Paul FWhat about Smoking whilst riding a bike?
At risk of causing “thread drift” ….
Anyone care to discuss the impending UK ban on smoking in public places?
And with the blue touch-paper safely lit, I’ll get my coat and retire to a safe distance….. :diablo:
Paul FWhat about Smoking whilst riding a bike?
At risk of causing “thread drift” ….
Anyone care to discuss the impending UK ban on smoking in public places?
And with the blue touch-paper safely lit, I’ll get my coat and retire to a safe distance….. :diablo:
Paul FInteresting, looks like a carbon copy of the Reds display routine?
How does the old saying go? “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery“…
There must be a finite number of formations and manouvers possible with nine (or less?) aircraft, and the Reds must have used them all by now, so perhaps you’re being a bit harsh there DB…?
Though I must admit, the similarity is no doubt heightened even more by the fact that the Saudi-formations are made up by ‘planes with that very familiar silhouette.
Paul F
Paul FI seem to remember that all the evidence suggested this was down to pilot error – the go-around was left too late (or started from too low an altitude), and so, despite the fly by wire computer operating pefectly and gaining maximum flight performance as soon as the go-around was instigated, there was simply insufficient distance left in which to spool the engines up sufficiently to allow the ‘plane to gain sufficent speed/altitude before it hit the trees.
So, the FBW system meant that the Airbus was climbing as fast as physically possible (i.e. operating at maximum angle of attack for the airspeed/throttle setting) at the point of first impact, but there was insufficient time/distance to get clear of the trees. The only way to avoid the accident would have been either to initiate go-around earlier in the fly-by, such that the plane had chance to gain height before reaching the trees or to have flown down the runway at a higher altitude so that the plane had to gain less height to clear the trees – the low altitude of the pass and the late action of the captain made the result inevitable, despite FBW.
Had the plane not been a fully automated fly by wire machine the results would probably have been identical, though a non-FBW plane may well have been in a stalled or near-stalled attitude before it even reached the trees due to the crew perhaps having pulled too hard in a desperate attempt to avoid the tree tops….:( .
Moral of the story – FBW will ensure teh ‘plane’s flight envelope cannot be exceeeded, and thus prevented a stall in this case, but it cannot always overcome a case of pilot error.
It’s a bit like relying on ABS (anti-Lock Braking System) on your car to stop an accident – if you leave braking too late, or drive too close behind another car, then ABS will stop the wheels locking as you press on the brake pedal, but if you are too close when you first apply the brakes then you will still hit the car in front, as the simple laws of physics hold true. ABS will ensure the maximum possible braking efficiency has been applied, but if this is insufficient to stop the car then you will still arrive at the point if impact, though impact speed will be lower than arriving with all four wheels locked up and tyres screeching! Something few “tailgaters” seem to fail to appreciate.
Paul F
Paul FI suppose it could serve as the starting point for a full ground-up rebuild of the Spitfire from which it so obviously came, and perhaps the Christmas card mentioned will be taken as due proof of the rebuilt airframe’s total authenticity, as the two are so obviously linked :rolleyes:
Postage cost seem perfectly reasonable to me – after all, £5 brings it to you in genuine WW2-period Jiffy Bag, believed to have been used to hold the Tuck’s sandwiches while they were visiting a well known contemporary pilot then lodging in a certain hotel in Liverpool.
Oh, and, in answer to the next question..
No the article rebuilt around this plate won’t be there this year, but maybe next…. depends if we can agree on a suitably authentic paint scheme, and find eight Lewis guns for an authentic weapons fit.
..Don’t worry, I’m already putting my coat on……
Paul F
Paul FSnow Blower Jets
There’s a fairly intact variant of a similar type of device at the Brooklands Museum, IIRC it was donated to them by BAe Dunsfold.
Sorry no details, but I do porbably have a picture of it somewhere at home.
Paul F
Paul FCrikey,
That’s an impressive collection of airframes……wonder if they’ll all be restored one day.
I’d love to get in there and have a look around.
Paul F
Paul FTo start a new trend:dev2:
Will she (P.E.) be gone by Legends?
…Unhooking my coat and rapidly heading for the door….😉
Paul F
Paul FOkay, so my TSR2 suggestion is perhaps a step too far, so how about a Do335 Pfiel, possibly the two seat night-fighter variant.
Justification – probably the fastest piston engined fighter at the time it was introduced, a radical twin-engine layout, and one of the first operational types to fit an ejector seat….
– Or, along similar lines perhaps a He219 Uhu, complete with radar and Schrage Musik canon fit. Justification for this type needs some more thought perhaps….
Paul F
Paul FA (very) long shot – Brunton perhaps?
Though it has no lengthened main runway, and no obvious reservoirs.
But, if woods can be mistaken for reservoirs, and two cross runways have been shortened then maybe its an outside possibiltiy?
Teeside fits the extended runway layout, but is perhaps too far south?
Perth would presumably be too far north?
Paul F
Paul FI believe it’s well documented elsewhere, both in specialist press and in the general media that Concorde will never fly again for the following two reasons:
1. Some of the technology to do with intake ramps and engine airflow management has been removed from the grounded examples as it was possibly still considered as “classified” – though this perhaps seems unlikely given that the technology would be nearly fifty years old by now…
2. Airbus owned the design authority for the airframes, which it inherited from BAC/BAe and Aerospatiale the original builders, but Airbus have withdrawn that authority, and have said they will not reinstate it. So, unless they sell it on to a third party who is prepared to resurrect, maintain, and take responsibility for the DA (i.e. a major financial commitment), which seems unliekly, then the airframes can never regain certificates of airworthyness, as someone needs hold a “valid” / “live” design authority for the airframe seeking the CofA before one can be issued. I guess this does not theoretically stop them being flown under some form of “experimental” classification, (and without carrying passengers), but it would seem very unlikely?
One of the Forum members “Gordo” runs the ConcordeSST website, and is probably the best authority on all things Concorde – perhaps he can confirm the status for you/us.
Paul F
Paul FGiven the proposed EU CO2 emission level restrictions (as from 2012) announced today, then maybe Ford saw the writing on the wall and sold the brand in anticipation that living with such a restriction might cause a few problems for European-based Supercar bands?
Can anyone imagine an Aston that has both good performance, and CO emissions of less than 120g/Km…..perhaps LV will produce the first 1200cc Aston Martin.
Somehow I can’t ever see “007” driving one though…
Paul F
Paul FGiven the proposed EU CO2 emission level restrictions (as from 2012) announced today, then maybe Ford saw the writing on the wall and sold the brand in anticipation that living with such a restriction might cause a few problems for European-based Supercar bands?
Can anyone imagine an Aston that has both good performance, and CO emissions of less than 120g/Km…..perhaps LV will produce the first 1200cc Aston Martin.
Somehow I can’t ever see “007” driving one though…
Paul F
Paul FAt risk of being banned from the forum for even daring to suggest it could ever be justified over and above the Wellington (or any other type with proven pedigree/opertaional history etc), I would go for a TSR2 – for two reasons – 1. I never saw it fly, and 2. To see if really could live up to all the hype it has received since the program was scrapped.
Of course, the sum of money would need to be sufficient to both rebuild the beastie, and then to continue it’s development programme to get it somewhere near it’s proposed “operational standard”….. not sure anyone could stump up that much cash these days 😮
…Don’t worry, I’ll go quietly mods……😀
Paul FHand luggage
RickT
Restrictions on cabin bag size are as stated earlier int he thread. Clear plastic bags are still in use for all liquids/gles and creams (Toiletries, drinks etc), no single container can be larger than 100ml, and all the containers you wish to take in hand luggage must fit within the sealed single clear placcy bag they give you (which is somewhat smaller than A4 sized). In effect this rules out taking any drinks through the security checks. However, any purchased once in departure lounge can be carried on board in hand luggage.
Electrical goods are not generally seen as an issue (at this point in time) and so should be okay in hand luggage, but don’t forget things can change overnight – we got caught out in the security situation last august, and had to pack all our electrical items (inc music players, digicams and a laptop) in hold luggage for our return to UK. Luckily all survived intact due to my “Blue-Peter” lifeskills allowing me to build suitably cushioned spaces in the hold-bound cases using only towels, clothes and some books.
So, electrical goods (inc phones, MP3, satnavs, cameras, laptops, leads, powerpacks, chargers etc) should not be an issue, however, I suggest you double check at check-in, before you hand over any hold bags so that you have a last-chance to transfer any contentious items into hold baggage you before the hold bags disappear off down the luggage conveyer belt.
Oh yes, and based on our experiences travelling through LGW since last summer’s change in security rules, whatever you do don’t cut things too fine timewise when deciding to pass through the passport control/security check into departure hall – queues here at LGW can, and do, suddenly grow at an alarming rate without much warning, meaning that it’s better to allow too much time than not enough when planning your check-in schedule. Long one are the days of turning up, checking in, and breezing stright through security in five mins flat 🙁
Paul F
Sign In
