Not in this country, you wouldn’t.

It might be a different matter if you wrote the banners, mind. :diablo:

I don’t get that. Are you suggesting that I may speak the word of the silent majority? My diplomacy skills have been compared to a Panzer division, which is a very high award!

of course certain parties and/or people will be banned…..this is the UK under New Labour, the most oppressive and eveil movement that ever conned its way to power…and they will do anything to keep it.

Personally I regard the BNP and this dutch guy with complete distaste.

But as much as I disagree with them and what they stand for, I will defend thier right to say it.
The protesters who waved thier banners etc at British soldiers I also regard with distaste.
But I would still defend thier right to hold and express thier views, now matter how much I disagree with them.

I support all you have said.
But. I am white, hetrosexual and approve of the Gulf wars. If I marched the streets with such banners I would be banged up for incitement. Such is free speech in the UK. Our Grand/Fathers died for this shower in power (All of them – not just the quivver lipped idiot and his gang), makes me ashamed.

When I was at School, there was nothing else to do during the week, so it wasn’t worth it. And any gaggle of kids hanging about on a school day would soon be reported to the Police or school.
I’ve wagged a few days off, simply because I wanted to stay in bed! (Same as with work!!)

Did they illuminate it…or have you a flashgun which drains the N. Grid?

Great shots.

Hardly

You’ll have to tell me what else it does then…

Makes sense to me.
If 200 pax each passed 5 fl ounces (1/4 pint) that take off weight would be lowered by 62.5 lbs. That’s half a passenger. I would like to be able to quickly shave off 65lbs from a design feature! Almost 20% of a jet’s fuel is gulped on the take off. No, that’s not right…….correct me please? What was stuck in my head was the USAF Galaxies and C-17’s taking off with 20-30% fuel NOT on board. This allows them to put more freight on (To the weight of the missing fuel). Then, once airborne and the MTOW is satisfied, they team up with a Tanker and get a full tank. Great idea.
After the Manchester air crash (737 in the 80’s) there was a bit of discussion about why every passenger couldn’t have their own oxygen bottle. Weight was the dismissing answer. I wrote in and suggested that the duty free shopping should be done at the point of arrival. This would save several hundred litres/kg or lbs per flight, not only giving some weight to the personal oxy bottle but save TOW as well. I was rejected out of hand.

And, tenthije, reducing flightspeed would have two affects. It would actually make the engine run less economical. Even when fuel was as cheap as water the Civil airliners have always sought ways to save fuel-burn. Running slow is not one of them. It would impinge on timetables…which woulds eventually flush out to an aircraft being held overnight in a place not ideal thus the airline would need more aircraft – which we would pay for in higher prices and that aircraft would not run to it’s full capacity thus being even less green.

I remember it being reported at the time that the aircraft had been completely trashed and was a write-off. Not looking too bad from a distance, it must have sustained severe damage to the airframe
That’s a shame. I wonder how old it was. Not new, I hope.

In the crash thread I said it was junk, the rear Spar had snapped, it looked like the main gear Pintle had put a window in the Spar and the main fuse attachments had also gone. May as well build a new platform than to rebuild the wing primaries and re-align all the T/e hinge points etc. In manufacturing terms, an aeroplane is wings (Including empennage), cockpit and a propulsion system. The rest is just a tube to put talking baggage in.

I would have thought that the dozens of gigs of photo’s you took at the airshows need working on during the close season?