their childs life for that……what better could be done in the worst of your own personal circs. I’m sure it would help the healing too, “Closure” as the modern buzzword seems to be.

Thank for the information.

You said in your previous post that the A400m may have to take a two years holiday, which is why I took it that you meant it would have to wait two more years for the engine to mature.

But I find your previous statement and this post a somehow contradictory. If, as you are saying in this post, the A400 has significant electronic, electrical and weight problems, the A400 will not take a holiday but, on the contrary, ways will have to be found to correct those defficiencies. And if what you are saying is correct, the fact that the Engine is not on time gives Airbus the time to correct those issues.

And I am a bit sceptical with the fact that the A400 would be plagued by so many issues. This is basically the same arguments that were used against the A380 when it was developped – that Airbus had weight problems, electronic issues…. Yes, the A380 was delayed, but for none of the reasons that were advanced up to first flight.

I agree however with the fact that we consistently develop gear which is way too technologically complex (and therefore expensive) for what we want in fact use it for.

No, I say again, I didn’t mention the Engines.
Anyway, “Holiday” may have been the wrong word to choose. I don’t know what’s entirely in the mind of Airbus Military but a two year stop of production is more or less what I meant. That means a holiday for all those except those involved in the design of the critically poor areas.
The A380 issues were solveable, they just needed to throw labour onto it. Some of the A400 problems have no known answer until some mighty bright people have spent a lot of time in a Rugby Scrum around a desk. I’m sure they will be solved, Airbus tends to rise to the challenge and to hell with the cost. Unfortunately Airbus Military is not Airbus Toulouse, and the two do not talk or exchange knowledge. I hope they crack it, it’s got the potential to be a winner. I heard today that certain parts of the Engine programme can be de-risked, because the Seville team had put too high (We already knew this) requirements in the event of a siezure. In case you don’t know a siezure on a prop is far worse than a jet engine, and with that stonking great prop on A400 the turning moment is massive. If it siezed the force would be enough to rip the fwd nacelle off but just before it snaps there will have been massive twist applied to the wing. Not only structural problems but the twist could have caused a static reaction (CFRP) in places where there is presently no static protection.
I’m just glad all these problems of building a CFRP “Big” platform are being found and sorted on a Military craft, before they start putting 280+ pax up there.