|
Post by lumpy on Jun 9, 2010 20:35:56 GMT 12
Looks fine to me Dave - but im still on IE 6 . I tend to be a little shy of updating stuff just for the sake of it , because then I have to learn how to " drive " it again .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Jun 9, 2010 7:21:18 GMT 12
Have I missed something here? ? I think you might be . I cant seem to follow the last dozen or so posts . Its like someone has deleted some of their posts / pictures . It makes it impossible to follow ( on my computer anyway )
|
|
|
MOTAT
Jun 4, 2010 23:34:37 GMT 12
Post by lumpy on Jun 4, 2010 23:34:37 GMT 12
" Young Mr. Homewood "? ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 31, 2010 17:42:59 GMT 12
It amazes me how much timber has come from the building. I wonder if there was milled timber stored in there as it looks far too much to be from the roof alone. I think you have to remember that old houses were timber everything , floors , framing , weather boards , internal wall linings ( no gib board in those days ) , ceilings ( you didnt have to watch where you steped , because you couldnt fall through the ceiling if you tried ) . I think some even had full timber roofs , just covered with whatever was desired as weather protection - such as galvanised iron .They dont make them like that anymore ( thankfully ) :-)
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 31, 2010 12:37:57 GMT 12
Dont know what it is , but it appears to be an attempt at an ornithopter ( if I spelt that right ). There seems to be cranks on each of the wheels that are connected to the wings by a rod , and thus make the wings flap . Help anyone ? ( could be wrong of course ) :-)
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 28, 2010 12:36:49 GMT 12
Although it has been dismissed as a factor in the cause of this accident - if an aileron counterweight was to separate in-flight, would this create any major problems with the control of the aircraft? I doubt many people have actually had one fail in flight ( but feel free to correct me if anyone has ), but I would imagine it would be a little like loseing your power steering , or brake booster in your car . In theory you would still be in full control , however the dramatic difference in the feel of the controls means that an accident would be very easy to occour .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 27, 2010 7:28:04 GMT 12
I watched a little of it early this morning , before heading out the door ( one of those early morning repeats ) , very chilling , and interesting allright .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 26, 2010 7:23:31 GMT 12
Does that mean that all single engine helicopters cannot fly over built up areas? I would think it just means that they are not allowed to break the normal minium height restrictions that apply to all aircraft . The article does say that life threatening situations are excempt ,( I guess the definition of " life threatening " is open to debate ) ,which I think is reasonable given that most hospitals are in built up areas . If I lived next to a hospital ( and was trying to sleep / had small kids etc ), Im not sure I'd want helicopters coming in and out doing routine transfers etc .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 21, 2010 7:22:45 GMT 12
Wow , anyone interested in engines should google Napier Nomad .Its basicly a turbine engine driving one of the contra-rotating props , and acting as a supercharger for the desiel engine that drives the other prop , but all combined into one unit . Incredibly complex . Thanks KTJ
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 11, 2010 18:16:33 GMT 12
Sadly I missed it - but will keep an eye out for the next episode ( and happy birthday Baz ) ;D
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 10, 2010 21:09:43 GMT 12
Ah , thanks , that does kind of ring a bell now you mention it Errol. Just proves I really must spend more time on the computer ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 10, 2010 19:44:11 GMT 12
I see a CAA accident report ( its going back a couple of weeks , so may have already been commented on here somewhere ) , that Gilles Kupfer's Jurca FW190 suffered a ground loop at Wanaka . Suffered damaged wing tip , collapsed r/h undercarage and prop strike . Hopefully its not too bad .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 9, 2010 16:23:41 GMT 12
Yep , Im having the same problem , can only view the thumbnails . Im sure it will come right in a day or two .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 7, 2010 21:04:19 GMT 12
I really enjoyed that , thanks Stu . ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 1, 2010 23:15:04 GMT 12
Wimp! I confess to once haven test ridden a bike that showed 300 on the speedo . Latter tests suggest the speedo was a little optomistic , and was most likely a reasonably sedate 285 or so . ( For those not familiar with motorcycle performance , this bike ccould easily break the open road speed limit in first gear - and there is 6 ! ) Yep , whimp ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Apr 28, 2010 13:55:43 GMT 12
I personally dont have a problem with people expressing their opinions - so long as its clear thats what it is . The problem occours ( in my opinion ) , when these opinions can be seen as speculation ( and its a very grey area ) because , if someone speculates as to" what "caused an accident , then they are also speculating ( by default ) as to " who" caused the accident .Clearly fingure pointing is simply not appropriate , not even indirectly .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Apr 25, 2010 18:09:03 GMT 12
Yes , I cant spot enough common landmarks , to be sure whats what , from the old to the new . Nice photos though .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Apr 25, 2010 18:05:15 GMT 12
Forgive me for sounding cynical, and with no disrespect intended, but it begs the question of why things are preserved if only a relative few are ever allowed to see them, even indirectly. While respecting that this is a private collection, the photograph publication ban seems a little over the top. Again, just an observation. I could be wrong , but I suspect that when John aquired the aircraft , he probabally didnt forsee the time when they would be quite as popular as they now ( they really did have little value at the time ) .He probabally got them just for his own enjoyment , and never considered that one day his privacy could be affected .I guess he just wants to maintain that privacy , which is understandable . ( Just my opinion )
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Apr 24, 2010 21:53:41 GMT 12
How could that scenario be more economic? The taxpayer owned company is to lay off the staff, so the taxpayer funded defence force that doesn't make money as a business unlike the former steps up and re-employs them? Very good points Dave . The reason is that , they get to choose who they re-employ , and they get to choose how much to pay them .
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on Apr 23, 2010 20:36:03 GMT 12
I heard that on the radio today . Boy , easter is really late next year ! I would doubt that the logistics involved would allow something significant to happen on the Monday ( maybe something low key though ) That said , I would be surprised if it weren't marked somehow during the official show . Looking forward to it already !
|
|