dark light

Bomberboy

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 784 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Airworthy Merlin arrives for Just Jane #1105984
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Excellent! a nice source of spares for PA474:diablo:

    If not then:confused::confused::confused::confused: as engines would be right down on my list of right what do we need to get/do next

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Opinion wanted #1113428
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Seems good money to me.

    Fortuitously, I already have a copy of this.

    Bomberboy

    Bomberboy
    Participant

    It just goes to show what can be done if one has the passion, conviction and a ‘can do – will do’ attitude………………oh and I forgot………..an understanding wife!!!!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::D

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: An end to flying at Duxford? #1157763
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    How many of you that have posted have children? How many have more than one, or even two? Where are they going to live? The simple fact is we all have too many offspring,

    That’s perculiar!!!!
    Point #1
    I’m sure that this ‘wonderful’ administration we are currently saddled with keep telling us that this country is at risk because we are becoming an older aged population and that there will not be enough young people earning enough money for the country to keep paying for the older generations etc etc?
    Please correct me if I am wrong!!!!!!!

    this is a small country,

    Excellent!!!!! You have managed to observe a very good point there.
    Point #2
    This is critical as we just do not have enough space and yet again this ‘wonderful’ administration we are currently saddled with don’t even want to put a cap on the population rise.

    forget all that right wing stuff about too many immigrants, they form only a part of the population..

    So easily and simplistically covered.
    Point #3
    We unfortunately have too many people from all over the world coming to live here on these very small islands (see point #2)
    So take Point #3 minus the misguided and incorrect claim you make in Point #1 means a constant increase in population with a resultant Point #4 in a land pressed for space in Point #2.

    The fact that we are a modern, successful first world country means we breed like rabbits and the rabbit cubs survive. They need housing.

    Point #4 Indeed they do need housing but the rest of this sentence is nothing more than a load of piffle!
    Africa is generally considered to be a third world country, but yet they seem to sucessfully erm……………..”breed like rabbitts” and even with the poorer survival rate still means they have way way more than they can cope with! Just imagine if the survival rate was better?

    If you live next to an airfield and moan then I have no sympathy
    If you have more than two children and moan about housing estates I have no sympathy either.

    I don’t and I don’t and so quite selfishly I can say Neither do I!

    what? Me?
    No, made the concsious decision not to have any as there were enough in the world
    Never regretted itt

    Your choice and sadly a missed opportunity to enjoy creating and helping grow the pilots and engineers of the future!!!!

    I sincerely hope this development gets scrapped.
    On the other hand, one has to grant Grovesnor Developments persistance with all the other reasons and excuses that they have had their previous applications turned down on, where they then pick themselves up again and dream up another reason to justify building something on this plot of land, whatever it may be.
    There is barely any mention of the airfield in any of the official planning application documentation and so anybody reading it without the actual knowledge of the area could be forgiven for not being aware of the airfields existence.
    There is even an element relating to nearby historic significance and again the airfield get no mention, yet historicly significant it is!!!!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2019711
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Bomberboy,

    Peter’s questions are pertinent, concise and sensible. In many ways he’s picking up the gaps in what I write!. He’s a sanity check that I clearly need!.

    Cheers,
    Steve

    Thanks for that Jonesy, I appreciate what you have said and obviously appreciate that my example of Peter G was perhaps a little misdirected.

    I am trying to learn and upload info into my grey matter, but become very dis-interested in elements where some people display the ‘I know I am wrong but because of some perhaps nationalistic pride or ideal, I’ll deny everything if it’s not in my interest’, (I think the term Fanboy may apply here), whereby a circular slanging match ensues.
    This may be fun for some, tedious for others, but for people like me with very limited or even no in depth knowledge, it rather thakes the inquisitive edge of of the proceedings.
    Unfortunately, I have seen this all to often on this forum, which I accept is an open forum for everybody’s opinion, but I do despair at times and wonder why this has to be.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2019732
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    This thread is stunning!!!!!!!
    Really informative…………..NOT!!!!

    Clearly some people still think they are in the playground na na ne na na!!!!!!
    Others read what everybody else writes and then throw in a simple one liner type of question which really contributes to any discussion…….not!!!!
    They don’t contribute to the debate, they just question those that do (aka Peter G).

    I try to take some interest in what I read as I know nothing, but when people are keener to throw mud, name call or stick their tongues out (aka dionis) at those who are at least attempting to debate sensibly (aka Jonesey), then I learn nothing and lose interest, which is not what I want to do.

    So come on guys or gals (you never can tell) !!!!!!!!

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world -II #2022037
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Aircraft carriers may not be built, says navy head

    The head of the navy today conceded that the decision to build two large aircraft carriers could be overturned. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said that although contracts had been signed to build HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, next year’s defence review could cause those plans to change. He was speaking on board HMS Illustrious in the presence of the weapons procurement minister, Lady Taylor, who said plans to build a second carrier are “still active”.

    I wouldn’t quite have put it like that.
    Adm Stanhope was really trying to get a message accross to not make cuts for fear of losing capability.
    Capability of losing such items as a ‘couple of acres of soverignty that we can operate where and when we as a nation choose’.
    Baroness Taylor (not lady), did indeed state that the plans for the second carrier were still moving forward, when she was asked about the fact the steel had been cut for the first, but obviously not the second.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Sally B technical problem? #1200928
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    One of the reasons that news like this has stopped filtering down to the forums is that as soon as it pops up, we get a host of people with no knowledge of the problem or the industry putting their oar in, and telling them where they went wrong.

    If this forum is to continue as a good source of information in the future, we must embrace the operators, and be sympathetic to their problems.

    Unless you are posting with specific knowledge of the problem, please be somewhat circumspect, and avoid posting opinion based on little or no knowledge of the issues.
    Bruce

    Wot he said.

    I too saw the trail from the No1 engine, but it was black smoke which with my considerable knowledge and experience with internal combustion engines meant a fuel problem rather than an oil problem ie; the engine was running too rich.

    Springbok, you mentioned about how the complex Vulcan is flying but how a ‘mere simple, basic technology’ B-17 was not, so please let me take you back to last year, the Vulcans’ first.
    Did they or did they not have to ground the bomber temporarily at Brize I think it was, to ahem, change an engine because one was making metal?
    In your infinate wisdom and clearly expert knowledge that you are keen to share with us, on the basis that they had spent millions on the aircraft, with a full time engineering crew behind it how would this have been possible and what would you have prescribed for them as the solution?

    By good fortune, the Vulcan had not one, but four zero timed engines in store which has meant their flying programme of X years has now effectively been cut, but meant that they had the spares readily available for use.

    Things happen regardless sometimes of how much and how long something is attended to, so cut some slack on the B-17 team then please, or alternativey, come up with the goods so that we can all praise you for your generosity.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Navies news from around the world #2031877
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Royal Netherlands Navy Upgrades Walrus-class Submarines

    http://www.defpro.com/data/gfx/news/e951be2e57535514403b020f61f45b2128dc2710_big.jpg

    I’m sure I saw one of these in moored alongside in Grand Harbour, Malta yesterday.
    I believe the vessel is called Dolfijn as in Dolphin?
    It was moored stern to stern to Spanish ship A111 named Alerta, which was just leaving after six pm local time.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Dambusters remake Lanc unveiled #1182125
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    It could carry 10,000lb of bombs – but not a 10,000lb bomb.

    Max load was 13,000lb (over short ranges, seldom carried).

    ‘Norm’ was 4 X 2,000lb or 8 X 1,000lb or, occasionally 1 X 4,000lb HC + 6 500lb GP bombs

    Ken

    Thanks for that FM, but as I read it the statement was made by Galdri that the Halifax could not carry more than 10,000lbs of bombs not that it could not carry a 10,000lb bomb, which of course we sort of all had an inkling of anyway.
    This as I understood it with my limited knowledge seemed to be an incorrect statement which you have thankfully confirmed to me was indeed incorrect, TA.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: Dambusters remake Lanc unveiled #1182884
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Neither the Stirling nor the Halifax would have the load carrying capabilities. Upkeep was just short of 10 000 pounds.

    Is that right, the Halifax could not carry over 10,000lbs?

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: B17 Sally B Flying 2009 #1182889
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    No we didn’t fly today still awaiting some parts from the US. Plan now is for the 12th or 13th. Still hopeful will be ready for Duxford on the 17th.

    That would be just excellent!!
    I hope it all goes well.
    I have every confidence that it will, especially with all the effort the engineers have obviously had to put into her to get her back in the air.

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: B17 Sally B Flying 2009 #1189158
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    First pre season/post engine problem test flight scheduled for this friday… 😀

    Really?
    Please elaborate?
    Is this a definite?

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: World's Oldest Independent Air Force #1191086
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    Man, am I enjoying this thread. 😀
    For a change, people are making a lot of sense in this only slightly majority conclusion.;)
    Anyway, we shouldn’t knock the Fins because if it wasn’t for them, then………………

    Bomberboy

    in reply to: B17 Sally B Flying 2009 #1195111
    Bomberboy
    Participant

    This is good news. 😀
    Bomberboy

Viewing 15 posts - 616 through 630 (of 784 total)