"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:52:07 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any
carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers - almost
than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

But, regardless of anything else, did you listen to R4's History of the
Royal Navy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046czzn



I didn't. But that's because I had no idea that that they had been on.
Thanks for the link.

--
Adam

On 09/06/2014 18:26, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:00:23 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Not followed the Battle of the Atlantic, then. We barely won that, and
it needed a lot of help from Ultra. As it was they sank 5000 merchant
ships in WW1 and 5000 ships in WW2. In WW2, we sank 1100 U-boats.

It didn't help that the Royal Navy codes had been broken by the Germans
and it took some time for the RN to work that out.

...and following that line of logic could easily lead to the conclusion
that cryptography and communications are more important, even, than the
Navy.


And it would be true.
However you probably need both.

On 09/06/2014 16:52, fred wrote:
In article , tony sayer
writes

And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic pulse
released by a nuclear explosion...

Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..

I think that's mainly a puff of chaff, aircraft don't need to be
particularly rad hard as they get blown over and wiped by blast long
before the electronics pop.

Pretty much the same applies in flight.


Blast radius a few miles..
EMP a few hundreds/thousands miles.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:32:21 -0700 (PDT), JimK
wrote:

On Monday, 9 June 2014 18:03:08 UTC+1, Part timer wrote:
On 09/06/2014 10:06, charles wrote:

In article 2, DerbyBorn

wrote:

charles wrote in

:



The engines for the Vulcan were developed long before Concorde was even

thought of. There was one Vulcan which was adapted as a test bed for

Concorde engines, though, One engine on one side of the plane instead

of the usual two. In the same way that there was a Shackelton with a

Vulcan engine underneath the fuselage, flying out of Bitteswell in the

1950s.







Correct.(But I thought the Concorde Engine was under the bomb bay for

flight testing) The Vulcan and the Victor were also used to carry our

nuclear deterrant - the Blue Steel Missile. The missile (there were

over 50 of them) carried a nuclear warhead. They were an air launced

cruise missile with a guidance system that used valves (it predated the

invention of the transistor)



You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure.



Do a google image search for Vulcan XA903 Olympus. I remember seeing it

in a book about the Vulcan a few years ago in our local library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-R...ma_Olympus_593 has info

about the development of the Olympus.

In June 1966, a complete Olympus 593 engine and variable geometry exhaust assembly was first run at Melun-Villaroche, Île-de-France, France. At Bristol, flight tests began using a RAF Avro Vulcan bomber with the engine and its nacelle attached below the bomb-bay. Due to the Vulcan's aerodynamic limitations, the tests were limited to a speed of Mach 0.98 (1,200 km/h). During these tests, the 593 achieved 35,190 lbf (157 kN) thrust, which exceeded the requirements of the engine.[5]

could be true

Jim K
I was told by someone at BZN that BAe put one on the back of a VC10
borrowed from the RAF on one side in place of the two Conways. Bent
the fuselage, which was then FUBAR. My informant also told me about
the time when a VC10 was defuelled in the wrong order - wing tanks
first, leaving the tailplane taks full. Gravity acted - as it usually
does, the A/C fell backwards leaving the nose sticking out above the
mist at BZN.

Regards
No Name

In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:

Not sure if it still does, but a Tornado used to show at the British
Grand Prix at Silverstone. The near supersonic level flight in towards
the track, then the almost instantaneous transition to vertical,
followed by it climbing at an amazing rate to almost out-of-sight was
awe inspiring and deafening. It was so loud that car alarms across the
car parks went off in unison!

It's a eurofighter these days - but yep, same thing. Display then final
run ending with a straight up until it's vanished.

Everyone left with ringing ears and surrounded by car alarms :-)

With the F1 cars this year it's probably the most impressive noise - they
just sound wrong now :-(

Darren

"Robin" wrote in message
...
The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

We had a CCF camp at RAF Waddington in the 1960s when it was home to the
nuclear deterrent Vulcans. One was loud but a flight taking off on one of
the quick-response exercises was awesome. But not as awesome as sitting
in the rear gunner's turret of the last flying Lancaster.

Just spotted this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...set-2-150.html

How many tickets?



--
Adam

On 09/06/2014 18:49, Syke wrote:

Rather unfortunate spelling mistake there!

Oh crap ;-)


Syke


On 09/06/2014 16:27, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/06/2014 13:06, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:26:41 +0100, PeterC wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:23:23 +0100, Corporal Jones wrote:

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

It then flew towards the house (the floor vibrated) and blew the
fumes
from it's exhaust into the house as it made it's turn. It smelt
like a
an old petrol engine with a manual choke that was too far out.

Awesome - but totally OT.

When I was a lad I used to stay at my Uncles farm during the summer
holidays near Retford, one day whilst combining in the field a Vulcan
flew very low overhead, apart from seeing every detail of it's
undercarrage I think I have been somewhat deaf eversince.

Barry

Same here - but a different 'plane: cycling past the end of the runway
at RAF Upper Heyford, a Merkinjet took off and went into full climb
directly over me.
For some daft 'reason', when I saw/heard it approaching I tried to get
past the runway - stopping and covering my ears would have been far
better.

Had a similar experience driving past Manston when they were rehearsing
the air show. I was driving down the road just outside the perimeter -
with the sunroof open.

Then a Harrier did a vertical takeoff just inside the perimeter - the
"sit on its backside and let loose" sort.

I nearly went off the road.

One of the most impressive (and in some ways scary) things I ever saw
was a harrier at one of the Southend air shows about 20 years ago. If
did a couple of fly pasts, and then did a third one slower and slower
until finally coming to a "stop" in front of the main crowd. It was
flying at about 50' and hence was below most of the audience standing on
the Westcliff "cliffs". It then did its normal side to side, nodding,
and backwards flying displays. Before finally starting to ascended with
the planes attitude level to start, but slowing rotating toward the nose
up vertical - all the time gaining vertical speed until it is on full
afterburner, flying straight up, until it vanished through the cloud
base. Awesome display of power and control.

The scary bit (aside from the incredible body shaking noise) was it did
its display over the water - the tide was in. There was a couple of dozy
muppets in a rowing boat that thought it might be a good idea to get
under the plane and so rowed out into its jet thrust which you could see
whipping up the surface of the water. Obviously they then suddenly
realised it was really not a very good idea at all, and were trying like
mad to get out of the way, but by this time the side to side and forward
/ backward part of the demo was taking place. The thrust was basicically
playing a game of tiddlywinks with them - skitting the boat first one
way then the other - I was amazed it did not sink or get capsized under
the shear force being excreted on it.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , Chris J Dixon
writes
The Lightning doing a low pass and rapid climb was another
highlight.


Back in the late 70s, I visited Binbrook, and was able to watch a couple
of Lightnings take off at dusk. Got them rolling down the runway, then
hit the after burners, two big balls of flame travelling away from me at
great speed. Fantastic sight.


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

Adrian scribbled...


On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:05:04 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production
line rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....

Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

I'm not sure how much that says about the quality of the ships, tbh. Just
that they still _existed_ at the end of the war, when there was one hell
of a need for ships.


And 2 of them still exist.

On Monday, 9 June 2014 19:49:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message

...

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just

taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!



We had a CCF camp at RAF Waddington in the 1960s when it was home to the

nuclear deterrent Vulcans. One was loud but a flight taking off on one of

the quick-response exercises was awesome. But not as awesome as sitting

in the rear gunner's turret of the last flying Lancaster.



Just spotted this



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...set-2-150.html



How many tickets?







--

Adam

"The 130 seats, which come with the restrictions that buyers must weigh no more than 14 stone,

ah......

Jim K

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

It then flew towards the house (the floor vibrated) and blew the fumes
from it's exhaust into the house as it made it's turn. It smelt like a
an old petrol engine with a manual choke that was too far out.

Awesome - but totally OT.



I used to spend some time at RAF St.Athan ... where they used to service
The Harrier.
After service they would do full power engine test, then transition from
Hover to full power fwd vector ............... amazing to see a Jet
hover and the power from the Harrier Rolls Royce Pegasus engine was
incredible ...
23,800 lbf ... bet that sucked through a bit of juice on full tat.

We have have a bi-annual air show in the bay, I take my boat out .. and
sit back and watch the Battle of Britain memorial flight directly
overhead at extreme Low-Level .... those 4 Merlin engines making
amazing drone.
Escorted by a Hurricane & Spitfire .... great spectacle.


Last year display include a full demo of the Eurofighter "The Typhoon"
.... when that flew at Low level and then put in a full 90 degree
vertical climb with afterburners on .... the sound was like no plane I
have ever heard before .... must be such a buz to fly it.
However no real market out there .. even countries that had initially
wanted high numbers have cancelled orders.

Britain announcing it has insufficient spares to keep its fleet in the
air, and will have to canabalize craft until at least 2015 can't be
helping sales.


Local paper in Wales carried this "cockpit view" test flight ........
worth the watch if you haven't seen it.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...filmed-6551556

--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 12:58:58 -0700, JimK wrote:

"The 130 seats, which come with the restrictions that buyers must weigh
no more than 14 stone,

ah...

You've got two months, ffs.

On 09/06/2014 08:29, PeterC wrote:
Didn't the USAF refer to them as "aluminium overcast?.

That's a B17.

http://www.johnweeks.com/b17active/b17eaa.html

Andy

In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-06-09, Adrian wrote:
In message , Chris J Dixon
writes
The Lightning doing a low pass and rapid climb was another
highlight.


Back in the late 70s, I visited Binbrook, and was able to watch a couple
of Lightnings take off at dusk. Got them rolling down the runway, then
hit the after burners, two big balls of flame travelling away from me at
great speed. Fantastic sight.

I used to fly to Copenhagen every Wednesday morning from Heathrow and more
often than not the aircraft in front of us was the morning Concord flight
to Washington. When he opened the taps for takeoff, everything in our
aircraft rattled & on a couple of occasions some of the overhead lockers
fell open. As he accelerated away down the runway you could see two things,
one impressive - into the exhausts of the engines, the mouth of Hell, one
less so - the huge plume of filth the thing chucked out the back.


Fantastic plane. Flew back from Monaco Grand Prix from Nice - just
before it crashed. Same pilot.

Taking off was like riding down the runway on a rocket.
--
bert

On 09/06/2014 16:27, John Rumm wrote:
One of the most impressive (and in some ways scary) things I ever saw
was a harrier at one of the Southend air shows about 20 years ago. If
did a couple of fly pasts, and then did a third one slower and slower
until finally coming to a "stop" in front of the main crowd. It was
flying at about 50' and hence was below most of the audience standing on
the Westcliff "cliffs". It then did its normal side to side, nodding,
and backwards flying displays. Before finally starting to ascended with
the planes attitude level to start, but slowing rotating toward the nose
up vertical - all the time gaining vertical speed until it is on full
afterburner, flying straight up, until it vanished through the cloud
base. Awesome display of power and control.

Harriers don't have afterburners.

On another note...

I was at Farnborough one year. There were two things which particularly
stick: One was that they sat a Tornado on the end of the runway. lit
the afterburner, set the brakes on full, and gave it as much throttle as
they could without it moving. Everyone was watching it, and no-one saw
the other 4 coming the other way down the runway at 0.8...

And Brian Trubshaw, Concorde chief pilot IIRC, brought one empty over
from Heathrow, did a touch and go, then did his damnedest to to a
fighter full-afterburner-vertical-climb. He got quite steep!

Andy

wrote in
:

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:32:21 -0700 (PDT), JimK
wrote:

On Monday, 9 June 2014 18:03:08 UTC+1, Part timer wrote:
On 09/06/2014 10:06, charles wrote:

In article 2,
DerbyBorn

wrote:

charles wrote in

:



The engines for the Vulcan were developed long before Concorde
was even

thought of. There was one Vulcan which was adapted as a test
bed for

Concorde engines, though, One engine on one side of the plane
instead

of the usual two. In the same way that there was a Shackelton
with a

Vulcan engine underneath the fuselage, flying out of Bitteswell
in the

1950s.







Correct.(But I thought the Concorde Engine was under the bomb bay
for

flight testing) The Vulcan and the Victor were also used to carry
our

nuclear deterrant - the Blue Steel Missile. The missile (there
were

over 50 of them) carried a nuclear warhead. They were an air
launced

cruise missile with a guidance system that used valves (it
predated the

invention of the transistor)



You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure.



Do a google image search for Vulcan XA903 Olympus. I remember seeing
it

in a book about the Vulcan a few years ago in our local library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-R...ma_Olympus_593 has info

about the development of the Olympus.

In June 1966, a complete Olympus 593 engine and variable geometry
exhaust assembly was first run at Melun-Villaroche, Île-de-France,
France. At Bristol, flight tests began using a RAF Avro Vulcan bomber
with the engine and its nacelle attached below the bomb-bay. Due to
the Vulcan's aerodynamic limitations, the tests were limited to a
speed of Mach 0.98 (1,200 km/h). During these tests, the 593 achieved
35,190 lbf (157 kN) thrust, which exceeded the requirements of the
engine.[5]

could be true

Jim K
I was told by someone at BZN that BAe put one on the back of a VC10
borrowed from the RAF on one side in place of the two Conways. Bent
the fuselage, which was then FUBAR. My informant also told me about
the time when a VC10 was defuelled in the wrong order - wing tanks
first, leaving the tailplane taks full. Gravity acted - as it usually
does, the A/C fell backwards leaving the nose sticking out above the
mist at BZN.

Regards
No Name


I think that relates to a RB211. The VC10 was its flying testbed.
http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html
Also:

http://www.vc10.net/History/Images/XR806_writeoff.jpg

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:36:38 +0100, bert wrote:

As he accelerated away down the runway you could see two things,
one impressive - into the exhausts of the engines, the mouth of
Hell,
one less so - the huge plume of filth the thing chucked out the
back.

What makes you think that modern jets aren't shove out a huge plume
of filth? Just because you can't see it...

Fantastic plane. Flew back from Monaco Grand Prix from Nice - just
before it crashed. Same pilot.

Taking off was like riding down the runway on a rocket.

Sounds good, I hate flying in jumbos and the like, they just take far
too long trundling down the runway. Quite liked the Trislander, that
felt as if it went about 20 yds and then leapt into the sky. Proper
flying, fold down canvas seats, two per seat, everyone with a window,
pilot lines the passengers up on the tarmac and then loads you in to
keep the plane more or less in trim. B-) Hercules are good as well,
it gets noisy, it gets very noisey (you are issued with earplugs), it
stays noisey, it gets less noisy and lo you are somewhere else and
you can watch the control rods moving in the roof.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Adrian
scribeth thus
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 12:58:58 -0700, JimK wrote:

"The 130 seats, which come with the restrictions that buyers must weigh
no more than 14 stone,

ah...

You've got two months, ffs.

Well I might, @ 19.8 stone. fit in the bomb bay as long as they aren't
feeling that grievous to anyone.. make a hell of a bang;!..
--
Tony Sayer

On 09/06/2014 09:31, Jabba wrote:
harryagain scribbled...



It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.


One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately. The
second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have been
without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly vital to our
defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of books by
harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His ****ups put
pressure on the Navy afterwards.

Yup 'Sharkey' Ward's book was not exactly complimentary...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 09/06/2014 13:03, Jabba wrote:
Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.

One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately. The
second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have been
without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly vital to our
defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of books by
harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His ****ups put
pressure on the Navy afterwards.

What sort of things were they complaining about?


Not doing anything about the Hercules refuelers used by the
Argentinians. Keeping 2 aircraft on standby, on deck, throughout the
war, when they should have been used in action. Not sharing out the
raids sensibly between the carriers. Not putting Stanley airport out of
action - properly. Keeping the carrier fleet too far away from the
Falklands during the day, which meant aircraft were only able to provide
limited CAP over the landings.

The command on Hermes also did not have any faith in the Blue Fox radar
on the harriers and hence wasted hundreds of hours of flying time (both
crew and machine) sending up harrier pilots to do ineffectual "visual"
scans of areas rather than using the radar. The squadron based on
invincible had already setup and proved that the radar was performing
far in excess of its theoretical specification. Enabling one plane to
scan thousands of times the square area for hostile forces as was being
achieved with 4 planes on the other carrier.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Local paper in Wales carried this "cockpit view" test flight ........
worth the watch if you haven't seen it.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...-wales-filmed-
6551556



And no sheep were caused to **** themselves in the making of this film;!...

--
Tony Sayer

In article , fred scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
writes

And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic pulse
released by a nuclear explosion...

Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..

I think that's mainly a puff of chaff, aircraft don't need to be
particularly rad hard as they get blown over and wiped by blast long
before the electronics pop.

Pretty much the same applies in flight.


Suggest you read a bit more about the subject;!...

--
Tony Sayer

In article om,
dennis@home writes
On 09/06/2014 16:52, fred wrote:
In article , tony sayer
writes

And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic pulse
released by a nuclear explosion...

Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..

I think that's mainly a puff of chaff, aircraft don't need to be
particularly rad hard as they get blown over and wiped by blast long
before the electronics pop.

Pretty much the same applies in flight.


Blast radius a few miles..
EMP a few hundreds/thousands miles.

You know nowt of what you speak . . . .

ends

--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On 09/06/2014 10:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

charles scribbled...

In article , ARW
wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
o.uk...
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:08:21 +0100, ARW wrote:

Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/ Awesome - but totally OT.

many years ago I worked in Pontefract and the Vulcan's used to
come in
low over the town using the bus staion as a marker. Then they
puled
the stick back and pushed the throttle hard forward for a near
vertical
climb.

I still get the shivers down my spine just thinking about them -
fabulous planes.

Wasn't their last active flying to the Falklands or have I
misremembered that?
It was one of their missions - and they totally failed in that
one other
than for moral purposes:-(
not quite true. Read the wiki page on "Operation Black Buck"

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any
carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Well we do have a carrier, but it only carries choppers, no fast jets.
That was the mistake - selling the remaining harriers to the Yanks.

AIUI, there was also some chance that the Argies, having seen that we
could mount a bombing raid from 8000 miles away, became nervous that we
might attack Buenos Ares, and so held some of their fighter-bombers up
north just in case.

The Argies made any number of fatal strategic mistakes - mostly not
fully committing to the engagement, flying some of their best aircraft
to neutral countries so they were impounded etc, rather than lost in
dogfights, and telling their pilots not to engage with the harriers.
(Even if they had lost aircraft at a 5:1 ratio, they could have won
simply by attrition).



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:31:37 +0100, dennis@home wrote:

And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic

pulse released by a nuclear explosion...

Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..

I think that's mainly a puff of chaff, aircraft don't need to be
particularly rad hard as they get blown over and wiped by blast
long
before the electronics pop.

Blast radius a few miles..

Depends on the weapon yield and burst height. The megaton weapons
have blast areas (as in everything effectively destroyed) in the tens
of miles radius depending on burst height.

EMP a few hundreds/thousands miles.

And travelling at, as near as damn it, the speed of light. The shock
wave will be way behind it. Modern example the the shock from the
Chelyabinsk meteor explosion(*) arrived with enough umph to shatter
windows minuets after the explosion had been witnessed.

(*) Estimated to be 400 to 500 kilotons. Hiroshima was about 16
kilotons, Nagasaki about 21 kilotons.

--
Cheers
Dave.

How many tickets?

Thanks for that link - the more so as one of the comments on the page
led to the where they sell flights *in* the Lancaster in Canada (and for
less dosh!)

http://www.warplane.com/visit-cwhm/v...t-flights.aspx

It'll take some planning to get away for long enough but there's nothing
like a really big carrot at the end of the stick




--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

fOn Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:22:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/06/14 18:15, charles wrote:
In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:
Jethro_uk scribbled...


On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:20:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production line
rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....


Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

The fundamental problem with the Liberty Ships was that the steel used went
brittle in the sub-zero temperatures of the North Atlantic in the winter.
As they were all welded, for speed of construction and crack went right
through the ship - many sank for, at the time, unexplained reasons.
Operate them in warmer waters and I'm sure they were fine.

they fixed the problem in due course

I don't know if this is right, but I saw that one problem arose from
automated welding with the welding rod on a reel. With manual welding the
weld runs for the length of the rod then stops; with the automated process
the weld is very long and when it starts to unzip it keeps going.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-06-09, Adrian wrote:
In message , Chris J Dixon
writes
The Lightning doing a low pass and rapid climb was another
highlight.


Back in the late 70s, I visited Binbrook, and was able to watch a couple
of Lightnings take off at dusk. Got them rolling down the runway, then
hit the after burners, two big balls of flame travelling away from me at
great speed. Fantastic sight.

I used to fly to Copenhagen every Wednesday morning from Heathrow and more
often than not the aircraft in front of us was the morning Concord flight
to Washington. When he opened the taps for takeoff, everything in our
aircraft rattled & on a couple of occasions some of the overhead lockers
fell open. As he accelerated away down the runway you could see two things,
one impressive - into the exhausts of the engines, the mouth of Hell, one
less so - the huge plume of filth the thing chucked out the back.



Ah yes, Concorde taking off. Follow the line of the runways west from
Heathrow, and just past the M25 you will find the Queen Mother
reservoir, home to Datchet Water Sailing Club. You didn't want to be
sailing on the south end of the pond when Concorde took off, the whole
boat would shake.


Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 13:14:55 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

Every year or so our army Black Hawks do training over Melbourne
city
centre, flying between the skyscrapers and hovering over target
buildings. Very impressive.

I was in Melbourne for Australia Day about ten years ago - with military
jets coming down the river at full welly ...

Doubt it if fighters, too many windows would get broken. B-)

... and somewhere around bollock-all altitude.

Was out in Bahrain just before Gulf War I, staying in same hotel as
the Tornado pilots. Camels are apparently a hazard in the desert at
500mph...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , tony sayer
writes
In article , fred scribeth thus
In article , tony sayer
writes

And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic pulse
released by a nuclear explosion...

Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..

I think that's mainly a puff of chaff, aircraft don't need to be
particularly rad hard as they get blown over and wiped by blast long
before the electronics pop.

Pretty much the same applies in flight.

Suggest you read a bit more about the subject;!...


The hardening specs for aircraft electronics really are far less
demanding than those for other battlefield electronics and it is due to
their relative fragility and likelihood of physical survivability.

The course I was on was quite comprehensive :-)

--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On 9 Jun 2014 20:27:06 GMT, Huge wrote:



I used to fly to Copenhagen every Wednesday morning from Heathrow and more
often than not the aircraft in front of us was the morning Concord flight
to Washington. When he opened the taps for takeoff, everything in our
aircraft rattled & on a couple of occasions some of the overhead lockers
fell open. As he accelerated away down the runway you could see two things,
one impressive - into the exhausts of the engines, the mouth of Hell, one
less so - the huge plume of filth the thing chucked out the back.

North Devon where I have spent a lot of time used to get quite a thump
from the Sonic boom as some of the services westbound passed by out
to sea. It wasn't a direct bang but distant a boom like faraway
thunder, enough to rattle the odd window disturb pheasants and make
some grockles jump. It became part of the background noise like
distant church bells and was a useful peg that marked the passing of
the day.
Boom," ah there goes the 18.30 must be time for tea" sort of thing.
Now as much a lost sound of the past as copper phone wires humming in
the wind
One perfectly cloudless spring day I remember observing the early
evening flight from london to JFK while lying against a rock on Lundy
Island with a pair of decent binoculars, The afterburner glow was
easily seen as it accelerated 1000's of feet above the Bristol
channel.


G.Harman

John Rumm scribbled...


On 09/06/2014 09:31, Jabba wrote:
harryagain scribbled...



It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.


One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately. The
second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have been
without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly vital to our
defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of books by
harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His ****ups put
pressure on the Navy afterwards.

Yup 'Sharkey' Ward's book was not exactly complimentary...


Neither was David Morgan's.

Tim Streater scribbled...


In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 09/06/2014 09:31, Jabba wrote:
harryagain scribbled...



It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.


One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately. The
second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have been
without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly vital to our
defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of books by
harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His ****ups put
pressure on the Navy afterwards.

Yup 'Sharkey' Ward's book was not exactly complimentary...

Seems to me he was just cautious. Lose a carrier and it would have been
game over.


Instead he lost frigates & destroyers...

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:15:46 +0100 Charles wrote :
The fundamental problem with the Liberty Ships was that the steel used went
brittle in the sub-zero temperatures of the North Atlantic in the winter.
As they were all welded, for speed of construction and crack went right
through the ship - many sank for, at the time, unexplained reasons.
Operate them in warmer waters and I'm sure they were fine.

I've got this in my software manuals as an interesting piece of trivia.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

ARW scribbled...



Just spotted this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...set-2-150.html

How many tickets?


Peanuts

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...lands-seat-on-
lancaster-bomber-europe-trip-1.2639936

$79,100 bid lands seat on Lancaster bomber Europe trip

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 21:55:51 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.


Yup there is another parked at Southend airport near us. Its no longer
airworthy, but they are allowed to taxi it from time to time.

(last time they did that they got the front wheel off the ground!)

The Victor lot did more than that, fortunately the experienced pilot
saved it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh2YSzBdWFg


G.Harman

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 23:58:26 +0100, wrote:

North Devon where I have spent a lot of time used to get quite a thump
from the Sonic boom as some of the services westbound passed by out
to sea. It wasn't a direct bang but distant a boom like faraway
thunder, enough to rattle the odd window disturb pheasants and make
some grockles jump.

Only the boom? Ocasionaly heard it when I lived in Bristol and had
the windows open, on still summer evenings. A gentle B-Boom, I doubt
many people noticed it.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 20:38:59 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Adrian scribbled...


On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:05:04 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production
line rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....

Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

I'm not sure how much that says about the quality of the ships, tbh. Just
that they still _existed_ at the end of the war, when there was one hell
of a need for ships.


And 2 of them still exist.

Was thinking about one of them this past weekend with the D day 70
commemorations taking place. For the 50th anniversary event the SS
Jeramiah O'Brien made the Atlantic crossing and visited a couple of UK
Ports before going across to Normandy. It was the only large ship of
the original D Day invasion fleet to return . I had a good look around
it in Southampton. The average age of the crew was about 70 comprised
of veterans who had served on similar ships at the time with a few
younger personnel helping in the background.
Most will no longer be around now.
Another ship was supposed to come across but I cannot recall if it was
the other working Liberty ship John W Brown or the Victory ship which
was a later design which following the weaknesses discoverd by
adapting a British design for mass production which was the Liberty
modified it further to give a stronger and faster ship.
In the end neither made the journey across.

Other bits of Liberty are about ,Greece got the last one available
from the US reserve a few years back to act as a non working museum in
honour of how their merchant fleet expanded using them.
And of course there is still the Richard Montgomery lying in the
Thames Estuary full of corroding munitions to which the authorities
have applied the asbestos solution, if we don't disturb it, it will
probably be ok.

G.Harman

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:48:23 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On 9 Jun 2014 07:03:29 GMT, Huge wrote:

we get rather spoiled.

Not sure I'd like that much noise. We get fast jets through here
close enough to see the pilots at times. They are loud but up, past
and gone in less than a minuet. Chinooks just make the windows
rattle, Black Hawks nervous, having no real requirement to be
streamlined, they just look like the killing machines they are.

We have a light fitting that despite adjustment starts rattling way
before either of us can hear the machines themselves,and it rattles
differently between the Chinooks and the others.
If I could remember where we got it I could obtain more and sell em at
Farnborough to poor 3rd world countries who can't afford decent radar
systems.

G.Harman

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 11:55:18 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried
and tested modules - hence valves.

I don't know about valves but we were told it used germanium transitors.
(The RAF bod seemed not to have cottoned on that would not impress
teenagers whose trannies were in regular use for Radio Caroline.)

And todays Teenagers can see them on the Eurovision Song Contest.

G.Harman