First time I’ve been accused of being a Rafale fan.
Let’s see:
1. You didn’t post the manufacturer information, I did. You posted the figure from Wikipedia. Btw, the old rolls-royce datasheet that is no longer available had the same information as the MTU data sheet SFC .74-.81. Have a little integrity.

2. You picked the wrong figure (which happened to be the lowest) and tried to justify it with a jumble of crap about super cruise SFC.

Enough, getting caught in a lie isn’t as bad as justifying it with more lies.

1. The figure from wikipedia is the original data from RR. And as I pointed out the 0.74 is the optimal design point cruise figure, naturally that varies, especially at supersonic speeds due to fixed geometry ramp and variable HP inlet vanes also affect it. But have no doubt 0.74 is the figure that compares to the Rafale’s 0.78, they just haven’t mentioned the variance at supersonic speeds for the M88, and with pitot intakes and lack of proper con-di nozzle, it will be terrible at high speed.

2. How is it the wrong figure when it’s on the MTU datasheet? Jumble of crap? Okay, step to the front and explain to the class why there is a variance for the EJ200’s SFC on the datasheet and not the M88? There’s no other reason is there. It’s fundamentally obvious that SFC will vary at different speeds.

The only one lying here, is you to yourself. 0.74 is the lowest figure on the MTU datasheet and 0.78 is the lowest figure on the Snecma datasheet. And as a strange coincidence, 0.74 is also the figure someone pointed out on wikipedia from the original RR datasheet, it matters not what some book by Louis Feroux says, especially when it disagrees with a figure in another book by Herman Melville. I rest my case. I don’t go to Aero engine manufacturers’ datasheets for fish finger specs and I don’t expect people to go to Captain Birdseye for aero engine specs.

So Switzerland is 50% less democratic than Romania?

you didn’t follow what I said. I did not say that home ownership is unhealthy, I said the obsession with home ownership as the only apparent route to individual prosperity is unhealthy. It is exclusive rather than inclusive. You defeat your own argument, by your suggestion we are considerably less democratic that we were 20 years ago.

If democracy was only provided by home ownership, you would be taking us back to the 18th century. What next, remove the right for women to own property when married?

As a little tax haven, probably, yes.

In all likely we are. Too many special interests, immigration pushing up rental prices so that people can never save enough for a house.

I didn’t say that people without homes shouldn’t be able to vote, I simply said it was better if voters had homes, rather than it being the preserve of wealthy elites.

Okay these are interesting. Basically they decided the Reynobond PE was legal based on BS476:Parts 6 and 7 but that is the standard for internal walls and ceilings not external cladding. BS 8414:Part 1 is the correct standard for external cladding.

https://www.impact-solutions.co.uk/pe-cladding-and-fire-ratings-what-does-it-all-mean/
https://www.allerdale.gov.uk/downloads/bca_guidance_note_18_use_of_combustible_cladding_materials_on_residential_buildings.pdf

And as pointed out above, Class 0 is not limited combustibility.

Which is the fault of what Labour did from 1997-2008.

Okay, local authority owned, but I regard all public stuff as government owned one way or another.

I believe it is healthy. A land-owning democracy is the heart of a proper democracy. Without land-ownership and the ability of regular citizens to buy homes, it’s an aristocracy.

Nicolas 10

1. UCAVs are not here yet and won’t be for some time.

2. UCAVs aren’t well suited to A2A.

3. You don’t build a fighter jet for the lowest threat environment.

The next generation of the couple who bought their council house, would have inherited that house, instead of just living in a government owned property.

As regards home ownership blame the mortgages offered under the watchful eye of the last Labour government. People lost their jobs but the prices never correct because landlords moved in during the fire sale. Limits on the amount of residential properties private entities can own might be a good idea and it might also stop money laundering that uses the London property market to wash money.

The problems of leaving the EU were caused by joining it in the first place. We’d already have a good trading relationship with the EU and not be billions of pounds out of cash if we’d never joined in the first place. Certainly in 1992, we should have stayed out of it but at least we stayed out of the damn Euro.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/grenfell-tower-should-this-cladding-be-allowed?/5088261.article

12.5. The external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety. The use of combustible materials in the cladding system and extensive cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings.
External walls should either meet the guidance given in paragraphs 12.6 to 12.9 or meet the performance criteria given in the BRE Report Fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi storey buildings (BR 135) for cladding systems using full scale test data from BS 8414-1:2002 or BS 8414-2:2005.

12.7 In a building with a storey 18m or more above ground level any insulation product, filler material (not including gaskets, sealants and similar) etc. used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility (see Appendix A). This restriction does not apply to masonry cavity wall construction which complies with Diagram 34 in Section 9.

Both Grenfell (and previously Lakanal House) were greater than 18m high. I would suggest “insulation product” would cover cladding panels also and again I very much doubt a product with a Polyethylene core can be considered to be limited combustibility (as per Table A7) nor would meet the recommendations of BR 135 and BS 8414-1:2002 or BS 8414-2:2005.

“in buildings taller than 18m and insulation product should be of limited combustibility”

And I don’t think anyone watching that fire would agree that what was used had limited combustibility.

Reynobond PE is Class 0.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/15/experts-warned-government-against-cladding-material-used-on-grenfell

Now see page 4. Class 0 is not limited combustibility.
http://www.rockwool.co.uk/globalassets/rockwool-uk/downloads/brochures/regulation-guides/rw16-041-routes-to-compliance-update-may16-for-web.pdf

In March 2006 PMA-208 started working in conjunction with Orbital to develop a modification that would enable the GQM-163A to perform a powered dive in order to replicate the high-altitude cruise/near-vertical dive attack profile associated with a specific high-diving missile threat.

Kh-22/32.