DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
Probably either an AutoGyro or a Magni, lots of both marques of gyrocopter in the UK.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Illaveago
Guru
- Location
- Chippenham,Wiltshire.
Ooh!
They just showed some people in East Sussex re making a Mosquito on BBC Breakfast a minute ago .
They just showed some people in East Sussex re making a Mosquito on BBC Breakfast a minute ago .
Cycleops
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
Re the Russian jet pilot dumping fuel on the US Reaper drone.
I've got a theory that it wasn't fuel at all but Vodka from the pilot's on board supply.
And why didn't fire a missile. Perhaps they've run out?
I've got a theory that it wasn't fuel at all but Vodka from the pilot's on board supply.
And why didn't fire a missile. Perhaps they've run out?
DRM
Guru
- Location
- West Yorks
Probably because it was in international airspace, some buttons Putin knows not to press, if he drags the U.S in fully,it’s game over for the Russian armed forces pretty quickly, and they know it
FishFright
More wheels than sense
Cycleops
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
Don’t see the difference between using a missile or disabling it, result would be the same. Putin doesn’t have a reverse gear, if he did he’s knows it’s curtains for him.
DRM
Guru
- Location
- West Yorks
He can lie and say an accident, there’s no getting out of shooting something down in international airspace
Cycleops
Legendary Member
- Location
- Accra, Ghana
You might be interested in this comment by Sean Bell a military analyst who was once a fighter pilot:
If the Russians had intended to down the drone, they could have used bullets and shot it out of the sky. Instead, they were evidently "intimidating" the UAV before the Russian pilot misjudged his manoeuvre.
As a former fighter pilot, it would be reckless to deliberately hit another aircraft unless required as a last resort, in which case the risks might justify the ends.
Instead, the incompetence of the Russian pilot led to the loss of a US asset and a major embarrassment for the Russian Air Force.
Russia has very capable fighter jets in its inventory, but a lack of currency means the pilots struggle to convert this into credible professional military capability.
The loss of a US MQ-9 drone in international airspace could have had significant consequences.
Fortunately, video evidence suggests this was an avoidable accident caused by Russian pilot incompetence, but with such heightened tensions, such incidents often have unintended consequences, with a grave risk of escalation.
If the Russians had intended to down the drone, they could have used bullets and shot it out of the sky. Instead, they were evidently "intimidating" the UAV before the Russian pilot misjudged his manoeuvre.
As a former fighter pilot, it would be reckless to deliberately hit another aircraft unless required as a last resort, in which case the risks might justify the ends.
Instead, the incompetence of the Russian pilot led to the loss of a US asset and a major embarrassment for the Russian Air Force.
Russia has very capable fighter jets in its inventory, but a lack of currency means the pilots struggle to convert this into credible professional military capability.
The loss of a US MQ-9 drone in international airspace could have had significant consequences.
Fortunately, video evidence suggests this was an avoidable accident caused by Russian pilot incompetence, but with such heightened tensions, such incidents often have unintended consequences, with a grave risk of escalation.
DRM
Guru
- Location
- West Yorks
That last bit is the crux of the matter Russia doesn’t want to goad the US too far, as if they do, it’s over for them, the losses incurred on them by the armed forces of Ukraine are unbelievable, it wouldn’t be surprised to see an internal revolt of conscripts mothers again, as occurred in the Chechen war, Putin has dug himself into a hole, and seems to have dumped his shovel and got a mechanical digger to get himself out of the hole he’s in, that pilot risked an aircraft for no good reason, they’re struggling to keep what they have flying without messing about near US drones
Illaveago
Guru
- Location
- Chippenham,Wiltshire.
He would look pretty silly if he ran out of fuel .
wiggydiggy
Legendary Member
I was in Lytham St Annes recently and happy to report the Spitfire memorial is back, the plane was paid for by locals and flown in WW2 by a pilot who coincidentally had family in the area. Unfortunately it was lost along with the pilot and this is a replica albeit a very good one. Worth a visit if you are in the area.
----------------
Lytham St Annes’ Spitfire, W3644, was shot down in Devon in 1942. It was returning from France where it was escorting bombers.
John Coombes is a volunteer and fund-raiser who leads the Spitfire Ground Display Team. He explains: “Residents of Lytham and St Annes raised £6,500 to buy the original Spitfire plane in 1941.
“Sadly, it was shot down the following year. Residents were especially touched as its pilot – Sergeant Alan Lever-Ridings – had family connections with the area. His mother and grandparents lived in St Annes. It was especially poignant that a number of his surviving relatives attended the unveiling of the memorial in 2012.”
----------------
----------------
Lytham St Annes’ Spitfire, W3644, was shot down in Devon in 1942. It was returning from France where it was escorting bombers.
John Coombes is a volunteer and fund-raiser who leads the Spitfire Ground Display Team. He explains: “Residents of Lytham and St Annes raised £6,500 to buy the original Spitfire plane in 1941.
“Sadly, it was shot down the following year. Residents were especially touched as its pilot – Sergeant Alan Lever-Ridings – had family connections with the area. His mother and grandparents lived in St Annes. It was especially poignant that a number of his surviving relatives attended the unveiling of the memorial in 2012.”
----------------
- Location
- The TerrorVortex
*gross over-simplification alert*
Any engine works by sucking air in and compressing it, making the air hot with fuel of some kind, then letting the heated and expanding air out.
A jet has a front fan to pull air in, adds fuel to heat the air, and it forces its way out through another fan at the back that's connected to the front one by a shaft.
A nuclear jet would pull air in, add heat from a nuclear reactor, then let the hot air out.
You can do this by running the incoming air straight through the reactor - direct or 'dirty' cycle because the outgoing air would be radioactive.
Or by running the incoming air past a heat exchanger which has circulating coolant from the reactor - indirect cycle.
Power : weight doesn't sound good because of the amount of shielding you'd need, but you could stay airborne for months.
Having recently spent 12 hours in a 787, the notion of being in one until Christmas is unappealing!
a.twiddler
Veteran
The delays in development of the Bristol Proteus didn't help the British aircraft industry generally. Even if it had been available early enough the writing was already on the wall for large flying boats. The Britannia could have been a greater commercial success too in that case, but the era of large turboprop airliners was on the wane by the time the engines eventually had the bugs ironed out. Yet a much simpler engine, the Rolls Royce Dart, was available in the Viscount and was capable of development to the extent that later Viscounts had their cruising speed increased by 100mph over the earlier versions. Perhaps a case of keep it thimple, thtupid. Would have needed more engines though, for something like the Princess.
As for nuclear powered aircraft, the mind boggles. Like in the early days of electricity, this wonderful new discovery was believed to be the answer to everything. Despite the billions upon billions invested in it, not to mention the cover ups of near disasters which emerged over the years under the 30 year rule, it's not the universal panacea which its promoters made it out to be. It was said to be so efficient that we would have free electricity. Still waiting. It was safe. Compared with what? The waste is still a problem, remaining toxic for hundreds if not thousands of years. What was our civilisaton doing 1,000 years ago? Judging by the post war safety record of piston engined aircraft, a nuclear powered equivalent would be a hairy prospect. Perhaps humans aren't yet sufficiently developed. They shouldn't be allowed to be let loose with nuclear power yet, until they have attained a sufficient level of consciousness. Let's face it, they're not doing so well with the results of their fossil fuel use thus far. Hard to put the nuclear toothpaste back in the tube now it's out, though.
As for nuclear powered aircraft, the mind boggles. Like in the early days of electricity, this wonderful new discovery was believed to be the answer to everything. Despite the billions upon billions invested in it, not to mention the cover ups of near disasters which emerged over the years under the 30 year rule, it's not the universal panacea which its promoters made it out to be. It was said to be so efficient that we would have free electricity. Still waiting. It was safe. Compared with what? The waste is still a problem, remaining toxic for hundreds if not thousands of years. What was our civilisaton doing 1,000 years ago? Judging by the post war safety record of piston engined aircraft, a nuclear powered equivalent would be a hairy prospect. Perhaps humans aren't yet sufficiently developed. They shouldn't be allowed to be let loose with nuclear power yet, until they have attained a sufficient level of consciousness. Let's face it, they're not doing so well with the results of their fossil fuel use thus far. Hard to put the nuclear toothpaste back in the tube now it's out, though.
- Location
- The TerrorVortex
Safety is a problem with many things - I cringe to imagine how many people have died mining coal and drilling for oil over the years. Looking after nuclear waste for hundreds of years is an issue, certainly. But we either need to use energy sources that don't dump CO2 into the air, or we go back to a pre-industrial civilisation and population. A century ago, the population was about 2 billion. It's now nearly 8 billion, and everyone wants a car, a mobile, abundant power, food, water, and other resources. We literally can't go on like this...
