Paul FFirst point is veryt true Moggy – originally the point behind the Prius was indeed to reduce emissions in urban areas, not about fossil fuel economy as such.
The second point regarding “plug in ” electric cars amuses me – lots of people believe think they are going green and reducing their carbon footprint by driving an electric car.
Surely, unless, and until all the electricity used to charge the batteries on such cars is solely produced by wind/wave/hydroelectric power, they are simply being niaive, as the electricity that they use is probably 90% generated by fossil-fuel burning power stations. So, although they may not be burning fossil fuel under their car bonnet, they are simply one-stage removed from the power station that did so in order to “fill” their battery :rolleyes:.
Too many people confusing two different issues – low emissions and carbon footprints – the two are closely related, but not necessarily the same thing!
And don’t get me started on the fact that regardless what powers your car, the biggest chunk of it’s “lifetime” carbon footprint is probably the energy used to produce it from the ultimate starting materials such as iron ore, oil etc. The amount of fuel it burns “in use” is just one small part of the overall “whole life” footprint.
-It probably does less damage to the planet resources overall to repair/support an older, albeit less fuel efficient, car than it does to scrap it and buy a new one which has consumed goodness knows how many tonnes of virgin iron ore, and how many killowatts of power (wonder how was that generated?) to make it. But of course, that means you cannot enjoy the “green prestige” of a new “greener” car.
Anyone ever asked their car dealer to confirm exactly how much CO2 was generated in producing the sparkly new “green” model on the forecourt, or how many tonnes of “new” natural resource went into making it and shipping it to the dealer, or trying to work out similar figures for the ongoing running (till it really does fall apart beyond repair)of the vehicle you’re thinking of trading in….no, thought not….as the answer is probably quite unpleasent, and will almost certainly prove that running the dirty old car will be more “green” in the long run.
It might just put you off buying the new car if dealers were forced to display such info…i.e. a standaridsed “100,000 mile lifetime carbon footprint”, including all consumables/spares, all fuel etc.
PaulF
And no, I don’t worry too much about green issues myself, as it’s all a load of hype unless you really worry about (and calculate) every single kg of raw material used, and every single watt of energy used to support your lifestyle. Yes we shoudl all try not to waste non-renewable energy, fossil fuels, natural resources etc, but it takes more than just buying a green car to do it properly – what about the nice new mobile phone you’ve just bought, or that new flat screen TV, or the new Blu-Ray player (and all the new discs to go with it), or the Nintendo Wii, or latest x-box….. or the “on trend” footwear…need I go on?
Paul FFirst point is veryt true Moggy – originally the point behind the Prius was indeed to reduce emissions in urban areas, not about fossil fuel economy as such.
The second point regarding “plug in ” electric cars amuses me – lots of people believe think they are going green and reducing their carbon footprint by driving an electric car.
Surely, unless, and until all the electricity used to charge the batteries on such cars is solely produced by wind/wave/hydroelectric power, they are simply being niaive, as the electricity that they use is probably 90% generated by fossil-fuel burning power stations. So, although they may not be burning fossil fuel under their car bonnet, they are simply one-stage removed from the power station that did so in order to “fill” their battery :rolleyes:.
Too many people confusing two different issues – low emissions and carbon footprints – the two are closely related, but not necessarily the same thing!
And don’t get me started on the fact that regardless what powers your car, the biggest chunk of it’s “lifetime” carbon footprint is probably the energy used to produce it from the ultimate starting materials such as iron ore, oil etc. The amount of fuel it burns “in use” is just one small part of the overall “whole life” footprint.
-It probably does less damage to the planet resources overall to repair/support an older, albeit less fuel efficient, car than it does to scrap it and buy a new one which has consumed goodness knows how many tonnes of virgin iron ore, and how many killowatts of power (wonder how was that generated?) to make it. But of course, that means you cannot enjoy the “green prestige” of a new “greener” car.
Anyone ever asked their car dealer to confirm exactly how much CO2 was generated in producing the sparkly new “green” model on the forecourt, or how many tonnes of “new” natural resource went into making it and shipping it to the dealer, or trying to work out similar figures for the ongoing running (till it really does fall apart beyond repair)of the vehicle you’re thinking of trading in….no, thought not….as the answer is probably quite unpleasent, and will almost certainly prove that running the dirty old car will be more “green” in the long run.
It might just put you off buying the new car if dealers were forced to display such info…i.e. a standaridsed “100,000 mile lifetime carbon footprint”, including all consumables/spares, all fuel etc.
PaulF
And no, I don’t worry too much about green issues myself, as it’s all a load of hype unless you really worry about (and calculate) every single kg of raw material used, and every single watt of energy used to support your lifestyle. Yes we shoudl all try not to waste non-renewable energy, fossil fuels, natural resources etc, but it takes more than just buying a green car to do it properly – what about the nice new mobile phone you’ve just bought, or that new flat screen TV, or the new Blu-Ray player (and all the new discs to go with it), or the Nintendo Wii, or latest x-box….. or the “on trend” footwear…need I go on?
Paul FLooks like the same face as on the Turin Shroud to me 😮
Paul F
Paul FBeen away from the web for a week, and only just catching up on threads etc.
Here’s my tuppence worth…
There was a pole-mounted Spitfire (albeit a plastic replica/FSM now I assume/hope :eek:) at RAF Uxbridge, and it was fairly easily visible from the main road past the camp entrance this summer when I took my son to visit the Brunel Uni campus nearby.
No doubt someone else will know if the current example is mounted in the same place as any former gate guardians present in the fifties/sixties/seventies.
– There was also a Spit on the gate at Abingdon, but maybe this is a bit too far off any likely route that might have been used to get to Blenheim Palace?
Cheers
Paul F
Paul FIs it my eyes or wasn’t the inboard engines running prior to T/O. Maybe something to do with that and running the engines up to temp and pressure properly before putting them under load. You just can’t start an engine and run it up to full power under load right away.
The appartent low rpm of the props might just be a function of the video camera being used – I know my Camcorder sometimes “captures” images in such a way that on play back it slows props to a near idle even though they were running at high rpm when filmed. Some strange function of the image capture speed vs the actual rpm – a bit like the well known optical illusion in old Westerns when the wheels on the covered wagons often appeared to be rotating backwards as the wagon went along….
Paul FForced to land “outside of London” Eh?
Well, that narrows it down to about 99.9997% of the planets surface, or to about 90% of the UK landmass then, guess his pilots must have been spoilt for choice as they no doubt “heroically battled the violently shaking craft as it plunged headlong towards the ground” 😀
…and presumably, anywhere “outside London” is seen by the rest of the world as a barren desert, totally devoid of any humanity….
Poor old Enrique, fancy having to land beyond the bounds of civilisation…’spose he had to pay for a taxi to get him back to the safety of the capital, and no doubt had to call on umpteen personal assistants, flunkies and therapists or ego-massagers in order to calm his shattered nerves and mop his fevered brow after such a shocking incident.
Lucky it was a “survivable” incident then 😀 😀 😀
Gawd help us!
Of course, some might cry “publicity stunt”, but not me, oh no sir.
Paul FIan,
Looking at the photo the No1 prop (fan?) does appear to be feathered – the blades are edge on to the airflow, rather than in a much flatter (fine pitch) plane like the other three.
Looks like your shutter speed was fine, but that the prop speed on no.1 was zero (or as near as makes no difference) – or at least below 160 rpm, so your shutter speed has frozen an “idling” prop….
Paul F
Paul FIt’s all a sales ploy
Just when everyone has gone out and spent god knows how much on an HD-TV, do they now decide to bring out something even better…Super Hi-Vision, which promises to be x16 sharper than today’s HD sets! Typical.:mad:
And, of course, “they” already know what will replace the new fangled Super Hi-Vision once everyone has followed the herd, believed the marketing spiel and bought their SHV television sets….
And why should “they” worry about the environmental damage done by encouraging people to replace perfectly serviceable HD TVs with SHV sets simply to get better picture quality. And why do people need TV sets the size of a hangar wall anyway – next health problem will be a whole generation of fashion-followers with knackered eye-muscles. Stick to a 25inch screen and you probably won’t tell the difference between HD and SHV picture quality anyway!
As with any other “fashion”, if the masses didn’t slavishly follow “trends” to keep up with the Joneses then the TV manufacturers/retaillers would soon go out of business, that’s why they keep switching formats, it’s nothing to do with satisfying consumer demand, it’s all about driving consumer demand for their products.
(Cynical? Me?, surely not…..:diablo:)
Paul FIt’s all a sales ploy
Just when everyone has gone out and spent god knows how much on an HD-TV, do they now decide to bring out something even better…Super Hi-Vision, which promises to be x16 sharper than today’s HD sets! Typical.:mad:
And, of course, “they” already know what will replace the new fangled Super Hi-Vision once everyone has followed the herd, believed the marketing spiel and bought their SHV television sets….
And why should “they” worry about the environmental damage done by encouraging people to replace perfectly serviceable HD TVs with SHV sets simply to get better picture quality. And why do people need TV sets the size of a hangar wall anyway – next health problem will be a whole generation of fashion-followers with knackered eye-muscles. Stick to a 25inch screen and you probably won’t tell the difference between HD and SHV picture quality anyway!
As with any other “fashion”, if the masses didn’t slavishly follow “trends” to keep up with the Joneses then the TV manufacturers/retaillers would soon go out of business, that’s why they keep switching formats, it’s nothing to do with satisfying consumer demand, it’s all about driving consumer demand for their products.
(Cynical? Me?, surely not…..:diablo:)
Paul FWhy not fly out the private/light aircraft that scatterd around ?
I guess many owners had to choose between moving their aircraft or moving their families/possessions, trying to protect their houses etc. A tough call, but I’d certainly put the welfare of my nearest and dearest way above trying to save any aircraft I might own.
And, compared to other US airports I’ve seen, this shot would seem to suggest a great many aircraft had been evacuated, normally stateside ramps are chock-a-block with GA types.
FYI there are photos of the damage inside the museum on another thread on this board – the devastation must be totally soul destroying for all involved at LSFM Wind damage is one thing, but flood damage takes ages to rectify, as my townsfolk here in Lewes UK know only too well.
Hang in there guys!
Paul F
Paul FKev/Pete,
I am in now way trying to defend “the enemy” of the time, nor am I trying to be politically correct – anyone who knows me will confirm that I have no time for the namby-pamby PC-approach that pervades so many aspects of modern society. Nor am I advoctaing a “forgive and forget” policy – “forgive”- definitely, otherwise we cannot move forwards, “forget” – never, or we all risk repeating the same mistakes all over again.
I was simply trying to suggest that I suspect many of the people involved onthe axis side were pretty simlilar to those involved on the Allied side – young men (and women) who perhaps didn’t really understand why they were fighting or what they were being asked to fight for, but still felt that it was their duty to support their country first, and to ask questions second. Yes, I totally agree they were the enemy, but I was trying to suggest that many of them were probably not out and out “gung ho” nazis. A charsimatic leader, who promises much, can all too easily “brainwash” a large hunk of a population into following their edicts – especially if they have already seen what happens to anyone to whom that same leader takes a dislike.
I totally abhor the nazis, and all they stood for, and I am very proud that my home nation and it’s allies had the will, courage, and gritty determination to fight against such an evil regime. Those who lost their lives in defending my right to freedom get my deepest respect and thanks whenever I come across a war memorial (large or small).
Paul F
Paul FKev,
As ever, a thought provoking post…
One comment I will make…you say
I still can’t help thinking that although I fully accept that many of those resting on Cannock Chase were ordinary men and women, that they were still the enemy. And that it was their aggression which plunged Europe and later America into six years of war.
And all it earned those on Cannock Chase was a six foot patch of ground needlessly early.
I think know where you’re coming from, but (in my naive way) I tend to take the stance that the vast majority of combatants were indeed “ordinary men and women”, perhaps caught up in misguided/manipulated nationalist fervour, but that the real “enemy” were those in power who lead/drove the aggressive stance of the nation involved in any aggression.
I know you can argue that anyone who takes up arms for an aggressor state is condoning the aggression (otherwise they could “opt out” and be a conscious objector), but I suspect few saw that option as any more attractive than fighting for their country. Nowadays we are all hopefully (in UK/West at least) a little more questioning of our leaders, and thus less likely to blindly support any aggression.
However, a great many states are still run/manipulated by religious or political megolomaniacs to thsi day, who prey on their subjects’/populations’ deepest fears of the unknown foreigner, and thus whip the majority up to serve their own greedy, self-serving, ends…. in some ways nothing much changes in the human nature :o, depsite the number of people who as you say have found their way under ” a six foot patch of earth needlessly early” :(.
Of course, any members of the armed forces are surely (and rightly?) obliged to follow orders given by their superiors – if they are not, then should never have joined up…. assuming they have any choice in joining up, and are not conscripted.
As ever, a post from you challenges me (us) to think about and try to take a stance on something I would otherwise not worry about – keep ’em coming!
Paul F
Paul FWe aviation nuts sometimes forget the overall indifference to matters of heritage and preservation . Right now is a pretty bad time to be trying to raise funds for something which most people have barely any interest in. Unlike the Vulcan, it is not even noisy and spectacular.
My prediction is that the last Beverly will continue to be looked after as best it can for some time yet, until some Health and Safety audit declares it dangerous due to corrosion in the wings, ( as at Hendon) and it is dismantled/chopped up leaving just a fuselage, probably minus the tail as well.
Sorry:(
Ditto – I suspect the Beverley hardly rates as a ‘noteworthy’ type beyond the enthusiast fraternity. I wonder how many members of the general public even know that such a ‘plane existed, let alone where it served, or how many were built/remain etc etc. Concorde, Spitfire, Lancaster, Vulcan, Eurofighter – get beyond this list and I fear many members of the public would struggle to name or recognise (m)any others.
Having been aboard this last example when she was still resident in Beverley some years ago, I would recommend anyone interested get along to see her before it’s too late, and don’t forget to take photos and notes for the record etc.
As with all machines of this size, she poses problems that many smaller types do not, especially as she has to be dismantled and then rebuilt as part of any relocation exercise. All too soon she will go the same way as the examples did at Hendon and Southend (or wherever that one ended up) – I count myself lucky that I saw them intact – only one now remains – don’t miss your chance of seeing one in the flesh.
Paul F
Paul F’twas shown on the ITV news at 10:45 last evening.
One of those “non events” that they suddenly focus on as a consequence of the recent Madrid tragedy :(.
Yes, it’s a potential emergency, and yes it was no doubt worrying for the passengers, but as airliners have to withstand/survive an undercarriage fire without further damage for a finite period as part of the certification process events like this border on scaremongering by the media.
Paul F
Paul FLucky man, I was under the impression that, for some reason, Sea Furies were not the best of aircraft to make an emergency landing in, remember Spencer Flak’s bad landing, the RN 2 seaters argument with the trees and the incident with the RN Fury when the pilot was instructed to aim it out to sea and abandon ship.
Hi Pete,
Not sure the Furies are any worse in these circumstances than any other high-performance warbird type are they?
The RN two seater had an argument with a tree or two after landing gear-up and veering off to one side whilst sliding to a halt IIRC – not sure that any other type would have done any better in those circumstances?
The RN Fury that was dropped in the sea was down to an undercarriage failure IIRC- one leg wouldn’t operate, so pilot was left with one main gear up, and one down – in that situation a force landing was deemed too dangerous. Though maybe a ” both wheel’s up” option was possible – I can’t remember…
Don’t know the detailled circumstances on this latest incident, but if it was loss of power late in the approach, then the outcome was probably more a functions of the type of terrain than any fault of the Fury design. Had the pilot already had the gear down and had smooth tarmac beneath then maybe the plane would simply have touched down early and rolled to a stop completely unscathed. With gear up over endless tarmac I suspect it might have slid to a halt with minimal damage – but with scrubby desert beneath I guess the outcome was never likely to be good – again, would any other heavy WW2 piston-engined fighter have fared any better in exactly the same circumstances (i.e. similar level of pilot ability/experience, same gear selection, engine failure at same point in the approach, and same scrubland beneath….)?
I don’t know, and I don’t calim to be an expert, but I’m not sure the Fury is inherently any worse than any other type in the same class?
I think the fact that the pilot(s?) walked away from this one, after an engine failure on approach over such terrain, is testament to his skill, and to the robustness of the airframe.
Sign In
