The Tornados tested for Saudi were given UK military serials (I’m sure that has something to do with weapons carrying and release though). The Nimrod MRA4s carried military serials.
We test flew 32Sqn BAe146s with G-6 regs though.
I think we should return to national authorities as EASA is increasingly coming to mean Efforts Against Safe Aviation.
Why do you say that? In my experience EASA and previously the JAA saved an awful lot of duplicate effort, rather having to test to every national variation.
The use of “B” class regs on prototypes seems to have stopped at some point. The prototype BAe146, for example, was flown as G-SSSH, despite the fact that this flight would have been flown under “B” conditions. As I said before, I flew in many B class registered aircraft but these were almost always aircraft destined for overseas after they came off-test.
No poo sherlock 😉
I do apologize, recognizing sarcasm is very difficult sometimes on an internet forum, especially when you use the wrong smilie.;)
No poo sherlock 😉
I do apologize, recognizing sarcasm is very difficult sometimes on an internet forum, especially when you use the wrong smilie.;)
We used to fly G-5- then G-6- registrations on BAe146 and RJs that were being flown under “B” or test conditions. 125s were flown with G-5 regs. They were normally aircraft that were going on to be foreign registered. For example, one of the first 146s I flew in was tested with the reg G-5-063 until such time as it was delivered when it wore N463AP I think it was. Aircraft to be UK registered were often flown with a normal G- reg.
They are no longer used because we no longer build and test aircraft 🙁
Blimey, you must be older than me, we’ve had VAT as long as I can remember.:)
Blimey, you must be older than me, we’ve had VAT as long as I can remember.:)
But remember folks…in those days we did not have indirect taxation and stealth taxes…Chancellors after Ken Clarke (especially Broon) made budgets so complicated that even their own departments didnt have a clue what was going on 😉
Oh I think we had duty on fags, beers and petrol, inheritance tax, VAT etc. in those days too.
But remember folks…in those days we did not have indirect taxation and stealth taxes…Chancellors after Ken Clarke (especially Broon) made budgets so complicated that even their own departments didnt have a clue what was going on 😉
Oh I think we had duty on fags, beers and petrol, inheritance tax, VAT etc. in those days too.
Do you really believe that or are you just offering a debating point? I didn’t think anyone still thought that there was the remotest chance of a European war, EU, or not.
I certainly do believe that spending money on the EU is preferable to a European war. As as far whether or not there would have been another European war? Who knows. The track record isn’t great though.
Do you really believe that or are you just offering a debating point? I didn’t think anyone still thought that there was the remotest chance of a European war, EU, or not.
I certainly do believe that spending money on the EU is preferable to a European war. As as far whether or not there would have been another European war? Who knows. The track record isn’t great though.
I would cheerfully support billions on new European buildings if it stops Europeans going to war with one another.
My apologies pagen01, I thought the reference was to my post
I would cheerfully support billions on new European buildings if it stops Europeans going to war with one another.
My apologies pagen01, I thought the reference was to my post
Europe is whole different discussion. I happen to think that we should be actively involved in Europe but at a reduced cost. If we want to change the way the EU is run, we’re better off doing it from the inside. We certainly won’t be able to do it from the outside.
Europeans are better off in a sort-of union of bickering rather than individual states. Look what happened the last time that was the case!