old shapeIm sorry but the last time I heard Pilots are trained to Fly planes , not play about with loaded guns, what was he doing with this weapon in the first Place , for it to discharge it requires the safety catch to be moved to the off Position ,so some one must have been mucking about with it , or do the regularly fly with a loaded weapon with the safety off INCREDULOS
Its time thses Guys stuck to what the are trained and Paid for Flying Planes not Playing Cowboys and Indians .leave the guns to the Police and army thats what they are paid for (or can they take a weeks course and become Professional Pilot now)
I’m trained to drive a car, a truck. I can use some really weird software. I can ride a bike. I can operate metal working machinery. I can also fire an AS90 Gun. I’m sure I can do some of these in parallel.
A gun discharging in an aircraft is no danger to the aircraft unless the projectile hits a person. Nobody is sucked out through a hole ala Hollywood.
If the gun was properly holstered it should not go off, that’s what a holster is for.
If the projectile hit the instruments, there is another set.
I’d sooner have the knowledge that a pilot is able to kill a potential hijacker, rather than the fear that every arab looking person on board will want to fly me into a building in the name of an imaginary friend, thanks.
old shapeActually I would sign that statement but in this very program Boeing did the untested approach, at least to some extent.
Boeing and Airbus, and probably a lot of other manufacturers are suffering a problem at the moment. Children, barely out of Uni are let loose on a Catia machine and are designing parts/systems/platforms which meet the weight and strength criteria but are getting more and more difficult to manufature – because a lot of skills have now gone from the trade, for one reason or another. Not only a lot of skill but a lot of specialist metal forming machines have now been scrapped because “Old Joe” retired and nobody else could operate it. And yes, despite the advance of composites, there are still a lot of formed metal parts that are required. Plenty of machined parts too, but a 6 axis machine can knock them out for a price.
The designers should be made to spend a minimum of 12 months “Turning Spanners” before being let loose on Catia.
old shape[QUOTE=Schorsch;1230661]The problem with the center wing box is anything but unusual for a new aircraft. Surprising is the time of the redesign (before testing), while it is much better for Boeing to redesign it now then finding out it needs fixes when it explodes in the final static test (see A380 for that). Problem is center wing boxes are kind of tricky to fix after they are installed.
Anyways, the fix is result of a larger problem, namely the considerable weight problem the B787 currently has and following conventional wisdom will to some extent keep.
BTW: I don’t want to spur a general discussion about capability, but all this BS-talking from a year ago that Boeing builds the 21st superjet totally made of “advanced material” while Airbus builds a lame make-over of 20th century aluminum technology comes to my mind. The A380 wing box is a hybrid between conventional and “advanced” materials. The B787’s is the same approach (it is not 100% “advanced”, wouldn’t make sense). The A380’s wing box was tested, certified and is in service despite carrying more than twice the load. So much about technology leadership.
And: It looks like Boeing is basically victim of its own manufacturing approach, which was hailed only month ago, and Airbus actually thought on copying it (Airbus copies all Boeing concepts, it’s like dog and master).[/QUOTE]
I work a lot with Airbus (For the past 30 years) and a bit less with Boeing but still get into bed with their designers and contract people. That statement is so far from the truth, Bush could have said it. Airbus has advanced aerospace technology in leaps!
However, Boeing take the safer/tried and tested methods and ultimately produce a more sellable product which is easier to build/maintain and do “Deep” maintainance with. The wing box problems on 787 are the same as is experienced on A400 for the past year and will be on A350.
old shapeAmazing collection.
Perhaps make it a sticky link please mods?
The odd German WW2 experimental thing towards the end, looks like a twin jet, with jets over a delta wing……what is it?
old shapeJim,
Only you could have got the Apollo! 🙂
Having just Googled it, yes it is beautiful, but not as beautiful as the Viscount.
…and it had square windows :-0
old shapeNice.
Love that Singapore Herc.
But can somebody explain to me the actual reason for Gloss Camo?
old shapeThey made one or two catchy ditties but on the whole an ordinary rock band.
Early stuff was better, like all bands, once they get some food in their belly, they lose the raw edge and drift into mediocrity.
And a waste of a good astronomer.
old shapeThey made one or two catchy ditties but on the whole an ordinary rock band.
Early stuff was better, like all bands, once they get some food in their belly, they lose the raw edge and drift into mediocrity.
And a waste of a good astronomer.
old shapeYou’re right, you’re absolutely right. Am I defending the kan’t spel brigade? No. I’m observing some of the contributing factors.
Kev’s original question is about (il)literacy. Is spelling the same thing? Does spelling need to be consistent/standardised to enable comprehension? Is literacy the capacity to communicate and have the other party comprehend what you are talking/writing about?
I favour degrees of similarity in spelling to facilitate clarity and hopefully certainty of communication. At some degree a lack of standardisation will lead to misunderstanding. But what are these degrees of standardisation? I have no difficulty understanding, clearly, both US and UK variants of English. And options like spelt and spelled.
So is it worthwhile to demand/require absolute consistency? I’m in favour of it; I feel it is easier to stay away from the the slippery slope of misunderstanding than to tack across that slope part-way down.
Yes, agree there. The ability to read, write and comprehend is more important than spelling but the English language in terms of spelling and meaning should be standardised. The English way of course, but we’ll lose because the US has Money:Microsoft:Motive to rule the world, and we have a roll-over and take it up the jacksy Government/authorities.
Nowthen, you ask does spelling get in the way of comprehension?
Well, yes. If I see a letter that is full of spelling mistakes and bad grammar, it gives me the impression that this person is not well educated so I tend not to take notice of the contents.
I see C.V’s (Resume for you merkins out there) with spelling mistakes. They don’t get to the read again pile. Not only can they not spell, but they cannot hit F7 to spellcheck!
old shapeYou’re right, you’re absolutely right. Am I defending the kan’t spel brigade? No. I’m observing some of the contributing factors.
Kev’s original question is about (il)literacy. Is spelling the same thing? Does spelling need to be consistent/standardised to enable comprehension? Is literacy the capacity to communicate and have the other party comprehend what you are talking/writing about?
I favour degrees of similarity in spelling to facilitate clarity and hopefully certainty of communication. At some degree a lack of standardisation will lead to misunderstanding. But what are these degrees of standardisation? I have no difficulty understanding, clearly, both US and UK variants of English. And options like spelt and spelled.
So is it worthwhile to demand/require absolute consistency? I’m in favour of it; I feel it is easier to stay away from the the slippery slope of misunderstanding than to tack across that slope part-way down.
Yes, agree there. The ability to read, write and comprehend is more important than spelling but the English language in terms of spelling and meaning should be standardised. The English way of course, but we’ll lose because the US has Money:Microsoft:Motive to rule the world, and we have a roll-over and take it up the jacksy Government/authorities.
Nowthen, you ask does spelling get in the way of comprehension?
Well, yes. If I see a letter that is full of spelling mistakes and bad grammar, it gives me the impression that this person is not well educated so I tend not to take notice of the contents.
I see C.V’s (Resume for you merkins out there) with spelling mistakes. They don’t get to the read again pile. Not only can they not spell, but they cannot hit F7 to spellcheck!
old shapeActually, I was thinking more on the lines of shoot to *wound*, not shoot to dead them. If it went so far as to trial, they deserve a fair one, so I’d want them alive. The man at Manchester was zapped with a taser gun. :diablo: :p
I’m not. As I said two weeks ago re the other losers. This is a post 9-11 world. Pax do not need the extra stress of seeing a person with a bag in a place he should not have been.
A 50 calibre in the chest would have left him in two pieces. If the plonkers from 2 weeks ago had been sorted properly, this idiot would not have tried it.
old shapeWow!!! 787 for them would be the worst investment ever if that is true :rolleyes:
Boeing are aiming for 14 a month, more likely hit 10. That’s 1 jet off the line every 3 days.
It does not mean ONE production line making a jet every 3 days, it means several lines knocking one out every 3 days, each line taking 30 days or, a continous moving flowline (Like a car plant) where the jets are 3 days apart, but the line is so long it takes 30 days from initial In-jig to roll off. It then goes for the final equipping and engine fit. The cost of setting such a line up are galactic.
old shapeVarsity, Vampire, VC10.
Vickers….and DH for the Vampire.
Looks like the scrapheap at the back of the Weybridge plant, near the Sports clubhouse?
old shapeBarnes will give you more material I would have thought.
Aim for six minutes.
1/2 minute in (Born/lived/places of work), 1/2 minute exit (Died ion/buried at/Statement of his mark in World history etc.)
This leaves 5 mins on the subject, that’s 5 x 1 minute chunks of topics about Mr Wallis.
He worked on R100 and R101 (Expain what)
Then built very strong airframes for the Welly (Explain why it was revolutionary)
Then moved onto a series of pioneering bombs, most famously the bouncer.
He worked on lots of other ideas which were rubbished/passed on to other Governments. (Swing Wings/Cargo Submarines etc).
And he did NOT have anything to do with the Wallis AutoGyro….I’ve heard some people claim so! That was Ken Horatio Wallis. (Wing Cdr)
Sorted. Pan it out with some anecdotes or witty banter.
old shape… only a little.
My points are:
1. The relative difficulty of English contributes to the illiteracy issue … some other languages don’t encounter this problem to the same extent.
2. For most of it’s “life” English has not been bound by fixed/common spelling and gramatical rules, that is a recent phenomenon … that may not last.As a related aside, another digression 😉 others above have commented on this … the advent of the ‘net, and Google in particular, adds further to the wider literacy context. I was talking to my 16 yo son a couple of days ago about his high school maths curriculum. I made the observation that later in life, in work, one nearly never uses all that algebra etc. But it sets a basis for comprehension. I told him I’d spent 5-10 minutes, on a whiteboard, reverse engineering a cagr equation to solve a growth rate puzzle I had re. our revenues and market share. You know that thing you do where you spin the equation around to figure out a different component of it? Anyway he looked at me amazed and said “why didn’t you Google it?”. Bloody hell! I Google a lot of things … but an equation? To my mind … that is an outrage! Where is the spirit of enquiry? Figure something out for heaven’s sake!
Do you not think that your points have been trotted out by the kan’t spel brigade, to justify their own inadequacies? This is actually how standards drop in the first place.
To ba5tardise Mr Burke…
“All that is necessary for the triumph of illiteracy is that good men do nothing”
As for the maths, my algebra has long been forgotten as I have not really ever used it since school 34 years ago…..(Only in the simplest form such as I=V/r for calculating fuse sizes or similar)
Oh, and I do my statistics (S. Error, S deviation etc.) long hand but in MS Excel. The in-built formulae for such things tells lies (The wrong kind of lies).
I always throw a Z test Hypothesis into the discussion when somebody quotes me an average.
Remember, when your wife tells you you are the best lover, consider the sample size before feeling smug. 🙂
Trigonometry however has stuck with me, simply because I need some form of it every day.
Accountancy, that winds me up because it is basic sums made difficult by a list of disguised lies hidden amongst latin. And a closed shop of Accountants Charters which ensure mere mathematicians cannot understand the construction of the books…thereby ensuring the Accountants get full employment at £200 per hour. Which, is a good protectionist method while it lasts.
Sign In
