I want one

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On 2005-06-02, Samuel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Danny, weren't you asking about a good tow vehicle??? well, she may not be
> the most manouverable when reversing, but i don't think you'd have any lack
> of power.

I think his espresso trailer would get well and truly roasted if you
put it behind that thing!

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
Ian Rawlings wrote:
> On 2005-06-02, Samuel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Danny, weren't you asking about a good tow vehicle??? well, she may
>> not be the most manouverable when reversing, but i don't think you'd
>> have any lack of power.
>
> I think his espresso trailer would get well and truly roasted if you
> put it behind that thing!

Think we can safely presume the coffee will be hot!

--
If Your specification is vague or imprecise, you'll likely get what you
asked for not what you wanted! He who says it cannot be done
should not to interrupt her doing it.


 
Samuel wrote:
> "The MiG-23 comes with its tow bar"
>
>
> Danny, weren't you asking about a good tow vehicle??? well, she may not be
> the most manouverable when reversing, but i don't think you'd have any lack
> of power.
>

I saw it when it was posted a day or so ago. I would love it just for
flying - sod the espresso bar. I have experience of hang gliders and
chipmunk trainers - will this do or do I have to pass a test or
something? I had a look at the DVLA online written test samples but
can only find them for cars an' bikes an' lorries - nothing about Mig
fighters :( At least it's a bit more manouvreable than the Vulcan
Bomber for sale recently...


--
Regards,
Danny

http://www.gaggia-espresso.com (a purely hobby site)
http://www.dannyscoffee.com (UK advert for my mobile espresso service)
http://www.malabargold.co.uk (UK/European online ordering for Malabar
Gold blend)
swap Z for above characters in email address to reply

 
On 2005-06-02, Danny <[email protected]> wrote:

> At least it's a bit more manouvreable than the Vulcan Bomber for
> sale recently...

Oooh but not nearly as sexy... Vulcan Bombers... mmmm yum!

<daydreams>

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On 2005-06-03, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:37:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oooh but not nearly as sexy... Vulcan Bombers... mmmm yum!
>
> saw one at an airshow once, probably the most impressive flying
> thing I've ever seen. and the noise as it did a stall-turn. ooo
> mama.

The Harrier comes a close second I think, still a very impressive bit
of kit. The F-16 I saw at the same show wasn't that impressive a
spectacle even though it's a very capable machine, the bulk, shape and
noise of the Vulcan combined with the age and the manoeverability is
hard to beat, and the Harrier is just made to please crowds. Neither
are the best from an operational perspective of course ;-)

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 

"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-06-03, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 19:37:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Oooh but not nearly as sexy... Vulcan Bombers... mmmm yum!
>>
>> saw one at an airshow once, probably the most impressive flying
>> thing I've ever seen. and the noise as it did a stall-turn. ooo
>> mama.
>
> The Harrier comes a close second I think, still a very impressive bit
> of kit. The F-16 I saw at the same show wasn't that impressive a
> spectacle even though it's a very capable machine, the bulk, shape and
> noise of the Vulcan combined with the age and the manoeverability is
> hard to beat, and the Harrier is just made to please crowds. Neither
> are the best from an operational perspective of course ;-)

Ok, so what about the Nimrod? A very impressive sight, seeing one get
chucked around at relatively low level considering its age, size etc.
Badger.


 
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:15:04 +0100, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
wrote:

>
>saw one at an airshow once, probably the most impressive flying thing
>I've ever seen.
>
Concorde
<sob>

David

 
On 2005-06-03, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ok, so what about the Nimrod? A very impressive sight, seeing one
> get chucked around at relatively low level considering its age, size
> etc. Badger.

Doesn't look "special" to me, it looks like a passenger aircraft, the
Vulcan looks like a space ship and the harrier looks like a normal
plane but flies like a helicopter, so they've got the magic!

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
On or around Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:29:48 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2005-06-03, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ok, so what about the Nimrod? A very impressive sight, seeing one
>> get chucked around at relatively low level considering its age, size
>> etc. Badger.
>
>Doesn't look "special" to me, it looks like a passenger aircraft, the
>Vulcan looks like a space ship and the harrier looks like a normal
>plane but flies like a helicopter, so they've got the magic!

That's cos it is a passenger aircraft. Previously DeHavilland Comet, IIRC,
and, as jetliners go, quite a pretty thing.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
Alphonse Karr (1808 - 1890) Les Guêpes, Jan 1849
 
On or around Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:55:39 +0100, MVP
<mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> enlightened us thusly:

>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 12:50:06 GMT, rads
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 10:15:04 +0100, MVP <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>saw one at an airshow once, probably the most impressive flying thing
>>>I've ever seen.
>>>
>>Concorde
>><sob>
>>
>>David
>
>indeed. quite a thing concorde, was ahead of it's time even when they
>stopped using them after, what was it? must be 30 years.

first flights in 1969, first commercial flight in 1976.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
Alphonse Karr (1808 - 1890) Les Guêpes, Jan 1849
 

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:29:48 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On 2005-06-03, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, so what about the Nimrod? A very impressive sight, seeing one
>>> get chucked around at relatively low level considering its age, size
>>> etc. Badger.
>>
>>Doesn't look "special" to me, it looks like a passenger aircraft, the
>>Vulcan looks like a space ship and the harrier looks like a normal
>>plane but flies like a helicopter, so they've got the magic!
>
> That's cos it is a passenger aircraft. Previously DeHavilland Comet,
> IIRC,
> and, as jetliners go, quite a pretty thing.

Indeed, Austin, right on the nail as usual. Then it became (for a short
time) the Hawker-Siddley HS801, then BAe took over and kept the Comet name
when the RAF used the Comet 4 with Transport Command. Even for all the extra
"bits" bolted onto it when it was converted to the original Nimrod, it is
still quite a pretty aircraft I feel. The fact that they chopped out a chunk
of fuselage when designing the Nimrod from the Comet only served to give it
a more purposefull look.
Yes, the Vulcan was an awesome machine, but it had only one role in life,
hence it's demise. The Nimrod has many roles and continues to adapt to new
tasks, hence its longevity. It can't be far off being one of (if not the)
longest serving RAF aircraft currently in service?? Still going strong and
about to be replaced by a Mk4 version which is actually a rebuilt aircraft
utilising the original Nimrod MR Mk2 fuselage!
The Harrier is indeed impressive, but a tad fickle also. No real potential
for backup when encountering simple things like birdstrikes, due to a single
engine with a massive diameter, easily damaged, fan. Bear in mind also, it
wouldn't exist today if the US Marines hadn't taken the original idea on
board and developed it, then sold "our" idea back to us when we decided that
we really did want to have it after all!!

Badger.


 
Austin Shackles wrote:

> On or around Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:29:48 +0100, Ian Rawlings
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On 2005-06-03, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, so what about the Nimrod? A very impressive sight, seeing one
>>> get chucked around at relatively low level considering its age, size
>>> etc. Badger.
>>
>>Doesn't look "special" to me, it looks like a passenger aircraft, the
>>Vulcan looks like a space ship and the harrier looks like a normal
>>plane but flies like a helicopter, so they've got the magic!
>
> That's cos it is a passenger aircraft. Previously DeHavilland Comet,
> IIRC, and, as jetliners go, quite a pretty thing.
>

Yes - absolutely correct. Interesting that the long term UK maritime
reconnaissance aircraft is a development of an unsuccessful airliner, and
so is equivalent the U.S. plane, the Orion, which was a development of the
Lockheed Electra turboprop, which was unsuccessful in the U.S. due to a
tendency for the wings to fall off in early models (very successful in a
few other places such as Australia where there were none of the early
models).
 
On or around Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC), "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Bear in mind also, it
>wouldn't exist today if the US Marines hadn't taken the original idea on
>board and developed it, then sold "our" idea back to us when we decided that
>we really did want to have it after all!!
>

Me dad worked at Hawker Aircraft (was apprenticed there, also) when they
were doing the early development of what became the Harrier.

Nothing else really does what the harrier will do, mind, which is probably
why it's survived so long.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
George Orwell (1903 - 1950) Animal Farm
 
On 2005-06-03, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nothing else really does what the harrier will do, mind, which is probably
> why it's survived so long.

The yanks are sorting something out though, they had two companies
competing to produce a more modern equivalent, although IIRC both of
them were pig ugly planes.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert
 
In message <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>> On or around Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:29:48 +0100, Ian Rawlings
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>>On 2005-06-03, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, so what about the Nimrod? A very impressive sight, seeing one
>>>> get chucked around at relatively low level considering its age, size
>>>> etc. Badger.
>>>
>>>Doesn't look "special" to me, it looks like a passenger aircraft, the
>>>Vulcan looks like a space ship and the harrier looks like a normal
>>>plane but flies like a helicopter, so they've got the magic!
>>
>> That's cos it is a passenger aircraft. Previously DeHavilland Comet,
>> IIRC, and, as jetliners go, quite a pretty thing.
>>
>
>Yes - absolutely correct. Interesting that the long term UK maritime
>reconnaissance aircraft is a development of an unsuccessful airliner, and
>so is equivalent the U.S. plane, the Orion, which was a development of the
>Lockheed Electra turboprop, which was unsuccessful in the U.S. due to a
>tendency for the wings to fall off in early models (very successful in a
>few other places such as Australia where there were none of the early
>models).
Saw A program on the Comet a little while back. It was only unsuccessful
cos they developed a habit of falling out of the sky and this was due to
a change in the process of fixing in the windows.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
hugh wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>>Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>>> On or around Fri, 3 Jun 2005 15:29:48 +0100, Ian Rawlings
>>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>>
>>>>On 2005-06-03, Badger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so what about the Nimrod? A very impressive sight, seeing one
>>>>> get chucked around at relatively low level considering its age, size
>>>>> etc. Badger.
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't look "special" to me, it looks like a passenger aircraft, the
>>>>Vulcan looks like a space ship and the harrier looks like a normal
>>>>plane but flies like a helicopter, so they've got the magic!
>>>
>>> That's cos it is a passenger aircraft. Previously DeHavilland Comet,
>>> IIRC, and, as jetliners go, quite a pretty thing.
>>>
>>
>>Yes - absolutely correct. Interesting that the long term UK maritime
>>reconnaissance aircraft is a development of an unsuccessful airliner, and
>>so is equivalent the U.S. plane, the Orion, which was a development of the
>>Lockheed Electra turboprop, which was unsuccessful in the U.S. due to a
>>tendency for the wings to fall off in early models (very successful in a
>>few other places such as Australia where there were none of the early
>>models).
> Saw A program on the Comet a little while back. It was only unsuccessful
> cos they developed a habit of falling out of the sky and this was due to
> a change in the process of fixing in the windows.
Yes. Actually a change from round (Comet 1) to squarish windows (Comet 2) to
improve the view. The Comet 3, whose introduction was scrapped after the
Comet 2s started falling out of the sky (in little pieces), would not have
had the problem. By the time the basic problem was understood and the Comet
4 (basis of the Nimrod) was introduced, the Boeing 707 was flying, and as
this was a newer design (paid for by the military funding of the KC135
tanker that preceded it and shared the airframe and systems) which had
better economics than the Comet, and so took most of the market.
JD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
L322 TD6 Engine Cover Grommet
Replies
8
Views
846
backinblack
backinblack
L
Ex MOD registration.
Replies
4
Views
2K
Lady of the landy
L
andyfreelandy
Freelander 1 Need radio code - Solved
Replies
7
Views
738
Freddie17
Freddie17
K
Steering Box regognised!!!!!HELP!!!
Replies
8
Views
489
Anaconda
A
ROBinBORO
Other Freelander 2 TD4
Replies
0
Views
342
ROBinBORO
ROBinBORO
Back
Top