Paul FDo you like to gamble…?
If it had been stored at <5’C (i.e. in a refrigerator) for all the time, and presuming I was going to heat it to well above 70’C during preparation (by grilling/frying etc), then I’d risk it… but no responsibility for any adverse outcome accepted if you do 😉
Paul F
Paul FDefinite improvment – why not have a dedicated Stickies board, and just leave the few usual/essential “T&C” and “Notices for posters” stickies on the “discussion” forums (fora?).
Or maybe all stickies except the essentials can be time limited, such that they disappear or are taken down say, four weeks after first being posted?
Paul F
Paul FMy favourite was the suggestion that BAA arrivals board announced the flight as having landed. Surely an urban myth…?
Hi Ren,
When I checked the BAA Heathrow website “live” arrivals list at around the time I was first posting on here yesterday afternoon (1:30pm ish from memory) to see about diverted traffic etc, it definitely did show BA038 from Beijing having landed at 12:42. Not an urban myth, it was definitely there.
Don’t know if the arrivals screens/boards inside the terminal(s) showed the same info, but the BAA website definitely did 😀 . To corrupt the well known saying, it must have been a landing as they walked away from it…
Paul F
Paul FLooks like the nose gear may not have come off as reported?
The “twin wheel” debris looks like its a chunk of the starboard main gear beam assembly, as it looks devoid of any steering units etc? One of A330’s images also suggests the nose gear may still be attached, albeit bent backwards under the fuselage?
And look at that hole punched in the right rear fuselage, just below the windows!
Sad to see an airframe in this sort of distress though..
Any shots of her on finals – of course, copies of any should be submitted to AAIB if you’ve got them, to help their enquiry.
Paul FIt’s also lucky he lost power when he did as opposed to when he was over Central London.
Central London ? – It’s damned lucky he didn’t lose power even ten or fifteen seconds earlier, or he’d have probably come down on Myrtle Av, Hatton Cross, or the long-stay car park – none of which would have so forgiving as the muddy undershoot to 27L. Would that really have been any worse than losing power over central London – probably not for those on board! The margins between success and failure can be bl00dy fine at times, as this incident shows. Regardless of the whys and wherefores, there are a few hundred VERY lucky people who have largely “walked away” from what could have been a very different outcome.
…Anyone else read the novel “SAM-7” (written some twenty five or thirty years ago), where a DC-10 (as was in those days) is brought down by a terrorist SAM and crashes on one of the London rail teminus – it’s one of those “worst case” scenario stories, but I guess we may have come pretty close to something similar today.
Paul FSky News are starting to make it sound worse by saying the wing “splintered” becuase of the engine digging in!
Ah, the well tried media tool of using emotive language to make a story even more sensational and dramatic – it never fails:
1. To amuse those who know more about the subject than the reporter desperately trying to “sell” his/her take on the story over and above all the other half-rate hacks who are also desperately trying to get their names/faces in the spotlight too…
2. To frustrate those few who have a full technical understanding of what is happening/has happened, based on suitable training/experience/knowledge etc
3. To Cause shock and awe among the un-enlightened observer who believes everything the read, see or hear in the media. Regardless of what comes to light in teh next few days//months as the investigation progresses, for many observers Heathrow, B777, and BA will be remembered as involved in a “horrendous” accident, rather than hopefully being praised for a good outcome in very adverse circumstances.
Bad news sells papers/airtime, unfortunately good news generally does not!
Given that this story has (fortunately) no real “Shock horror” aspect now reports suggest no-one was seriously hurt, then it needs to be dramatised a little more to keep viewers watching/listening :rolleyes: .
Paul FLoss of one engine might result in the other engine being asked for more power than usual on final approach (hence reports of “spooling up”?), also one of the reports stated that the aircraft was using a lot of rudder (and aileron?) on final approach – an assymetric power approach would need this, but then again, windshear or a strong/gusty crosswind might also lead to both a suddne power demand and/or control deflection to correct bank attitude.
As has been said, speculation from a point of ignorance serves no purpose, but what is clear is that this could so easily have been far worse, the tyre marks show just how close the aircraft was to the fence as it first touched down – if it had come down 200 or 100yds earlier we would probably be looking at a major disaster with lots of fatalities, not just an “emergency landing” with (as so far reported) a few relatively minor injuries.
As to wondering whether or not the airframe is/was beyond repair – for goodness sake guys, get your priorities right – worry about the crew and passengers first, they are not replaceable, but an airframe is.
Paul F
P.S. Photos taken from Myrtle Av/Hatton Cross might well shed some light on control deflections etc during final approach. Ultimately though, the AAIB investigation will no doubt tell all.
Paul FBAA Website for LHR shows that 27L is closed, but that the airport is still open.
Their flight arrivals shows a few flights as diverted, but most still seem to be expected as normal, though there are a few incoming flights with no details shown…
That said I have just seen a Sri Lankan wide-body fly past my office window on short finals here at LGW, which may have been a diversion? Certainly I’ve not consciously noted Sri Lanakan in here before – but then I’m not into airliners in a big way, historics are more my thing.
Paul F
Paul FWas he “world class”, maybe not, but “world famous” – definitley
To my mind Eddie was what the olympics should be all about – taking part being more important than winning etc. He knew he stood no chance of winning, Britain knew he stood no chance, heck, the whole world knew he stood no chance, but he still took part anyway, and is probably more widley remembered better than whomever won the event.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Britain to be a land off no-hope “also rans” (though some might argue thats pretty much what we’ve become), but sport is all too often dominated by cash these days, where the richest can buy the means to win, and everyone else gets trampled in the rush.
Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican Bobsleigh team (as per the film “Cool Runnings” ) – true olympian competitors one and all.
Paul F
Paul FWas he “world class”, maybe not, but “world famous” – definitley
To my mind Eddie was what the olympics should be all about – taking part being more important than winning etc. He knew he stood no chance of winning, Britain knew he stood no chance, heck, the whole world knew he stood no chance, but he still took part anyway, and is probably more widley remembered better than whomever won the event.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want Britain to be a land off no-hope “also rans” (though some might argue thats pretty much what we’ve become), but sport is all too often dominated by cash these days, where the richest can buy the means to win, and everyone else gets trampled in the rush.
Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican Bobsleigh team (as per the film “Cool Runnings” ) – true olympian competitors one and all.
Paul F
Paul FCloud 9
Depends what you are looking for – the basic long-standing “rules” of photography, as covered by any number of “How to”-type photography books still apply to digital cameras. Composition, focus, depth of field are not really any different for digital than for old wet-film photography.
However, of course, the options in digital at the “processing” stage are far wider once you get the image into “Photoshop” or any other processing software.
Some of the books cover both aspects well, others address the former, and leave in-depth discussions on digi-processing to digital experts, whilst others seem to give only a cursory glance at the traditional “rules” and seem to suggest that digital processing can rectify any basic faults you make when taking the shot in the first place.
If you want to improve your image capturing/framing skills (i.e. at the point of “taking” the image), then pretty much any good photography book will do, and you might find a number of second hand bargains. My old copy of “The 35mm photographers Handbook” is still consulted for inspiration and tips, though of course the section on 35mm film types is now skipped.
For digital image processing I find some of the “how to” features in current Digi-photography magazines helpful, or maybe a book on how to get the best out of software like Photoshop would be better?
I’ve also got the book recommended above by Mantog, and think it’s a pretty good “all round” starter if you need to cover both aspects.
I’m not familiar with the Fuji model you’ve got, but my first digicam was their S5600 model for a couple of years and found it to be damn good camera. I then returned to Canon for a D-SLR simply becasuse it would accept my 35mm SLR lenses etc, otherwise I’d have probably moved “up” to another Fuji.
Happy shooting – good thing about digital is that if you get a photo wrong it doesn’t really cost anything to get out there and try again.
Paul F“i am aware that this can also be done in photoshop”
The image that comes straight from the camera is inherently un-sharp. You can tweak the sharpness setting once when shooting JPEGs and any time you want when shooting in RAW mode but leave the sharpening to the very last stage of your work flow.
Maverick 11
I have had similar problems with my (admittedly lower-spec) EOS350D, which I initially put down to use of budget-built “kit” lenses from my older EOS350 35mm kit. However, based on other comments on threads on here I started tweaking a couple of my soft shots using the “sharpen” function on some fairly basic image-editting software that came bundled with my old Fuji S5600 digicam. The improvement is quite marked on shots taken with the EOS350D, so I guess a better package such as Photoshop would be even better.
Of course, a decent lens and half-decent light will give me an even better starting point.
Paul F
Paul F
Paul FSpot on!
In the case of R4118, I think it is a magnificent piece of work. A well documented and substantially complete airframe went into a workshop, and a flying aircraft left the workshop. It has continuity. The fact of the matter is if we want to see these aircraft flying things have to be re-newed.
Absolutely – Well said dc!
paul F
Paul FCalculation of “originality” ?
At risk of incurring much flak, firmly wearing my “Devil’s advocate” hat, and also my displaying my “Certificate of advanced pedantics“, just what do figures like “60% original” refer to anyway when used in reference to this sort of project?
Is it 60% by weight of the total “dry” airframe? Or 60% of the total dry airframe minus engine(s) -which might also be considered “consumable” items – they were certainly seen as “replaceable” in the field?
Or,
Are we talking about 60% of the original number of individual components ? And what about sub-component items that themselves comprise more than one individual piece (A radio transmitter unit for example might consist of many dozens of bits and pieces)?
Again, does this figure include the engine(s) and other “consumables” such as brake pads, and do individual rivets or fasteners, control cables etc count as permanent or consumable?
What about (the weight or number of components of) any additional parts that would have been added post manufacture, but prior to service, so as to get the aircraft up to the appropriate service standard…. Do they count as “original” or not? As Bruce has said in regard to the Mosquito prototype at Salisbury Hall (on another thread) – airframes can change over time as mods are added…
At what point does a component warrant inclusion in the “permanent airframe identity” rather than as a consumable? My understanding is that the fuselage of an aircraft “owns” the constructors number (i.e. the identity) and subsequent registration/serial number, and that wings are generally considered as “bolt on” and thus replaceable.
So is the percentage figure to be based on the whole airframe, including consumables, or just on the fuselage, minus all “consumables”? And is it by weight, or by number of component parts?
Going back to “Trigger’s broom” – is the head a consumable item? It is the bristles that wear out, they could theoretically be replaced individually, but the head as a whole is a more appropriate replaceable “unit”. But does the head as a whole consituute the majority of the items by weight ? It certainly does by number of parts!!!
If the argument leaves the handle as the “item” owning the original identity what happens if the handle is changed – is that the point at which the original broom is lost forever? And what does that make the item once a new handle is fitted – a facsimilie? A replica?
When I spoke to one of the guys working at Fantasy of Flight last Easter, I asked the question “What constitutes “Original”?” and his reply was that the US authority on the matter (Smithsonian IIRC) determines an item with “minimum 80%” of original components is original. At the time I didn’t think to ask if this was 80% by weight, or by number of components…
Maybe the only true “original item” is the dataplate marked with the assemblers serial number/Constructors number after all :dev2: :dev2:
Perhaps the first thing that should be done when anyone states “this item is x% original” is to ask then to explain the exact basis of calculation (by weight or by number of individual parts – with/without engine(s) etc), and to what stage of the aircrafts life it refers (e.g. leaving the manufacturing hall, first flight, first entering service, first operational flight, last operational flight, retirement from active service, …. etc etc etc). If they cannot answer this, then maybe they need to be asked to go away and think about it.
And one to consider for the future – does computer code on a fly-by-wire machine constitute a consumable item or not? Without it (which includes any “throttle by wire” digitial engine control system), surely the airframe is just a totally dead 100% scale model of a Panavia Tornado or Eurofighter Typhoon? 😀
Paul F
P.S. I’ve got no answer to this, and don’t claim to know or dare to suggest what the “right answer” may be. Perhaps a simplistic definition for flying exmaples is that “If it was originally built as a Hurricane and it still flies as a Hurricane then it is a Hurricane”. Maybe it’s even harder to define for static restorations/rebuilds/repros?
Paul FLove shots 4 and 7 of the Britannia, And 9 is a real stunner – it captures the elegant rear end curves of the VC10 perfectly.
Perfect use of that winter sunset light.
Paul F
Sign In
