advertisement


BBMF Spitfire crash

gez said:
Depends on if you believe the increasing evidence that noise pollution is more than just "irritating" but actually bad for our health.

magazine.hms.harvard.edu

Noise and Health

Noise pollution is more than a nuisance. It's a health risk.
magazine.hms.harvard.edu magazine.hms.harvard.edu
Click to expand...
For context, Tuga is always vocal on the anti-aviation threads. He clearly passionately dislikes small aircraft. He argues, in effect, that his right to peaceful enjoyment should outweigh their right to enjoy a lawful pursuit. I’d say that’s equally selfish.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
For context, Tuga is always vocal on the anti-aviation threads. He clearly passionately dislikes small aircraft. He argues, in effect, that his right to peaceful enjoyment should outweigh their right to enjoy a lawful pursuit. I’d say that’s equally selfish.
Click to expand...
But would you consider it equally selfish if there was a very clear and incontrovertable link between exposure to noise and disease in humans? I'm not claiming there is, but imagine a scenario where there was one. Point i'm making is that the definition of selfish surely should depend on how reasonable the grounds of the belief are? e.g. if noise purely is an temporary inconvenienced then yes one could argue it's equally selfish, but if there was a clear evidenced link between even temporary noise and some harm, then surely not?
 
gez said:
Not my decision to make, and opinions will clearly vary significant. There are people in the classic car market that would call a car non original if it had literally one part that wasn't what the car had coming out of the factory, for example. They even believe the faded, practically non existant original paint is a million times more preferable to the car ever having been touched up or respayed. Then there are others who are far more pragmatic about it.

But if one were to take a rational logical view on the question it would be reasonable to put a figure of 50% being the limiting factor to be able to claim if something is still original or not.
Click to expand...
So go with your 50%, the end of flying life parts can be used as spare "original" parts for the static display models, and the flying examples can have parts renewed as necessary. As and when the flying examples get thinner on the ground we can make decisions as to what we do with the rest. The static models aren't going anywhere, so however fast as wear out the flying examples we aren't going to "run out".
In point of fact, the whole "originality" thing in classic car racing is a bit of a sham. I've a book on the Works Minis , the ones that were in the Monte Carlo Rally etc. In there the author, who was works manager at the time, freely admits that on at least one occasion a well placed Mini would crash mid stage and limp over the line, with terminal structural damage. They would "repair" it overnight by the simple expedient of retiring a less successful car and transferring the number plates etc from the crashed one. The organise rs would turn a blind eye because it made for closer racing and as long as the car retained its original specification there was no unfair advantage. Yet these cars are now "original" and worth telephone number s. Because it's exactly the same car as competed in the 1965 Monte. Hmm. Is it? It may be from parts of cars on that race, but otherwise I wouldn't like to bet. I wouldn't care anyway, the engines were all the same, bodies too. Swap one? Big deal.
 
^ I've heard it said that with many of the rally cars from later eras, the only bit left (mostly) intact throughout the cars' lives were the wiring looms. Shells, suspension, engine, key chassis parts all came and went, but the looms generally survived :)

On the no more flying thing - I think it's pretty sad to see historic cars and aeroplanes tucked up in museums lifelessly. Almost akin to comparing a taxidermist's display with having the opportunity to see real live animals and birds free to do their thing in the living world. Just sayin'.
 
gez said:
But would you consider it equally selfish if there was a very clear and incontrovertable link between exposure to noise and disease in humans? I'm not claiming there is, but imagine a scenario where there was one. Point i'm making is that the definition of selfish surely should depend on how reasonable the grounds of the belief are? e.g. if noise purely is an temporary inconvenienced then yes one could argue it's equally selfish, but if there was a clear evidenced link between even temporary noise and some harm, then surely not?
Click to expand...
No point engaging with a hypothetical example. If the facts were different, my opinion might be different. I also view light pollution as a more likely problem than noise.
 
tuga said:
Why do you find it disappointing that my teenage sons and many other younger people have not or will never see Starfighter, Lightning, Vulcan or whatever?
Click to expand...
What about the issue of progress?

I’m an engineer by profession and I find it thoroughly depressing that we used to be able to fly across the Atlantic in less than 3 hours, but now, 30 years later, it takes us over 6.

To me, the world is going backwards in some ways. The likes of the Vulcan and Concorde are a simultaneously heartening and also depressing reminder that we used to be quite good at world-beating stuff.
 
Beobloke said:
What about the issue of progress?

I’m an engineer by profession and I find it thoroughly depressing that we used to be able to fly across the Atlantic in less than 3 hours, but now, 30 years later, it takes us over 6.

To me, the world is going backwards in some ways.
Click to expand...
On the other hand I think it's pretty cool that people now can collaborate effectively online with video instead of having to fly across the planet to attend a meeting. It's not all bad.
 
The rate of progress from a mid-1930’s aircraft to a mid -1940’ plane was phenomenal.
Biplanes with hardly any load carrying capacity & max speed of 200mph ish to the ME262 & Meteor & others getting nearly 3 times that.
And then through the 50’s & 60’s when the UK had several companies competing for contracts.
Vulcan, Lightning, Buccaneer, Concorde, Harrier, the list goes on
I guess the cynic ( or pacifist) would say it’s down to wars giving massive budgets to the military. Probably quite true.
But from an engineering perspective we’ve had a staggering rate of technical progress in a relatively short time.
 
Vinny said:
Everyone associates the Hurricane and Spitfire with Merlin engines, but the Merlin evolved - the RR Spitfire has a Griffon engine (if memory serves, it certainly isn't a Merlin).
Click to expand...
The majority of Spitfires were fitted with Merlin's. Albeit in the later marks highly developed versions. The original Merlin produced 1000hp. Final versions in the Spitfire 1800hp. 2000hp was achieved in the version used in the Westland Whirlwind. All of this on the original 27 litre block.

About 2000 (957 of them Mk XIV) Spitfires were built with Griffon engines out of 20,000. The Griffon with it's 37litre block was mainly used in a small number later Spitfire marks and weren't really used so much in wartime service. The Merlin and Griffon versions were built simultaneously.

By the time the Griffon engines were being developed it was clear that the Spitfire development was coming to an end.

The Griffon was only retired from frontline service when the RAF retired the Shackleton AEW.2 in 1991. Used to love the sound of the Shacks, the propellor pitch was set for landing on the Lossiemouth circuit as they passed over our farm, a glorious sound.
 
Bob McC said:
Don’t know how long for but the BBMF aircraft have been grounded.
Click to expand...
Only to be expected at least until the cause of the accident has been established. Probably means that they won't be able to participate in D-day comemerations next week.

The safety of the the aircraft and aircrew comes first.
 
cctaylor said:
The Griffon was only retired from frontline service when the RAF retired the Shackleton AEW.2 in 1991. Used to love the sound of the Shacks, the propellor pitch was set for landing on the Lossiemouth circuit as they passed over our farm, a glorious sound.
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as "the contra-rotating nissen hut" or "20000 rivets flying in close formation". :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top