check out the image of the letter from 1991, from “Aviation Antiques”, there is an image of it (the last one).
that’ll be legit then :rolleyes:
I thought/assumed Italy for some reason, landscape, sidearm but that is speculation on my part 100% and nothing else.
I’ve seen more, ahem, pause for words to keep Grey Area happy… adult perceptions of that logo which involve Lisa Simpson …… :rolleyes::rolleyes:
I’ve seen more, ahem, pause for words to keep Grey Area happy… adult perceptions of that logo which involve Lisa Simpson …… :rolleyes::rolleyes:
and then hold the world to ransom from your secret base under an active volcano only to be thwarted by a scottish bloke in a tuxedo?;)
and then hold the world to ransom from your secret base under an active volcano only to be thwarted by a scottish bloke in a tuxedo?;)
whatever your view on The Colonel etc, military using their weapons on the crowds is obscene, you have to wonder how many “students” from Trafalger Square last year would come out from behind their Che Guevara posters and Manic Street Preacher CD’s to face REAL oppression….
whatever your view on The Colonel etc, military using their weapons on the crowds is obscene, you have to wonder how many “students” from Trafalger Square last year would come out from behind their Che Guevara posters and Manic Street Preacher CD’s to face REAL oppression….
F-105: Has always beena bit confused to me: a fighter with internal bomb bay? or a bomber with a cannon?. Should it be B-105? TAC or SAC?
True, 50% of all F-105’s got shot down in Vietnam. HOWEVER: again look at how they got utililsed.
Without knowing this, It does come across as though they were “experimenting” with some new/old concepts: Having a fighter bomber (F-4), armed with missiles only, to act as fighter cover for the bomber, which was armed with cannon (huh?). The fighter cover carrying 8tons of bombs and the bomber carrying 7tions of bombs (HUH??)
.
valid point, tactical aircraft used on strategic missions “up North”, while strategic bombers (B-52’s) used tactically in the south, so as not to offend by sending the BUFF’s over the North. How mixed up is that !?
PeeDee – sorry, but I chose my wife because we enjoyed each other’s company, loved each other, and had common interests. We did NOT choose each other in order to secure a strain of Sky Highs – what utter rubbish!:mad:
Exactly. When you first become attracted to your partner, is it because you’re thinking about what any possible offspring would be like? Hardly.
So did I, but that didn’t work out, kids are great but as for her…. :rolleyes:
I’d stick with Pagen01’s notion….. much safer…. and then follow the advice of my best friend since school days, simply stated if it has boobs or wheels, its far better to rent it….
after all, at the end of the day, if you meet somebody new she is only single because some other bloke is fed up with putting up with her !:eek:
PeeDee – sorry, but I chose my wife because we enjoyed each other’s company, loved each other, and had common interests. We did NOT choose each other in order to secure a strain of Sky Highs – what utter rubbish!:mad:
Exactly. When you first become attracted to your partner, is it because you’re thinking about what any possible offspring would be like? Hardly.
So did I, but that didn’t work out, kids are great but as for her…. :rolleyes:
I’d stick with Pagen01’s notion….. much safer…. and then follow the advice of my best friend since school days, simply stated if it has boobs or wheels, its far better to rent it….
after all, at the end of the day, if you meet somebody new she is only single because some other bloke is fed up with putting up with her !:eek:
I’m Home!
Great news Barry, – hope you stay well and recover soon, great to have you back.
thankyou for your kind words. still flat on my back in hospital with no signof escape.:rolleyes: you guys have really cheered me up. baz
I bet he is there all tucked with with a Hattie Jacques look alike matron…..pretending to be ill still….:diablo::eek::rolleyes: