BRIGHT LIGHT OVERHEAD

[JBR]

Leaked fuel! Ha! The lightning oozed fuel from every rivet, when we took them in the hanger we would place sawn off drums under the wings to catch the drips, I probably spent more time with a brush and "chickenshit" cleaning up than actually fixing them. They didn't have fuel tanks as such, the mainplane was coated with some brown stuff (PRC) to form the tanks.

Ah, the Lightning. Those were the days when WE led the world in aviation technology.

As you said earlier, we would have continued to do so if the idiotic Labour government hadn't cancelled it.

Come to think of it, I can't think of anything good they've ever done.

 

[chapeau]

Concorde was the only commercial aircraft to be fitted with reheat/afterburners.

The Ruskies had one too, Tu-144 or concordski.

 

[jeds]

Concorde was the only commercial aircraft to be fitted with reheat/afterburners.

The Ruskies had one too, Tu-144 or concordski.

Which, if I recall correctly, reheated it directly into the tarmac.

 

[Monkeh]

... I was trying to figure out what sort of useless t****r Porque is. Seems I may have found another like him. I'm well aware of what Mach is, and how useless it is as a measure of speed.

So knowing how useless Mach, is as a measure of speed, you then futilely ask what speed Mach 10 is. Hmmmm.

Have you never heard of a trick question?

Oh, why bother.

 

[JBR]

Concorde was the only commercial aircraft to be fitted with reheat/afterburners.

The Ruskies had one too, Tu-144 or concordski.

Which they copied from us and still couldn't get quite right!

 

[chapeau]

Concorde was the only commercial aircraft to be fitted with reheat/afterburners.

The Ruskies had one too, Tu-144 or concordski.

Which they copied from us and still couldn't get quite right!

There was the theory that they nicked the plans but we knew what they were up to so let them find some deliberately flawed blueprints. But then concorde was hardly a rip-roaring success safety wise either, it was a thoroughly dangerous aircraft. It only appeared safe because it hardly did any real miles.

The engines were quite a marvel. There was no other aircraft (even since) which could beat concorde from London to New York with only the fuel it had on board when it taxied out.

Now I want somebody to expand on these as I smell BS.

I'm well aware of what Mach is, and how useless it is as a measure of speed.

Point missed once more.

Mach is only useful aerodynamically.

What exactly is your point Monkeh?

 

[pred]

Concorde was the only commercial aircraft to be fitted with reheat/afterburners.

The Ruskies had one too, Tu-144 or concordski.

Which they copied from us and still couldn't get quite right!

There was the theory that they nicked the plans but we knew what they were up to so let them find some deliberately flawed blueprints. But then concorde was hardly a rip-roaring success safety wise either, it was a thoroughly dangerous aircraft. It only appeared safe because it hardly did any real miles.

The engines were quite a marvel. There was no other aircraft (even since) which could beat concorde from London to New York with only the fuel it had on board when it taxied out.

Now I want somebody to expand on these as I smell BS.

I'm well aware of what Mach is, and how useless it is as a measure of speed.

Point missed once more.

Mach is only useful aerodynamically.

What exactly is your point Monkeh?

The engines were RR Olympus, the same as fitted to the Vulcan, just a bit more modern and more powerful, the original "Evo"

 

[jockscott]

But then Concorde was hardly a rip-roaring success safety wise either, it was a thoroughly dangerous aircraft. It only appeared safe because it hardly did any real miles.

How do you reckon it was a dangerous aircraft then Chaps? 30 yrs of flying and only the one fatal air crash, which couldn't possibly have been foreseen.

 

[pred]

I met the guy here in Bristol who was giving the USSR the info from MI5 or 6, he died a few years ago, I didn't believe him at first although being ex engine mech in the RAF I realized within a few minutes he had indeed worked on Concord.

 

[JBR]

I met the guy here in Bristol who was giving the USSR the info from MI5 or 6, he died a few years ago, I didn't believe him at first although being ex engine mech in the RAF I realized within a few minutes he had indeed worked on Concord.

I see you used the proper spelling.

I remember when we agreed to appease the Frogs by adding an 'e' to the end.

 

[pred]

Imagine for minute, you've been working with a sparky all day then you go down to the pub for a quick splash and he tells you a tall story, or so I thought, about how he was responsible for bringing the Concordski down at the Paris air show.

Would you believe him?

 

[pred]

And here is the story, well half of it..

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Russians-coming/story-11273472-detail/story.html#axzz2VYqVnudR