dark light

PMN1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 240 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Iceland volcano eruption (Merged) #562926
    PMN1
    Participant

    I wonder what the maintenance contracts on engines say about repeated flying in possible volcanic dust clouds?

    in reply to: Iceland volcano eruption (Merged) #563736
    PMN1
    Participant

    Several Nato F-16 fighter jets suffered engine damage after flying through volcanic ash, says senior Western diplomat.

    So have a number of Finnish F/A18’s – there are some piccies on Flight Global.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/16/340727/pictures-finnish-f-18-engine-check-reveals-effects-of-volcanic.html

    in reply to: Falklands War 2010 #2430733
    PMN1
    Participant

    IMHO they have…bacause the island belong to spain before.. and the spain agree with the argentina independence… and with this the island bacame part of argentina.

    The Spanish claim to the islands is based on the Pope giving that part of the world to Spain….

    in reply to: Falklands War 2010 #2430784
    PMN1
    Participant

    Would now be a good time for the gold and diamond possibility to become reality?

    http://www.falklands-oil.com/

    and go to the onshore geology part.

    Before the Atlantic Ocean opened, the Falklands were joined to South Africa along the margin of the Gondwana supercontinent.

    There are striking geological similarities between Falklands geology and South Africa’s Cape Fold Belt and Karoo Basin, and this has led to speculation that the Falklands might contain mineral deposits of the same style as the well-known, world-class African examples.

    Recent exploration activity has found some possible diamond-indicator minerals such as chromite and garnet, although doubt remains as to whether the precise chemistry of these minerals is indicative of an origin in a kimberlite pipe.

    Gold grains have been panned from a number of Falklands streams.

    Fresh, angular gold grains have been discovered to date in streams, suggesting that the grains have not traveled far from their bedrock source.

    Over 300 gold grains have been independently analysed by BGS, confirming three potentially different gold sources:

    * a pyritic Black Shale source
    * two separate epithermal sources in unknown host rocks.
    * A comprehensive exploration programme was conducted in the early to mid 2000s by Falklands Gold and Minerals Ltd. They acquired an extensive aeromagnetic survey of the Islands, and subsequently drilled and cored many of the identified geophysical anomalies. However, they failed to locate any potentially viable gold deposits, and the company relinquished its exploration licence in 2008.

    Garnet and rutile grains are concentrated in features such as raised beach deposits. These could potentially form extractable mineral deposits, but are at present considered to be uneconomic due to the geographical isolation of the Falklands.

    in reply to: Falklands War 2010 #2430893
    PMN1
    Participant

    From today’s telegraph

    SIR – John Gibson’s suggestion (Letters, February 22) of sharing the proceeds of Falklands oil with Argentina was precisely what was considered in 1975.

    To refresh my memory, I dusted off the thesis I wrote for the Royal Naval Staff College, Greenwich, on my return in 1979 from commanding the Falkland Islands’ Royal Marines’ Naval Party 8901.

    Following a seismic survey in the mid 1970s it was estimated that 20 billion barrels of oil was recoverable: apparently six times the then known North Sea reserves. Tentative plans were for British companies to drill the oil and pipe it ashore to Comodoro Rivadavia, an oil town on the Argentine coast. There it would be refined and sold on the world’s markets to the financial advantage of all, including the Falkland Islanders.

    On April 2, 1982, Argentina forfeited any such collaboration. Foresight might have saved the day – and lives – all round.

    Lt-Col Ewen Southby-Tailyour
    Ermington, South Devon

    in reply to: Falklands War 2010 #2431029
    PMN1
    Participant

    Not a chance! The port is far too small. You are, again, demonstrating your ignorance.

    But how do you get a ship with 5000 heavily armed soldiers to the quay? It isn’t big enough for such a ship. As I keep telling you, you are flaunting your ignorance.

    Tell me again, how you’re going to sneak such a ship into the harbour . . . and what about the vehicles for those soldiers & their weapons?

    Ahh, but its not just any kind of ship, its a cloaked Bird of Prey…….:D

    in reply to: 1933 proposal for a twin engined Battle #1093631
    PMN1
    Participant

    How very British to design it with two hoods 😀

    Twin hoods were use don the Vickers Wellesley and later on, on around 100 two seat dual control Battles.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2438673
    PMN1
    Participant

    I’d like to get my hands on that book about the VC-10. anymore details like ISBN and author title price publisher etc? I never knew the VC-10 was considered for so many roles. I know it’s a good aircraft and is faster than normal passenger jets but the book seems to imply it was thought of using the VC-10 for every role going. Stick a big radar a missiles and it could be a fighter lol

    Air Defence VC-10 ‘Red Barrell’ – carrying up to 18 CF-299 missiles according to the drawing and info on it………

    The US had a similar idea for the C-135 called Project Aerie with upto 24 AAN-M-10 Eagle missiles

    http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/9260

    The book itself is easier bought direct from Chris Gibson himself.

    http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5553.0/highlight,pofflers.html

    in reply to: Typhoon In The Falklands, Argentine Enraged? #2438680
    PMN1
    Participant

    Should have tanked them up just before the island and have them fly in supersonically trailing red, white and blue smoke………:diablo:

    in reply to: Advanced Technology Frigate #2021454
    PMN1
    Participant
    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2438949
    PMN1
    Participant

    Not seen that one, or is that what’s on t’pods in this piccy?

    No those are ALBM’s, the bomb pod was apparently already designed for the Valiant but carrying 6 bombs (2 pods per Valiant), though the the book you show the front cover of is the only place i’ve seen it mentioned.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2438991
    PMN1
    Participant

    Only existing on paper but what would have been impressive, the proposed VC-10 bomber with 8 external pods each carrying 8 1,000lb bombs……

    in reply to: Massive cost over run on CVF #2029632
    PMN1
    Participant

    Here is the budget for last year

    http://budget.treasury.gov.uk/budget2008/where_money_is_spent.htm

    31 billion on debt intrest…..and that’s before the latest splurge.

    And to think gordon spent over 1,000 billion extra while chancellor and got nothing in return.

    in reply to: RAF RC-135? #2484872
    PMN1
    Participant

    I woonder how many surplass A330/340 of the same engine type etc are sitting in desert storage as a result of the credit crash?

    in reply to: RAF RC-135? #2485770
    PMN1
    Participant

    Whatever the answer is (and however much I love the Ten) the VC10 is not the answer!

    Ahh, but this was in the 60’s and the larger aircraft would probably do away with the space problems of the Nimrod R.1 (the AEW variant of the VC-10 would probably also do away with the space problems that are noted in some places on the Nimrod AEW3 variant).

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 240 total)