How can a question be biased?
The issue the right seem to have with the questions is their forthrightness. Much like Cameron wriggling last night, how does a Tory answer questions like ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that big business benefits owners at the expense of workers?’ and ‘ To what extent do you agree or disagree that ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth?’
To refute the traditional socialist line, a committed Tory would have to say ‘Disagree’. But that would clearly be nonsense. Oh, those poor Mail readers and their sore brains.
These are direct questions asked by an organisation with an historical political understanding of what it means to be ‘right’ or ‘left’, and therefore will not include distracting side shows about immigration that have nothing to do with party / social philosophical views but everything to do with people’s experience / perception / concerns around single issues other than the individual’s relationship to capital.
It is the directness of the questioning around straightforward left/right divisions that seems to be upsetting the more right among us, and leading them to accuse these simple questions about attitudes of being somehow biased.
The point is that attitudes do change. This poll was presented to show that they do (and demonstrate a remarkable correlation between direction of drift and the political colour of the incumbent Government), and also to show an individual where they currently stand among shifting sands.
Thanks Pete!
Love the 1918 system – that things were still really in their infancy is shown by there being a category for ‘fighters with more than five seats’ (Metals, Rocks)
That would explain the 8-seater Gloster Granite interceptor.
Still offline, unfortunately. Any friendly people nearby who could reserve a couple of 3D40 hubs for us??? A long shot, but it might work!
Here’s an idea of what’s there.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pS9NexPqSw
Indeed.
The 6 x 4 was 15 to 15.5″ diameter , to the 5.5 x 4’s approximately 14″, so the difference might be visible in photographs?
Yeah, that’s going to be Beaver, haven’t found an anti-shimmy on a WW yet.
Looking at the Dunlop data sheet, the issue is that the 5007 wheel that was shared by all the aircraft types AM listed fitted both a 6×4 and 5.5×4 tyre. Apart from the WW, I don’t know which had what?
Ohh.. just the tyre? Is it circular or square section?
Whirlwind is 5.5 by 4, as per DHC Beaver (and b*gg*r-all else).
Want to see the back end of a Whirlwind? Come to our AGM 😉
James, that looks reasonable!
12Jag.. if you do get those Vol.3 pages scanned to pdf, let me know as there are various ‘shortcuts’ to turn that into a usable text file and/or spreadsheet, as we did for the WW (or rather a series of very dedicated volunteers did).
If anyone has the AP Volume III then the mast should be listed, possibly including the material spec.
Looks like it’s not unique, though I hadn’t seen it anywhere else – http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1956/1956%20-%200909.PDF
As to what a shoe looks like, I can only assume it’s what is more commonly called a de-icer ‘boot’, and that’s easily Googled.
Might be worth looking for detail on the Mk.I Sunderland mast, as that looks very similar indeed.
Certainly the Spitfire aerial was also intended to be used as a receiver for blind approach.. though agreed it would be inefficient at the 40Mhz I seem to recall the system operated at? One would need around 6ft for an effective quarter-wavelength. Maybe the extra wire you saw was some kind of extension? One thing.. it is possible to use the outer skin of an aerial mast as the active part, as was the case with aerials used for VHF coms, eg TR1133, where the core was wood and the signal was passed to the metal cover.
Looks like the ‘Spitfire’ listing virus has spread to Germany.
Oh, and this: http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_16.html
This is enlightening (apologies if it has been linked to before):
It starts here, with the politics around the NF104 / Aerospace Trainer ‘spaceplane’ program: http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_09.html
and the goes on to discuss how Yeager wrote off one of these 3 very expensive aeroplanes though pilot error: http://www.kalimera.org/nf104/stories/stories_13.html
Though that is not how Yeager tells it in his semi-autobiography!