P.S. Does your DSLR have an F7.2?!

7.1 actually, made a typo. My camera has the option to choose between 1/2 stops and 1/3 stops. I use 1/3 stops. Lowest is 2.8, highest is 32.

You might try hitmanpro2. This program will take a while to work though, so better leave it on overnight and let the program do it’s work while you sleep.

The beauty of it is that this program combines several freeware/shareware programs. It will download, install, run and then remove several virus scanners… one at a time.

If it then still does not work, you may have to format the hard drive and start new. Probably not what you want to do, but you never know. If it is any consolation, I formatted the computer a few weeks back after a very nasty bug infected my computer. My ISP was kind enough to kill the connection to prevent the virus from spreading out of my computer, so I was unable to get updated virus definitions.

Reminds me of this:

Why did this concept die with the VC10 IL62 and OK the Jetstar?

Actually, weight has very much to do with it! Engines are very heavy, and having to add them to the rear fuselage presents four mayor weight issues:

You mentioned that the additional strenghtening of the tail versus the wing negates the weight issues. As mentioned above the center of gravity is a potential issue, even if only in emergencies. There is another thing though. At the end of the day the wing will need reinforcing anyway to resist the impact from the landing gear.

The wingbox, the section where landing gear and fuselage attach, is the strongest part of the plane. The wingspars go out of that box and the engines are attached to the spars. Beyond the engines the spars will thin out, or go down in number.

As you mentioned ease of access is vastly superior for wing mounted engines then it is for tail mounted engines. That’s another reason that is very important. A fast turnaround time is not possilbe if you need half an hour just to set up a ramp to touch the engine!

This is also the reason why tail mounted engines are only used for regional jets and business jets. The landing gear is not tall enough to make an engine fit under the wing. Another way around that is to mount your engines on top of the wing like the Honda Jet and the VFW-614.

(witness the NF-5A/B history, which were purchased of the canadian line rather than homebuilding a true dutch variant)

I am fairly certain that Fokker assembled F104s, F16s and I think also NF-5s (hence the N in NF).

As for system integration. When Fokker was around that should have been no problem. A lot of people tend to forget that the F70/F100 was (and in many ways still is) ahead of the field in many ways. It can land hands-off under pretty much all conditions. This is something the 737NG is still not able to do.

Yes, a lot of the components in the avionics bay where off the shelve from Honeywell and co, but they where then modified to Fokker specifications. This experience no doubt was very influential in the succes of the Grippen.

Of course since Fokker went under a lot of its highly skilled employees found jobs elsewhere. Boeing, Embraer, Airbus. So if we are still able to do so I do not know. Yes we can integrate equipment on ships as Wanshan mentioned. But while room on ships is at a premium, it is still a lot more spacious then on a plane which presents it’s own set of problems.

See the main contenders of the F-28 and their fates. What did happen to the Boeing (MDD) 717 f.e. ?!
That remains of MDD ultimately fell victim to the financial weakness of the Boeing parent company?!

I would not agree that the F100 was a bad plane. The reason fokker went down is not because of bad planes. It is because of politics, bad debt, general market downturn, large overhead costs (mnagement)… but that’s more for the civil forum that this forum. Feel free to start if thread if you are interested and I’ll put my 2 cents worth there.

Over the past year the cost of flying has gone up because of the government finding more ways to charge airlines for different things meaning they have to put the charge to us so they make us pay by paying for things like bags and seat allocation and extra leg room etc etc but at the end of the day its to put us off from flying in a way to tackle climate change, but I really dont the point in this because airlines have to keep their prices because there is so much competition between them.

So can anyone think of a reason these taxes are nessasary and any ways that could actually put people off flying?

Wrong argument. ALL airlines have the same charges so the disadvantage is the same for all airlines involved.

You can argue that the additional taxes do not prevent people from flying, or at least not as much as the government wants. You can argue that the proceeds from the additional taxes are not used to improve the environment or the traveller. But you can not argue that this puts more inconvenience on airlne A then on airline B.

1) Visit at least Madrid and Brussels. Madrid been recently, great place. Brussels not been for 3 years.
2) If the 787 visits Fanborough, I’ll go. Otherwise not interested. Not that impressed with the Farnborough organisation.
3) Upgrade computer as the current one is acting up.
4) Upgrade my camera from 10D to either 30D or 40D finance permitting.
5) Get better at photoshop.
6) I’d like to go to the USA (Washington, already been to NY) but that will probably be too expensive.

With this takeover what does it mean, has VLM been succsesful on certain routes which KLM was not?

VLM has a lot of routes from LCY. KLM has only the AMS route. LCY is a highly lucrative airport, since it caters mostly to business flyers. VLM was there since the get-go and managed to build a good reputation and loyal customer base. Not least because VLM has a large network from LCY. Other carriers, BA excluded, only offer flights to their respective hubs.

Is it to do with VLM has had the right aircraft for the routes to be a success and offer a good service where KLM has the wrong aircraft?

VLM flies F50s, KLM Cityhopper flies F50s. So that won’t be the reason.

What will change will there be any change?

The number of flights from AMS will certainly drop. As I mentioned 19 flights by KLM/VLM alone is a bit overkill. Expect flights to EIN and RTM to be added (replacing LHR flights). Perhaps also flights to GRQ and LWD, but that would be guessing.

Could it be the VLM will be the domestic side of the operation and KLM would be the longer European flights and long haul side of the company?

Domestic in NL? LOL. I expect VLM to be fully absorbed into KLM Cityhopper. Maybe as a Belgian sub-brand for tax reasons or something (VLM Cityhopper, anyone?). Their fleets match quite nicely.

I have read at airliners.net that VLM might be absorbed into Air France’s Cityjet. Considering the fleet and proximity of VLM’s bases to AMS that seems less likely, but who knows?