You can ask any of the people in here that know me, I havent a nasty or violent bone in my body…

My point is, Smacking the **** out of these people is the ONLY way to get a point accross or teach them, anything

There would be a lot of damage caused (by me)

But its easy to make judgements of people over the internet, isnt it?

Yes it is.

So do you think poeple like this behave violently because they are treated with violence? Could be eh?
.

My point is, Smacking the **** out of these people is the ONLY way to get a point accross or teach them, anything

I don’t know what you do Nashio but if you treat people with violence you should not expect anything else in return.

But it’s easy to threaten violence over the internet isn’t it?

if i bumped into the tw@ts i wudnt think twice about “hurting” them

There would be a lot of damage caused (by me)

Really? Fortunately for the rule of law there a lot of “keyboard” heroes otherwise you would be no different to the thieves.

Those that steal charity boxes are thieves pure and simple. They don’t care from whom they steal as long as it gets them their “fix” or whatever. It has happened for centuries and will carry on as humans exist I suspect.

I believe NASA were interested about 10 years ago in the Vulcan. Research into the ground effect if I recall.

What makes me want to swear?

People who think that item 3 from the site owner’s Code of Conduct doesn’t apply to them for some reason.

Thank you for the explanation into deleting my post – it was most enlightening.:confused:

There’s a substantial amount of off- the- shelf equipment in MR4, but for lightweight airborne equipment, it’s normally so highly optimised against it’s original purpose it can rarely be used without a degree of engineering adaptation (in many cases this adaption constraint of OTS was/is more trouble than its worth), and it rarely comes with a qualification that can be directly reused, hence it all has to be expensively re-qualified as a single integrated system.The same costs would apply for any other platform.

MRA4 was not over ambitious,as I mentioned in my first post, its development woes are far more seated in the way BAESYSTEMS ran the project management.

I agree that many aspects of the project were a problem due to BAE management, however the MOD must share part of the blame. For every person trying to get the test aircraft flying, there appeared to be 10 trying to stop it. Some of the reasons for not flying were truly scandalous.
…there might be book in this were it not for the Official Secrets act.
Many of the problems were foreseen by the engineering staff but accepted as “project risks” by the management. Sadly most of them became a big deal in the end.
I agree with Chox in that the project should have been cancelled or at least redrawn around 2000/2001 when it was clear it wasn’t going to enter service anytime soon. I was always expecting cancellation anytime I worked on it.

But having come this far, it should have been completed and what we have lost is a very capable airframe that would have lasted many years in service.

The MRA4 had IIRC a 13 hour duration without AAR. AAR was provisioned for but not fully qualified. The MRA4 was not going to shut down two engines like MR2 anyway.

I worked on MRA4 from 2002 until 2007. The project had many problems, some of which are only now being rectified but to cancel it now at this late stage seems ludicrous. The £3.6billion or whatever has already been spent and is now wasted.
The capabilities of the aircraft were huge and many of which you will never read about. Learning from AEW, maybe using the Nimrod as a basis was wrong; apparently BAE offered newbuild fuselages but MOD wanted to use the existing airframes as a cost saving exercise.
Some of the waste I saw was staggering and was a real insight into the military mindset prevalent in project management. Personally I think the biggest problem was basing the project at Warton and not Woodford from the beginning.