My vote goes to me.
Yes, right…
Beware of absolutes.
I believe the EU description of a ‘seedless’ grape is ‘one containing three or fewer pips’…
‘Impenetrable’ would be right up there with ‘unsinkable’.
Ice, anyone..?
The gobsmackingly essential point about the Russian military is that it is largely a conscript force.
This has not changed since the collapse of communism and, in a country where the plutocratic few are in the Bill Gates league financially (but rarely on merit), represents an interesting comment on the character of the country.
From that starting point, it’s hardly rocket science to work out the rest in terms of psychology and the ‘thoughts’ of ordinary Russians on the matter…
Maybe I should have said twin tailbooms, folks. Sorry, ‘cos that’s what I meant!
(Goes away to a corner to sulk in embarrassment…)
http://www.aircraft.co.za/Encyclopedia/A/417.php
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2090810620067276411JQCHWu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_G.91
http://www.europa1939.com/aviones/apoyo/g91y.html
All from Google, where you’ll find lots more…
This thread has become more about politics, technology and economics than commercial aviation, so off to General Discussion it goes.
Hang on to your hats…………….
That’s a shame, as the thread relates directly to commercial aviation and not politics etc.
This thread has become more about politics, technology and economics than commercial aviation, so off to General Discussion it goes.
Hang on to your hats…………….
That’s a shame, as the thread relates directly to commercial aviation and not politics etc.
Apologies to everyone.
Yes, I intended asking about ‘full blown stealth’ or whatever it needs to be called.
As far as I’m aware, since the B-2, we’ve only seen stealth technology applied as a secondary feature to new designs, rather than as a priority concept.
especially in the UK. Land of highest fuel prices (80% tax!!!).
So we’d be used to it then, no? Trying to work out the logic of that one…
especially in the UK. Land of highest fuel prices (80% tax!!!).
So we’d be used to it then, no? Trying to work out the logic of that one…
I’m no scientist but had thought that the major by-product of burning hydrogen was water vapour, a product with which the environment is well used to coping. Admittedly, it would put this into the atmosphere in large amounts so the consequences would presumably be – clouds..?
I’m no scientist but had thought that the major by-product of burning hydrogen was water vapour, a product with which the environment is well used to coping. Admittedly, it would put this into the atmosphere in large amounts so the consequences would presumably be – clouds..?
And now, for your enjoyment….
Basically thats the route book takes, The decision to cancel skybolt was a political farce , a complete assasination of bomber command and lets not forget the scrapping of the promising TSR2 project………so that the deterrent could be handed over to the navy. and the UK does not now have an INDEPENDANT nuclear detterent, we are entirely dependent on the US, for our nuclear weapons. Thank so much for the info chaps,
Does one detect that the original posting was somewhat rhetorical..?