WL747Thank you
Just to let you know that I have had probably the most pleasant 15 mins on the forum ever reading this thread. Thanks Les B and exmpa for such an eye opening account of potential operations in the event of the Cold War turning hot.
I’m too young to have experienced the tensions of the Cuban missile crisis, or to be able to appreciate fully the tensions in the 70’s and 80’s, but if it sends a chill down my back thinking of it now, I can imagine how much worse for those who would have to perform the duty of executing a nuclear attack.
The most chilling part is the thought of perhaps having nothing to return to….
Thank you guys, it’s been entertaining and informative 🙂
WL747Alternative senario!
It seems that the Emergency Location transmitter (the AC was fitted with an ELT), has not been activated, which would indicate the aircraft did not actually crash, but the G-earth images are quite sharp, and i would expect a complete light aircraft would have been spottet by now.
Could this indicate a ditch?
How about UFO abduction? He is American after all…… :diablo:
Sorry for being irreverent on the wrong forum Moggy….
WL74780-400mm AF VR Lens
I own one of these bad boys, as well as a 70-200mm lens and use them both on a Nikon D70 and a Nikon F4S, and have never really struggled with the slower focusing speed of the 80-400VR lens. If part of your aircraft is out of focus, surely the best thing is to stop your lens down a couple of stops for a slightly better DOF.
I’ll be honest, I’d prefer the option of the 70-200mm lens with a TC, but seeing the majority of stuff I photograph doesn’t move, I stick with the 80-400mm lens.
Hope this helps,
Scotty 😉
WL747Millemium dome,scottish parliment building,dare i say ,,concorde? TSR2, blue water/streak,etc etc, all these were projects started,and eventually proved to have had money thrown at them with only concorde possibly successful in a small way, had that financial prowess been put into preserving these airfields it would have proved a much better inveatment not to mention the jobs the scheme would have created mostly long term ,plus numerous preservation groups/ societies to administer said airfields, the ones who didnt come home deserve this.
erm…. yup, the scottish parliment building did cost rather a lot of money, but to say it isn’t a success and will not be as beneficial as perserving a few airfields is a bit short sighted. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but it is certainly the way I have taken it…
The money to preserve airfields would be an infinite black hole, and who would you be preserving them for? I applaud the sentiment that you are remembering those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country, but to preserve everything is a definite non-starter, with cost implications which would easily outstrip the embarrassing £400m our parliment building cost… And who would truly benefit from preserved airfields?
As much as it pains me to say it, maybe development of airfields is inevitable. It may affect us more as WWII is still within living memory, and the military operation of some of these airfields is perhaps still within recent memory (i.e Coltishall), but how will future generations react? Will they see it as relevant as we do? Perhaps there are some airfields better candidates for perservation, but maybe some are going to have to succumb to the inevitable, in particular those near major population centres. I am not saying this is right, or I agree with it, only taking a realistic approach…
Would it be an idea as a condition of planning permission to force developers to at least make a memorial for bases where people lost their life in conflict?
Regards,
Scotty
WL747Bubbleheads….
If these guys want to explore, and they honestly care about the aircraft, would it not make more sense to visit the museum, make a donation or volunteer to help look after the airframes and site?
Sometimes I see their point in recording forgotten history when they are causing NO damage, but when you read the bubblehead that said ‘he couldn’t get into’ the aircraft, it is these mindless people that spoil it for everybody else, as possibly the next person trying to get in will see it as more of a challenge, and break in….:mad:
Just my tuppenceworth…
WL747I’ve always liked the looks of the 146, but have never had the chance to fly in one.
Nice enough to fly in, used to fly in them regularly going between Aberdeen and Amsterdam or Stanstead with Air UK (eeek! that dates it!!!)
My overriding memory was cursing when I got a seat under the wing area, as the overhead lockers were smaller (to allow for the spars I’d imagine), and if you weren’t the first on in that area, you’d have to put your bag or briefcase under the seat in front of you…..:(
WL747I’ve an old style focus with the 115PS TDCI duratorq engine, and regularly run it down until the light comes on – in some cases I’ve filled up, and with calculations have worked out there was less of a litre of usable fuel in the tank…. No problems at all – where I live is fairly hilly, and not had a problem with engine even spluttering…. only spluttering was from me, hoping to get to the pump in time!!!
Dunno if it is mondeo fault in particular rather than a fault with the engine. Perhaps I am setting myself up for a problem too!!
Regards,
Scotty
WL747I’ve an old style focus with the 115PS TDCI duratorq engine, and regularly run it down until the light comes on – in some cases I’ve filled up, and with calculations have worked out there was less of a litre of usable fuel in the tank…. No problems at all – where I live is fairly hilly, and not had a problem with engine even spluttering…. only spluttering was from me, hoping to get to the pump in time!!!
Dunno if it is mondeo fault in particular rather than a fault with the engine. Perhaps I am setting myself up for a problem too!!
Regards,
Scotty
WL747South African Shack
I do believe there is a problem with people current to fly them as well….:(
There is also what happened to Pelican 16.
The Shack in service had quite a lot of problems with the translation unit in the contra-rotating props. Would it be true to say that these are going to be pretty intensive aircraft to maintain? I don’t know…. As much as I would love to see the Shack fly, I don’t believe for a second there is enough public interest to make it worth while to make one of these old ladies fly again – it doesn’t have the same draw as a Vulcan…
WL747From memory the original lifting frame for R for robert was a flimsy looking affair,possibly might have been designed without allowing for the effect that water/silt etc would have on the weight to be lifted.Once again from memory I think the 2nd frame was built by an oil rig engineering firm and looked much more capable.
Yup, the second frame was built by Oceaneering, a diving and ROV company from their base in Aberdeen. From what I remember, the divers stuck an Oceaneering sticker on the tail of the aircraft….. Divers, can’t take them anywhere – won’t catch us ROV people doing that….:diablo:
WL747Top Job Bruce…. looks great, and hopefully all feel it was worth the effort!
Scotty
WL747Bit confused – looked at the website, the T20 still has the Bristol engine, it’s the FB.11 that has the 3350 and Ham Stand. prop….:confused:
WL747Slide Scanner
Gamekeeper –
You’ve two main options – go for a flatbed scanner with a film adapter – this is the cheaper of the options. I use a Canon LiDE80 scanner with varying results.
The best option is go for a dedicated 35mm slide / film scanner. Not cheap, but you can pick one up for about £400. I bought a Nikon Coolscan LS50 a couple of years ago for about £428…. The results are outstanding, but to be honest, I’d only recommend the expense if you can afford it, have lots of slides or negatives to scan, or still use film cameras. As I still extensively use film, that’s how I justify the cost!
Theres a few other models on the market, but if you go for the LS50, photography magazines were hotly recommending it for ease of use and quality of pictures, although you may want to use Photoshop Elements for the processing….
Hope this is of use!
regards,
Scotty:)
WL747TSR2 Flying??
Somebodies having a laugh? A flying TSR 2?
May I jog peoples memories back to the not so distant past (last week in fact!) when there was all the naysayers having a go about the feasibility of XH558 continuing to fly…. do you think a flying TSR is going to be any better off? The Vulcan at least enjoys popular support and much more recognition….
It’s never going to happen, you’ve more chance of a a BA Concorde and Vulcan XL391 doing a formation flypast…. :diablo:
Best stick to the scale flying models….
Regards,
Scotty
WL747IMHO long-term aircraft preservation also may be questionable with the possibility of corrosion from the rusty building frame dropping onto the airframes.
Please excuse my naivety here, but what is the difference between the NCWE and some of the bog standard hangers other aircraft get housed in?
My current work in the offshore industry is in one of the most corrosive of environments. Our aluminium constructed equipment gets stuck into sea water, and through careful care and management, after 10 years of operation, still hasn’t corroded away. Ok, the mild steel parts need constant attention, but IIRC aircraft aren’t built of mild steel.
I can’t see flaked rust from the building causing a problem if we can stick our aluminium equipment into the North Sea for 10 years with no major problems. Surely if the aircraft are given a wipe every couple of years or so, I can’t see there being an issue….
I’m prepared to be proved wrong though….
Scotty
Sign In
